Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable


Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151270719.352531.11470@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151264745.209051.68930@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151203301.139320.257380@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151036645.919004.209740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Zachriel wrote:
"topmind" <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1150948187.143564.284130@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Your continued handwaving is irrelevant. There is no conventional bitmap
image of the Mona Lisa (or just about any other such image) in the
genome
examined.

Would you also suggest that SETI give up after the first star on the
first frequency tried?


A tentative assertion can be made that life on Earth is not unique (due to
the principle of mediocrity and the ubiquity of carbon chemistry). This
could lead to various speculations, including your own DNA-ID. However, any
civilization that could manipulate genomes on Earth would also most likely
leave other evidence, such as tell-tale electromagnetic signatures of their
existence that would presumably be detectable.

First of all, even we have the technology to seed other planets around
other stars without ever leaving Earth (as humans) as described for Mr.
Name Mangler. Second, they may be using a communications technique that
we cannot detect, such as sight-to-sight lasers.

Third, they may not be around any longer. Maybe a war killed them off
or the like.

Plate techtonics resurfaces the planet. However, bacteria move faster
than plate techtonics to mostly escape their effects. Further, we don't
have to assume that beings actually visited our planet per above.

So, you would have to suppose
that not only did ETI travel interstellar space to leave a message in the
genomes on Earth (an unknown designer with unknown motives with an unknown
mechanism, leaving no trace), but that such a message survived over eons of
time, and that all other evidence has been left undetected thus far.

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

SETI
assumes far less and is more in line with what would be expected from the
available evidence.

Available evidence says jack sh8t about what aliens are like or what
they do. We only have human activity as a rough reference.

I will agree that SETI assumes a bit less, but that simply makes DNA-ID
less probable than SETI. Far-fetchness is a matter of degree. Nobody
has yet accepted probability as the separator.


There is another very significant difference. The genome has been searched
extensively by very sophisticated pattern analysis algorithms. And the
patterns that have been detected thus far have been determined to be due to
natural ad hoc evolutionary processes. (Your ignorance of how these
algorithms work is not evidence and is not convincing.)


You are the ignorant one since you cannot point out a single act of
archeology searches in DNA instead of biology being sifted. It does not
matter if I am a bubbling retard, you STILL have not pointed out a
single real instance outside of your one experiment. So stop calling
me names.

We have links with about 200 biology related searches and ZERO
archeology related searches. What else the hell am I supposed to make
of that, huh? Is that being irrational or stubborn on my part? 200 to 0
is the score. The numbers are right there in front of our faces.


Radio emissions from
space have not been extensively analyzed for doppler-shifted narrow-band
spectrum emissions. Once a scan of the local galactic region has been
completed, this will put limits on the plausible number of ETI in the
galaxy. The results of these specific tests would have to be accounted for
by any future research program.

What is the purpose of this statement?


Still another difference. SETI is specific, and your own DNA-ID is vague and
ill-considered.

How is "SETI specific"?


Finally, your DNA-ID speculation is contrary to the available evidence.

Evo and DNA-ID are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


I note you have never even bothered to look, even after months of talking
about it. Others might be willing to take your speculations more seriously
if you would actually listen when they try to explain why your speculation
does not constitute a scientific hypothesis.

Blah blah blah, always my fault and my grand shortcommings. Your logic
stinks and you cannot separate from SETI with anything clearer than
nailing Jello to a cloud.


Nor did you analyse
that bright spot in the middle to see if it had some other image, pi,
primes, or languages.


I certainly did examine it for images. I then explained two different
ways I
analyzed it. Then you waved your hands.

Where are your framing tests? I didn't see your framing tests on that
spot.


It wasn't necessary. We know that most images have a distinct statistical
signature.

Most? So you are knowingly skipping a small percentage of images which
may pass thru means deviation tests? (I linked to an example last
week.)

Also, perhaps it is not an image, but a formula, language, pi, primes,
etc.

So, you are not "done" after all even with e-coli.


In addition, we can closely examine the patterns and see that
they were not due to image, but were artifacts of how the eye creates
patterns even when none exist.

You don't know this until you do frame shifting. Mona didn't look like
mona, but a brown worm. Maybe the bright spot would appear into some
recognizable image if it was put together right.

Did you even bother to zoom into the image
and look as I suggested?

Zooming is not good enough. You have to line stuff up to recognize
anything.

Would it make any difference to you if the results
were negative? You have convinced me that it wouldn't make any difference,
that evidence is irrelevant to you.

Yeah, like ignoring 200 to 0, hypocrit!

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... and that all other evidence has been left undetected thus far. ... I will agree that SETI assumes a bit less, ... The genome has been ... That you should learn a little bit about how pattern detection works. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI is speculative (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... DNA-ID does not conflict with evolution. ... My point was that what SETI is based on (the evidence for evolution as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: SETI is speculative (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... common descent 'fuzzy'? ... DNA-ID does not conflict with evolution. ... Since when is the evidence leading to the conclusion that there are ... SETI begins with what is evident and then makes ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: "Humans Do It Now" Criteria (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... messages or more evidence, for example. ... what test would cause seti to "abandon their ... *Other* scientists have developed strong evidence that life on Earth is a ... concerning the origin of life indicate they would evolve on planets, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Primes in DNA (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... can judge spans of DNA, and rank them according to some metric called ... so that we can test their empirical consequences. ... The hypothetical assumptions that underly the radio search for SETI ... in the genome. ...
    (talk.origins)