Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 127 of 152 (240657)
09-05-2005 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by iano
09-05-2005 1:38 PM


Re: The tentative wheel
Keep the Bible, we need such in today'snow time.
I didnt want you to think that AEA could get a move on the difference of seeds from within a Copernican thought or by an alien one. It is true that life might have been "seeded" from Bettlejuice and we are all hitchhikers on our genes but I NEVER think this and end up thinking about how Darwin thought of seeds instead.
When I am driving through the country or riding I should say I see the trees and my mind wanders to the shape difference of the greens. I merely have related this provisionally to different uses of inertia by the plants. A seed falling to the ground (Newton's supposed apple) is could actually be falling to the sun but the soil prevents it from getting there. No I do not have a purple/green thumb. I had thought with that that Gymnosperm pine cones do not move in this trajectory(my mental space for plant anantomy is dwarfed by its contents on herpetology) but rather orbit the sun with the Earth rather than perpendicular to it. I dont know but I find think about agriculture much better for humanities survival of the next 100s than sending out radio waves to contact an alien to tell us how to make life grow in silicon. If synthetic biologists do not "police" themselves then I see no reason why the 70s environmental movement shouldnt come down even harder on the "labs".
Thanks for the compliment. I dont think that the realms are seperate as AEA thinks in case he was a head of you and me in this thread, virtually.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by iano, posted 09-05-2005 1:38 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by iano, posted 09-06-2005 11:28 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 138 of 152 (241087)
09-07-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-06-2005 11:40 AM


Re: the tailor or the cook, you decide
quote:
Are you suggesting that the ToE depends on some mathematical distribution based on the origin of man to be valid? I really don’t see how this line of reasoning is valid much less useful to our current discussion but maybe I’m dealing with a language barrier. Please explain.
no it is not a language barrier.
You may feel free to think that random silicon molecules creates carbon-based life but I took it that this thread is about the cbs REPORT. Evolutionary theory that I call in question pertains only to its hierarchicalization but IF it is TO BE hierarchical there can be less simple statments made about any olds rates of changes. It is only the thoughts that leave a range of change rates open rather than attempting to close them that opens up my responsibility to respond.
I have no notion that there must be distribution of human origins as I full admit non-god designers for any thus more than potential changes the hierarchicalization brought to my mind or brings in general rather it is the the failure to incorporate the artifical selectability within the human lineage IN any Future, that likely seperates your and mines rather constant positions.
As for how the analysis ACTUALLY distributes and thus contrains either an evo or a creo synthetist, well, try searching around some of my posts on EvC. There is a failure to even find the analytics. I have left clue after clue as to how to do more than explore the subject.
It is too much for me to guess about what an average of posters does or does not understand in my posts. I have some posting history with Crashfrog so I might be able to guess what he missed but with you are new and it would not be a very ideal thing to keep up the word by word dissection of each others posts here unless it is clear how they relate to the thread head.
You referred to "our current discussion" I dont know what that is.
I can go back and easily point out how I answered, the thread head, found out where you stood, disagreed a bit with iano and am now simply explaing things that I dont know if they are relevant to the thread or simply a matter of a difference of opinion, between you and me for instance. I think the seperation into magesterias is wrong but that doesnt matter for my guess on how creationists respond or might respond to advances that are themselves not welldrawn up or down.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-07-2005 03:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-06-2005 11:40 AM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 4:52 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 143 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-08-2005 2:57 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 141 of 152 (241138)
09-07-2005 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by iano
09-07-2005 4:52 PM


Re:in the begining of this was a thread post #1
The first post in this thread begins there.
two clicks below
EvC Forum: Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists
or click once. your choice.
Page Not Found: 404 Not Found -
You are not "annoying" me.
If you look at enough EVC threads you will see that if thread meanders for a while often posters can and will return to the original points being made just to ensure that personal asides do not dominate the topic inter thread alia. Both you and AEA were "new" to me so I had to do a little more exploration than is want probably in a thread. Chat like this can go elsewhere. I know you need a bit more of the details filled in and if I choose to post under your signature later, I am now cognizant of that to an extent.
As for refering to concepts in general, well, I am not just posting here for the fun of it. I am trying to shape the thoughts somewhat, and I do it rather crudely. This also however is a function of "getting a feel" on a responder. The bigger words one uses the easier it is to see if the person is cranking or just cranky. Once I get it in my mind who the person is, I dont need much, I try to be sensitive to their character or personality.
I am happy to go back and search EVC for relevant posts of mine but the discussion rather works at the fast pace of society so I tend to just guarentee a more friendly reply the second time around. Some people are droit at this circuit so it annoys me when I end up cutting up my sentences to an undue degree but hey that is what makes the internet not Darwin's telephone.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-07-2005 07:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by iano, posted 09-07-2005 4:52 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by iano, posted 09-08-2005 6:00 AM Brad McFall has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 145 of 152 (241557)
09-08-2005 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic
09-08-2005 2:57 PM


