Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

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.

So if robots can be taught to make robots, suddenly the scales tip?


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?

I already described how such is possible. Researches have concluded
that it may be possible for bacterial spores of certain species to
survive space radiation if covered with a few centimeters of rock IIRC.
If this is pivotable, I'll try to dig up the article.

Can we identify suitable planets for seeding?

Doesn't matter. We don't have to aim. A Voyager-like craft carrying a
bunch of golf-ball sized pods with spores that spread via a small
explosion triggered on the probe. The peices slowly drift apart and
after a million or so years are light-years apart. Some may land on/in
planets condusive to microbes. Based on gravity, roughly 80% will
probably end up in stars (main-sequence, black, or brown), 15% in gas
giants like Saturn, and roughly 5% on rocky planets like Earth and
Mars. (Since they will likely orbit a bit before entering a star, they
may get pulled into a planet on the way.)

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."

http://www.forbes.com/2005/10/21/genetics-dna-computing-comm05-cx_mh_1024herper.html


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.

Not of images or long Pi or Primes.


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.

Either is SETI.


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.

Knock it off with with negation crap. DNA-ID can do the negation jig
also.


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.

You make up stuff. Even your handle is made up. You are a proven
phoney.


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

I am only using SETI as a comparison to help you turn your vaugue
feelings into logic, not as part of the hypoth.


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.

Bull! The Drakes Equation is mega open and narrow band hunting is ONLY
a candidate finder, NOT final proof.


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?

We have been over the possible messages already. No need to revisit
them here. If your brain keeps forgeting, then change hobbies.


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.

Like I keep saying, we could make exact algorithms to find candidates.
If the group agrees this pivotable, I will make a demo.


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.

Then SETI is not science.


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.

I disagreed with your all-or-nothing characteristic of it. You made
that up, pulled it out of your phoney-named arse.


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.

We can negate DNA-ID also.
We can negate DNA-ID also.We can negate DNA-ID also. We can negate
DNA-ID also.We can negate DNA-ID also.We can negate DNA-ID also. We can
negate DNA-ID also.We can negate DNA-ID also.We can negate DNA-ID also.
We can negate DNA-ID also.

You are dense.


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

Because aliens etc. may have put it there, the same way they MIGHT be
putting radio waves into space.

and provides no specification
of the encoding of such digits.

That is mere busy work to carry that out.

-T-

.