Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

topmind wrote:
As for DNA-ID, there seems to be no scientific research
program, methodologically rigorous or otherwise, unless you
count the tests done in this thread and genome research done
for other purposes.

Again, I am currently addressing "testable" at this point, not
"tested".

You haven't even begun to address "testable." If you want
"DNA-ID" to be testable, let alone scientific, you need to clearly
and precisely answer some core questions, including:

What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis?

A. Some bioligical critters share many traits in common with
machines and technology (list already given).

The reasons why this analogy is particularly weak have been addressed
by others in this thread. Basically, you can't name a single machine
that has all of the characteristics you list and your list does not
include the one characteristic shared by all life, namely reproduction.

B. We can put messages in DNA and distribute them across the galaxy,
so too may aliens. (Note that B does not necessarily rely on A).

That is not possible at our current level of technology. Can we
protect DNA from radiation and other hazards during the journey to
other planets? Can we identify suitable planets for seeding? Can we
ensure that DNA is successfully seeded in an unknown environment? Can
we integrate DNA with whatever analogues may already exist on the
planets to be seeded? Can we ensure that the message will remain
unchanged after millions of generations of evolution? The answers to
all of these questions are currently "No."

B is very similar to SETI: "We leak radio into space, and thus so
may aliens." (There is the small diff between "did" and "could", but
nobody has proposed this as the final separator yet.)

This is nothing like SETI's observations that no known natural sources
of narrow band radio emissions in a particular part of the
electromagnetic spectrum. There are known natural sources of DNA.

What is your hypothesis?

That intelligent beings may have created or manipulated DNA, leaving
signals/messages that we may be able to detect.

This is not falsifiable. Monkeys _may_ fly out your ***, but
speculating on the likelihood of that is not science.

This is similar to SETI's.

No, SETI's hypothesis is that there are no artificial, extraterrestrial
sources of narrow band radio emissions in a particular part of the
electromagnetic spectrum that are detectable from Earth. That's
falsifiable.

How does your hypothesis derive from the empirical
observations?

Tell me how SETI's does, and I can replace a few words to answer
your question in your own funny little garage-band definition of
science.

First, I am basing these questions on the scientific method used by
scientists around the world. If you don't recognize that, the fault
lies in your ignorance.

Second, if your hypothesis is actually scientific, it should stand on
its own merits without reference to other projects such as SETI.

Third, SETI's hypothesis derives directly from empirical observations
and physical theories with demonstrated explanatory power. It is
specific and unambiguous. Your vague speculations are neither.

What predictions can be made based on your hypothesis?

That detectable messages or artifacts may be in DNA. Note the
similarity to SETI's: "That there may be detectable messages/signals
coming from space."

This is not a prediction, it is a speculation. What kinds of "messages
or artifacts"? How would they be represented? All DNA, human DNA, or
some other kind? Why?

How can those predictions be tested?

Sifting DNA similar to how SETI sifts the sky.

SETI "sifts" the sky by searching for a particular (simple) radio
emission in a particular part of the electromagnetic spectrum specified
by the hypothesis. Your non-hypothesis doesn't explain what a message
would look like nor why it would be expected.

When you can create a similarly specific algorithm for identifying
patterns in DNA, based so explicitly on your hypothesis that failure of
the prediction means falsification of your hypothesis, you'll be doing
science.

How would a negative result of those tests falsify your
hypothesis?

Absolute falsifiablity is NOT a requirement for science. We've been
over this already I and stand by my logic.

Stand by it all you like, it's still wrong. Falsifiability is
essential to the scientific method.

The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite
wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.
-- Bertolt Brecht

It is asking far too much to ask that one prove that X never
happened anywhere at anytime. At best we can rule out X happening
to specific SPOTS. The spot reduction is true of evolution, SETI,
and DNA-ID.

As has been pointed out to you previously, demonstrating even one
occasion on which the theory of evolution failed to explain the nature
and diversity of life on Earth would be sufficient to falsify the
theory.

For example, SETI can rule out narrow-band radio broadcasts
eminating from Vega between 2:30am and 8:21pm.

This is why the SETI radiotelescope project is based on the null
hypothesis that there are no artificial sources of a specific type of
signal in a specific area of the spectrum. That is a falsifiable
prediction.

Simiarly, DNA-ID can rule out surviving sequential prime digits of
length L being placed/present in E.Coli specimen 47232.

No, it cannot, because your non-hypothesis lacks any justification for
why there might be primes in e. coli DNA and provides no specification
of the encoding of such digits.

P.S. Get a real handle. Stealing and melding other's handles is
confusing to readers and an immature ploy. Jesus wouldn't steal
handles

As far as I can tell, no one on Usenet is using the Bryce Jacobs
handle. I wouldn't want it to go to waste.

I'll make you a deal, though. If you educate yourself about the
scientific method enough to understand why your "falsifiable in the
absolute sense" argument is nonsense and then produce a scientific
hypothesis of intelligent design (e.g., one that is based on empirical
evidence and that makes falsifiable predictions), I'll send you the
password to the bryce.topmind.jacobs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx to do with as you
wish.

BJ

.

Loading