Re: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
The question was, unless I need to reread it, what is a creationistic response to the domain of synthetic biology?
The quote you cited from me here, was in the cases where an IDist's ideas might govern the direction of synthetic biology itself.
I admit that economically, at present, this is an unlikely supply but the demand for it IS high, in my opinion.
I dont know if you are struggling to comprehend the cases were ID might so govern ( I fully realize that this is the place in the conversation that many people will raise at LEAST an eyebrow) or if it is rather due to a general lack of having yourself and the world at large supplied with information that had led me to exclaim that even just thinking the whole thing through takes more than 7 days in the week??
Given that you are still responding to me. I must commend you indeed. Thanks for the effort.
I am somewhat dismayed if your lack of apprehension (which could be as much my fault as yours) is of the latter variety for it would indicate that my posts over the past 1/2 year have been to no avail, but then again I doubt you have been lurking here for that long (sans what Ben recently asked me). The recent article in Science on the Kansas situation is a case in this point, which I will probably bring up elsewhere on EvC.
You see because I do not feel that there is a seperation of magesteria I full DO expect that creation scienists will contribute to changes that synthetic biology affords evolutionary theory. You dont want to call what they do or might do science. OK I understand that position. I think however the CBS article is a little over dramatic and not really expressive of what will actually happen to the discipline of biology even if it seems like "pockets" of biological research are following that somewhat blue perspective.
There is an extra level of control necessary to actually DO synthetic biology. I do not know that this is fully realized. It was not even thought to be an issue in 1992 when I was doing monoclonal antibodies and in vitro fertilization. I had found 1 out of 30 cells SQUASHED by me to be symmetrical. This could be telling me something about how cell development works OR it could be due to the shear forces I applied to the cell during the preparation to view it with tagged antibodies etc. The applied profs at Cornell were not even aware that this added extra data seperation was necessary to make determinative statements. I think this kind of engineering issue applies just about any time any ETHICAL feeling arises in this topic in this thread even if it is not completely justified.
It is smarter to let the ethics determine policy until the procedures are all under control and for this reason alone (no matter what the economics are) I am personally interested in the angle of creationists first. That is not what is happening as the link suggests. I am only saying I think it should be. I know you can keep things"" seperate and be "just" as ethical and if the controls were being controled for in the 'brave new world' of synthetic biology I would not protest from which side one leans tentatively but seeing that there is not even a widespread understanding of how ID *might* open the social possiblilites of synthetic biology I pray we come to some understanding sooner than later . You me and iano are not going to solve the world's problems trying to be the three musketeers.
I hope this style of posting was better for you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-08-2005 2:57 PM AnEmpiricalAgnostic has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by AnEmpiricalAgnostic, posted 09-12-2005 9:08 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 146 of 152 (242068)
09-10-2005 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by iano
09-08-2005 6:00 AM


Regarding duality and conscience vs consciousness
quote:
Yet in truth, the absolute subect, I, remains forever unique, not-withstanding the objective equivalence of the various subjects. This is in agreement with the facts as I find them. On purely congnitive grounds conscientalism is irrefutable, it can be carried through completely. But for all this the regonition of 'thou' is demanded of me not only in the sense that im my thinking I yield to the abstract norm of 'objectivity' , but in an absolute sense: Thou art for theyself once more what I am for myself, conscious-exsiting carrier of the world of phenomena. This step can be taken in our analogy only if we pass from the algebraic model of affine vector geometry to its axiomatic description, where the concepts of a vector and of the two fundamental operations enter as undefined terms. In the axiomatic system it is no longer necessary to enforce the equilvalence of all coordinates by abstraction...Pattern and source of any such demonstrative act is the word 'I.' Thus axiomatics reveals itself once again...which posits a trascendental world but is content to recreate it in symbols.
Weyl Space and Time p.124 in Philosophy of Mathematics and Natural Science.
I passed or was passing through this undefined duality of defintions under the expanded basis of a priori ness read from Husserl as persented by Derrida in 1987, but FROM *any* axiomatics one must notice, that there is NOT a comparable duality of functionality and use of the spear and the sowing needle extending BACK towards either the affine intuition or the non-vector developement of the synthetic modality, even though from the former directum there appears to be due to the simple indications of language needs to be recognized.
Weyl had expressed it elsewhere as the "ego" moving through space (historically justified (so he thought)) but he differentiated Newton and Kant. I think this is NOW mistaken. It does explain however (in Weyl's comparison of Hegel and Newton) why Derrida refused to respond to my questions as to what "science" was, that he JD referring to(1988). He would not let his ego GO through. OK, but synthetic biologists do JUST that or rather they need to do it justly not just due dually. Making a clone from three geneotypes does not a posteriori qualify as I SAW it. This was recently approved over on your side of the waters or nearly. It is necessary to enforce or legislate the different genomic contributions to the cardinal vs ordinal dispute in graphing the results. This becomes the same problem as formerly was displayed eugenically only we have to give ALL the varities justice rather than elimiate some cuttable races or mismeasures of man. This does not mean "any" category but only those analytic with respect to the "experimental space". Surely appearence of aliens will change our judgements overnight but macoreconomic visions providing the environment for biology today do not, so far. It would be mistake to create a leisure of recreating life intstead of the symbols FIRST.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by iano, posted 09-08-2005 6:00 AM iano has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024