Quality Control the Gold Standard

In the last century one of the great scientific theorists was the mathmatician John Von Neumann. At one point he purposed to design a self replicating ,machine. He knew that such a device would have to have all of the subassemblies necessary to make the entire device including the assemblers themselves and the stored instructions for each operation. Because of the large number of devices and the stored programs size and exactness of its specification he also knew he would need error detection devices for each critical operation and repair devices to fix the errors before the entire device shut down due to errors. Yet the device also had to manufacture the error detectors and repair devices... ad finitum,, Von Neumann through in the towel.Yet in life the error rate in replicating the DNA molecule is about one mistake in a billion base pairs. And that is of course because every element in the Von Neumann model is present and works remarkably well in the human cell.The present Six Sigma paradigm attempts to design and operate complex processes so accurately that only 3.4 errors per million operations is realized over the long run. That is the three sigma level of performance.The cell/DNA replication process is operating at about 7 sigma... an undreamed of level of accuracy and quality performance.In achieving the real world standard thousands of manhours and millions of dollars are spent in the design, analysis, planning, measuring and correction tasks.At no stage is the improvement sought by introducing a source of random error, operating, seeing if the market accepts the new result keeping those that are accepted and discarding those that are unworkable or inefficient or otherwise unmarketable.Why,,, because it would absolutely never work in the real world.No such R&D effort would ever result in a new or higher quality profitable marketable product... not ever and the enterprise would simply go bancrupt.Yet evolutionists suppose that a seven sigma replicator arose by a random error generator and an accept/reject "market " mechanism, namely random mutation and natural selection.Our real life experiences refute such faulty nonsensical illogical proposals to say nothing of Von Neumann's mathmatical analysis.This message has been edited by Evopeach, 02-07-2006 08:52 PM

A ray of light.. I presume.No one need inform me of the 99.99999999999...9999% of harmful mutations, especially the P53 which is very much the culprit in breast cancer. My wife died from the mutation. You know those good variations in the genome that lead to the creation of ever more successful organisms, reproductively speaking.One can only wait to see with baited breath what the beneficial effects of cancer and every other horrible disease that are specificially tied to "good" mutations. Good oh yes by evolutionary standards because they have been around since the invention of writing so they must be good otherewise they would have been eliminated by natural selection.Now try responding to the argument presented.

First the techniques you talk about are designed bit strings much like mag tapes for a tooling machine and bear no resemblance to the issue at hand.To be a reasonable analogy:Start with say a totally randomized string and see if it generates any functional gate or flip flop.. whatever from say a three bit codon. If so preserve it if not interchange two bits in the string again randomly with zero guidance.Lets see how many bits are required to make a gate or other device within the algorithm. Let me guess its something like three orders of magnitude less than that required to make the simplest protein in the cell from mrna, etc.Let me know when the forty element curcuit is all set. LOL LOLIn debate setting up red herrings is called a logical fallacy.

First you fail to say if your blops are doing anything other than OS routines over and over. Second all OS of any sophistication and associated firmware have self correcting code which eliminates errors in read write, memory operations and communications routines that you would never be aware of, never observe and would be totally undetected.. that's sort of the purpose of having them. So your sophmoric example merely demonstrates a laymans view of IT.Page not found - WNM Communications

You have no concept.The absolutely agreed upon error rate for copying the 3 plus billion base pairs in the human genome is 1 per billion. This is so well documented as to be ludicrous to even discuss. One error per billion is about 7 sigma in quality parlance.If you can't accept that fact please don't even bother replying.. I don't have the time.

The problem is you are again practicing obfuscation.The DNA 7 sigma replication scheme and machinery had to EVOLVE from non-life to life and from the simplest possible, highly error prone replicator (which no one can define or demonstrate) to the present 7 sigma replicator by random mutation and natural selection.The issue is that your example is "toy" and did not evolve but was designed, created de neuvo, by an intelligent designer.So it has no evolutionary application unless and until it is developed by random "mutations" from say a one device string length to at least forty devices.Please no more red herrings or strawmen analogies.

