Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable


"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


Horse wash. It predicts that detectable artifacts may be left over
from
the engineering.


Detectable? But you keep forgetting to tell us how to detect them. You
have
put forth no specific empirical consequences.

Alas! You had once been specific. You said to test for a conventional
bitmap
of the Mona Lisa. I showed that prior searches would almost certainly
have
discovered any such a pattern. Your contention was found false that no
one
has used search methodology likely to have found such patterns.


If it has, then you would have presented the situation or paper, now
wouldn't you? If X happened, then show evidence that X actually
happened. Your "must have" stance is just playing lame.


Finding Mona is just such a test - done at your own insistence. I
published
the results and made the code available for public inspection. It's
written
in VBasic so it is easy to understand. There is no conventional image of
a
Mona Lisa hidden in the genome examined.

Come on, now. You offered no evidence that past researchers have
actually followed up on any statistical outliers.


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.


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.

The real issue is that evidence is irrelevant to you. That means your
assertions have no scientific validity.



--
Zachriel
But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues.
You can tell by the way she smiles. - Dylan
http://www.zachriel.com/monalisa/




As far as one critter being "done", that is like SETI looking at one
star in one frequency range, not finding anything and then concluding
that SETI is "done".

You people are silly. You are a hard-ass on DNA-ID, but super-softies
on SETI. This is called a "double standard". Read about it.



--
Zachriel

-T-





.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... It predicts that detectable artifacts may be left over from ... Mona Lisa hidden in the genome examined. ... As far as one critter being "done", that is like SETI looking at one ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... Just show some evidence that outliers or oddities have been ... that bitmaps create a statistical signature that does not exist in the ... DEFECTS IN BACTERIA CONTAINING MONA LISA IN THEIR GENES. ... would actually bother. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... how is this different than SETI? ... topmind: They do not look for intelligence signs, ... The name of the algorithm is "Zachriel's Mona Finder, ... But Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... Zachriel wrote: ... It predicts that detectable artifacts may be left over ... Mona Lisa hidden in the genome examined. ... Where are your framing tests? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... demonstrate that the genome of E. coli contains the Mona Lisa. ... E. coli seems popular. ... find a picture of the Mona Lisa. ... SETI is going to. ...
    (talk.origins)