Re: Definition Challenge

On 2006-07-09, topmind <topmind@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mark VandeWettering wrote:


Will you please commit to the "we must do it now" (WMDIN) criteria here
and now please?

You are the one who based your claims on the baseless and incorrect
assertion that we currently have the technical capability to "seed" the
galaxy. Refutation of that claim therefore eliminates support for your
non-existent hypothesis.

You did not answer the question. Is "we do it now" required for a valid
hypoth, YES or NO?

Of course not. I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. The only context
in which it gets brought up is when you demonstrate that you haven't the
foggiest notion about what how to actually test your ideas, only the vaguest
assertion that such a test is possible.

I already described detailed base encoding used for Prime detection.

Since you don't seemingly even know what primes are, that would seem to be
a bold claim unsupported by evidence. Zachriel described a detailed base
encoding scheme, and presented evidence to suggest that no such pattern
appears in the genome of E. coli. You're response would seem to be
"well, you didn't look in all the genomes", but that's hardly a reasonable
objection. But in any case, Zach did the heavy lifting.

This is what prevents your rather
nebulous ideas from being a scientific hypothesis. Hypotheses are assumed
to make their consequences clear enough to test. The consequences of your
ideas simply don't qualify.

You keep changing the subject.

Only in some vain attempt to track your shifts in focus.

You still have not answered the question. Does a hypoth have to test
for technology that we *already* use?

Actually, that is a different question than the one you were asking.
Your previous question would be "does it matter if we do the test now",
to which the answer is clearly "no". But it certainly might matter if
we don't possess the technology to test something, because we simply may
never have the technology, or the question may not be one that technology
can solve.

I thought that was one of the complaints leveled against DNA-ID
searching.

If not, then stop mentioning it.

I haven't. Nobody has, with the exception of you.

No
known intelligent species has encoded messages in DNA in such a way
that those messages would be preserved over billions of generations of
evolution.

Are you dismissing the "bottle" article?

Non responsive, as usual. You claimed that we had the technology to
create a message in DNA that would remain readable after billions of
generations of evolution. You are wrong.

You are changing the subject. Are you dismissing the article, yes or
no?

Nobody is interested in playing games with your false dichotomies. If
you'd like to support your claim, support it.

Then can I ignore this statement of yours?:

(begin quote)

No
known intelligent species has encoded messages in DNA in such a way
that those messages would be preserved over billions of generations of
evolution.

(end quote)

I'm curious: what false dichotomy does this present?

Since I didn't actually say that, I guess you can ignore it. But of course,
it would appear to be true.

Billions of generations are not required anyhow. DNA-ID does not set a
design/fiddling timeline.

In fact, since DNA-ID is pretty much meaningless, it doesn't set anything
at all. Or rather, since it doesn't set anything at all, it is pretty
much meaningless.

I am trying to narrow down what DNA-ID lacks that SETI's hypoth alleged
has and build a clear list so that we all know what is on the table.

Your coconut radio doesn't work as well as my cell phone, but you are
certainly free to continue to yell into it. However, you shouldn't really
expect people to continue to explain to you why the coconut radio isn't
as good as a cell phone.

You guys keep waffling and changing the subject. You appear not to want
to commit to specifics because you cannot justify them when pressured.

Nonsense. This topic has already been completely discussed. I'm not going
to continue in the futile attempt to rid you of your stubborn ignorance.

That is honestly what appears to be happening from my perspective.

That's really the pity of the whole thing.

You are acting like the Marketing department instead of the
Engineering department.

Mark

-T-

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Definition Challenge
    ... assertion that such a test is possible. ... Does a hypoth have to test for technology that we *already* ... known intelligent species has encoded messages in DNA in such a way ... generations of evolution. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
    ... Evolution in a different level, ... Response: ... Ever since science and technology really ... Dreams" but I always like the thesis behind "Civilization and its ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Challenges for Evolutionary Ethics
    ... Evolution and Reason ... > with technological adaptation. ... > physics, technology, science, medicine and other fields have been made ... > in constant conflict with the requirements of civilization. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Two major reasons why America should throw evolution into the trash
    ... > technology that it has given us. ... > Since evolution CANNOT be immediately falsified in a lab, ... it doesn't matter if descent with modification is demonstrably the ... natural selection that is the basis of Darwin's ideas. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Homo Optimus or Homo Ludditus
    ... The Future Evolution of Man ... The rapid development in silicon and biotechnology could soon bring the ... Darwinian evolution and Homo Sapiens are both short and limited. ... with a gapped insulator and leaving the underlying chemical technology ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)