... living organisms are very complicated aggregations of elementary parts, and by any reasonable theory of probability or thermodynamics highly improbable. That they should occur in the world at all is a miracle of the first magnitude; the only thing which removes, or mitigates, this miracle is that they reproduce themselves. Therefore, if by any peculiar accident there should ever be one of them, from there on the rules of probability do not apply, and there will be many of them, at least if the milieu is reasonable.
John von Neumann, Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata.Imagine that Von Neumann stating the problems of probability and thermondynamics , miracles, highly improbable and surely he was semantically accurate being one of the great intellects in a semantically precise world and very knowledgeable of science in general.The fact that he determined that error rates and self correction devices as outlined previously is a "mathmatically intractable problem" in the actual design and operation of anything approaching life processes is simply reality. No one could imagine the creation of such a device with error rates in the 10**-9 range being achieved by some random process. A mathmatical analysis by Von Neumann is not subjective and carries enourmous weight.Of course his assumption of prepetuity after the fact is unconvincing because it assumes the first replicator could perform at the required accuracy.The probability of a replicator happening de neuvo capable of the required extant accuracy or quality in performance is greater than the 10**-150 commonly used definition of impossibility. This has been accepted by your own people and is well documented in the literature.The counter argument is that very poor replicators with high error rates could somehow be protected from opposing natural forces over eons of time as they evolved the required protective characteristics and and error correcting capacities; a premise unproven, undemonstrated and phantasmagorically improbable itself.

Human driven has nothing to do with it. Its analysis and mathmatics pure and siimple physical reality which is applicable and being applied in Nanoscience every day. See thats why our only hope of realizing Nano machines is to use molecules, DNA etc. because we have no hope of building them ourselves or "waiting for them to evolve".Think about it ... if there were one airplane crash in all aviation military, public and private per billion flights we would essentially never have a crash. Yet we have reported crashes somewhere in the USA every day.. check the national database if you care to. Its more like 4 sigma even for the airlines.As RR used to say "there they go again".You program is designed, has an OS with error correcting processes none of which evolved.. period.This is the same old .. look we made life using only a very small piece of rna or dna .. blah blah blah.Assuming the answer you want or asserting that something is true is not rigerous science.. its a form of metaphysics.Having spent several year as as an OR analyst in the defense industry and energy industry I can assure you that design was never approached by random trial and error componentry pertubation. I am quite familiar with Monte Carlo methods , etc and the modeling of error propagation models. Never was there any attempt to design from random trial and error using simulation.... not ever.

Genetic ENGINEERING is the precise attempt to apply ENGINEERING principles to biological R&D to effect characterisitics not otherwise extant. LOL!Engineering, math, physics, chemistry and information theory is absorbing the biological sciences at light speed because the soft mushy qualitative evolutionary framework simply is an anachronism to progress.Nanoscience is the application of ENGINEERING principles to the design of ano particle mfgt. etc. Check it out for yourself every Nanodegree program is set up in engineering divisions.. period.

Crashfrog,This is supposed to be a forum restricting personal attacks.. how about following the guidelines.The rna world theory is currently the hot theory for how abiogenesis might have occurred.. period. Yet although a replicator of sorts, very small and simplistic in size and complexity it has very high error rates .. words of the community not mine.. thus it is quite problimatical to even envision how it could evolve anything before dying.

Well its for sure the evo community knows its a lot closer to what we see working than any theory they can advance since chemical predestination, rna world, dna world, silicon life, "the dog ate my homework, " the magic genie", the intelligent comet and karma Bob visitor from the planet Nazbot have all been discarded. Except for the "life force" camp of Nobel Prize winners... which camp are you in?You might start with Robert Shapiro "Origins", Hoyle, Crick, Morowitz works but maybe a big boy like you can operate Google.Mathmatically intractable is a form of falsification and has everything to do with it. Thr multi-body gravitational attraction problem is strictly deterministic and can be solved by iterative approximation methods to a high degree of accuracy.The abiogenesis and early evolution of the so called simple replicator theories by definition are not determiniative... see thats sort of the definition of RANDOM MUTATION. see the operative term is RANDOM.

