Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

topmind wrote:
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?

Even if some specialized machines could be built to mimic
characteristics of living things, the vast majority of machines do not
share many, if any, of those characteristics. _All_ life shares that
characteristic. What are you trying to show with such a poor analogy?

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.

What is pivotal is that your claim of "We can put messages in DNA and
distribute them across the galaxy" is simply wrong. At our current
level of technology, we cannot. It may turn out to be an intractable
or prohibitively expensive concept.

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.

You have yet to explain what your hypothesis is, why it predicts
images, pi, or sequences of prime numbers, how it predicts those
patterns will be encoded, or where they should be found. Until that
information is forthcoming, there is no way to tell if they are likely
or not in any particular DNA sequence. If your hypothesis predicts
that your intelligent designer used a one time pad, for example, the
whole bonobo genome could constitute a high resolution image of the
letter Pi surrounded by 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.

The scientific hypothesis being tested by SETI has been explained to
you repeatedly. Even more detail is available from SETI's web site.
Your continued assertion of this utterly baseless and roundly refuted
claim can only be interpreted as gross intellectual dishonesty.

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.

No, it cannot, because there is no scientific theory or hypothesis of
intelligent design.

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.

If you believe that I am misrepresenting the scientific method, I
encourage you to post a reference to your interpretation. If you
actually attempt to educate yourself regarding this topic, you will
find that I am presenting it in the standard manner. Several other
posters in this thread are using identical concepts.

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

So "Topmind" is your given name? Would your middle one be "hypocrite"?

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.

What do you find "vague" about testability? Falsifiability? The
scientific method? Working scientists use these concepts every day to
advance our understanding of the world.

"Some unknown entities may have done something at some unknown point in
time that may have resulted in some unknown message being encoded in
some unknown way in some unknown DNA." Now that's vague.

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.

I never mentioned the Drake equation; that's a red herring. SETI's
hypothesis doesn't mention it. The SETI hypothesis is, in fact, based
on empirical observations and the current theories of physics that
indicate there should be no natural sources of the specific signal they
are searching for in the specific region of the spectrum in which they
are searching.

However much you might wish that the SETI radiotelescope project team
were basing their work on speculations as vague and unscientific as
yours, that simply isn't the case.

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.

No, we haven't been over them. You have never presented a scientific
theory or hypothesis, you have never explained why that theory or
hypothesis leads to an expectation of messages in DNA, you have never
specified exactly what kind of messages are predicted by your theory or
hypothesis, you have never specified exactly how those messages are
predicted to be encoded, and you have never made a falsifiable
prediction based on your theory or hypothesis.

In short, you've never done any science.

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.

It is certainly possible to invent algorithms out of thin air. Those
algorithms would, however, be scientifically worthless. If you want
your speculations to be considered science, your as yet nonexistent
theory or hypothesis must predict what the message or messages would
consist of, how they would be encoded, and where they would be found.
Simply making up algorithms provides no means of falsifying your (as
yet nonexistent) theory or hypothesis.

Since you have such respect for the SETI projects, I suggest you read
their material to understand how to do this correctly.

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.

Do you have a keyboard shortcut to insert this whenever you lack a real
argument? Clearly it appears in your posts with no thought whatsoever
behind it.

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.

See my most recent post in this thread for yet another full refutation
of your claim. Since you apparently lack even the most rudimentary
background in science in general and biology in particular, check out
the links here for more online resources that explain the
"all-or-nothing" theory of evolution:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php

The links start around the picture of Sandy Koufax.

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.

No, you cannot, because there is no scientific theory of intelligent
design.

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.

See above for an explanation of why you can't just make up message
types and encodings in the absence of a predictive theory and call it
science. You're once again suggesting the intellectual equivalent of
looking for pictures in clouds.

BJ

.