If you can google you can find about 100 articles from major schools that discuss rna and the so called "RNA error catastrophe" problem. See that's why the panspermia, comet , life force , planet zazbot visitor, magic goo ball and other ying yang equivalents are in your camp.I'll let you do a little research .. its not rocket science.

So Von Neumann was not a scientist in 1940's, did not appreciate the probability theory of Poincare and Pacal and others though a hundred years old.I just knew he'd be termed a moron when I read the quote about thermo and probability.John[1] Louis von Neumann Born 28 December 1903, Budapest, Hungary; Died 8 February 1957, Washington DC; Brilliant mathematician, synthesizer, and promoter of the stored program concept, whose logical design of the IAS became the prototype of most of its successors - the von Neumann Architecture.Educ: University of Budapest, 1921; University of Berlin, 1921-23; Chemical Engineering, Eidgenssische Technische Hochschule [ETH] (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), 1923-25; Doctorate, Mathematics (with minors in experimental physics and chemistry), University of Budapest, 1926; Prof. Exp: Privatdozent, University of Berlin, 1927-30; Visiting Professor, Princeton University, 1930-53; Professor of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton University, 1933-57; Honors and Awards: D.Sc. (Hon), Princeton University, 1947; Medal for Merit (Presidential Award), 1947; Distinguished Civilian Service Award, 1947; D.Sc. (Hon), University of Pennsylvania, 1950; D.Sc. (Hon), Harvard University, 1950; D.Sc. (Hon), University of Istanbul, 1952; D.Sc. (Hon), Case Institute of Technology, 1952; D.Sc. (Hon), University of Maryland, 1952; D.Sc. (Hon), Institute of Polytechnics, Munich, 1953; Medal of Freedom (Presidential Award), 1956; Albert Einstein Commemorative Award, 1956; Enrico Fermi Award, 1956; Member, American Academy of Arts and Sciences; Member, Academiz Nacional de Ciencias Exactas, Lima, Peru; Member, Acamedia Nazionale dei Lincei, Rome, Italy; Member, National Academy of Sciences; Member, Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences and Letters, Amsterdam, Netherlands; Member, Information Processing Hall of Fame, Infomart, Dallas TX, 1985.Yup, the posters herein are apt judges of Von Neumann. LOL!!

I had hoped to spre you the embarrassment but you persist.Dr. Robert Shapiro has disected every proposed theory of origins in his treatise by the semae name Origins. It is his and quoted colleagues that totally discount every theory so far advanced with hard number calculations. That is precisely why Shapiro has joined and written on the metaphysical concept of the Universal Life Force.Now he remains a hardened evolutionist no doubt about that and rejects Creation and ID in toto; but simply as a choice and not from any scientific evidence.. period.You fail to notice that a crash can occur which is a failure of the airline safety program and not a death. The death is outside the program and is age and health dependent. If you include ALL reported safety incidents in the industry which are a result of airline variables it is nowhere near Seven Sigma.Really ... if it were seven sigma the crashes would occur once every billion departures. Wikopedia says 10,000 per day currently. So we would have one airline accident with death every 100,000 days or 300 years. LOL!!!!! Even at Six SIgma its three accidents with death a year. LOL!!!You have provided exactly ZERO biological or even IT based random evolutionary examples unguided by human intellect.. period.

Error correcting memory tasks are not logged and error corrected hardware errors are not all logged only those that are so programmed.If you think every reread on a hard drive is logged you are very sadly mistaken.Your application is not a billion operations per second as far as I can see.If you weren't there and examined every log yourself you have no proof that a restart and rollback never occurred anyway its all very suspicious.I might add I was in the business for 25 years using about ten OS and never was such performance observed.And it sure didn't evolve by mutation and natural selection.