Quality Control the Gold Standard

I have not ever personally attacked you.On the other hand, your topic subtitles have been nothing but statements about what morons your opponents are. The RNA replicators I'm familiar with have no error rates, which is what makes them not living things. It's the errors that are crucial - yes, even though some of them are fatal - to the evolution of living things. Probably most of them wouldn't. If you're under the impression that the history of living things is anything but the record of a vast amount of death, you're sadly misinformed.

Evopeach And yet here they are. Living organisms obeying the laws of thermodynamics and probability. There is nothing in the laws of probability or thermodynamics that preclude the existence of living organisms. As you said yourself they are "aggregations of elementary parts" and they happen to follow the laws of probabilty and thermodynamics. Living organisms are only complicated because they embody a vast array of these elementary particles under many different conditions. Since the elementary particles obey the laws it is unremarkable that living organisms should also.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

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.

It has a lot to do with it. 3.4 DPMO applies to human orientated activities. It is used in nano science to help balance manufacturing and design defects. One can apply six sigma to anything one wants but the 3.4 DPMO is the holy grail for human orientated activities. I'm fairly sure I was discussing airline fatalities. I can assure you they are approaching 7 sigma... I think it is about 6.4. I can't find an online source to give the exact figure, but my source is Paul Keller, here is an excerpt from an article about it

quote:

---

Early in the text, Keller points out that a successful Six Sigma level project implementation will produce fewer than 4 defects per million opportunities, an opportunity being any situation in which an error can occur. In the case of an airline, that error could be loss of your luggage. Luggage handling is currently rated at three sigma, which amounts to about 67,000 defects per million opportunities. Obviously, you would spend less time waiting for your luggage if airlines enhanced their luggage handling practices. A single-level move -- to four sigma -- would reduce the defects per million to 6500, a very significant improvement. Of course, the airline sigma level for fatalities in the airline industry is above six sigma, at less than one defect per million opportunities.

---

Right, it was designed. That's the point. A designed error correcting process can be perfect, why does this system you propose as looking designed (biology) have imperfect replication. No it isn't. By applying simple chemistry to amino acids, microspheres form which engage in rudimentry replication. Agreed. So let's neither of us do this. Despite the fact that you have been provided with examples of this very thing? Are you assuming it hasn't in spite of the evidence? Perhaps you just need more. What about a NASA example?This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 08-February-2006 06:11 PM

None of the papers that I have seen that come out of the major schools (and "Patriot University" is not a major school, by the way) has ever implied that there must be an intelligent designer.Maybe you can enlighten me with the results of your, um, research.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

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'm not sure why that would matter.The particular system I had in mind is a server that handles email, DNS lookups, a database manager, many student logins per day, much compiling of C and C++ programs by students. That seems to be a tad more than "OS routines". The particular system has ECC memory (error correcting). The operating system (solaris) logs hardware errors. There have been no such errors logged during the stated period (396 days).There have, of course, been minor software errors, such as students running buggy C++ programs. Your insults were unwarranted.

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.

Nobody in this debate has suggested that von Neumann was not a scientist, not that he did not understand probability theory. Nobody has suggested that von Neumann is a moron, in spite of the subtitle you used on Message 20.

---

Hi! How is this relevant exactly? I take it you haven't worked in six sigma programs? One doesn't go to a company, count all the defects, all the opportunities and leave it at that. You look at individual scenarios. Airline fatality is one thing. If each fatality costs the airline $x (both directly (Compensation) and indirectly (losing customers) it would be wise to keep those figures down and measure it using DPMO.Of course, there is always dispute over DPMO as a measuring device, and some companies shun it entirely, but we're not doing that here are we? Since we are comparing biology with something that would be silly. I have shown you evolutionary systems being used to design various things because evolutionary systems are better than human design in many cases.

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.

Relevant because you proclaim Sidny Fox' protenoids , and soap bubbles to life replicators when Shapiro destroys any efficacy (and many othere have as well) of his work to real cell and replication.My shaving lather has bubbles that meld, bud etc. its not related to biologic cells.In other words your airline calculation is totally erroneous and you acknowledge it.Actually , I went theough the Black and Decker Sig Sigma class and am in charge of a Six Sigma blended learning program at my college although I do not teach it I made it happen.Actually one does measure the voice of the process by scaling the design predictions or actual operating results stage by stage from a statistically significant random data sample. A hundred over three shifts would be over kill.Your assumption of superior knowledge is unjustified as with all evo super egos.

Try messsage 32 of 42."But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time"Since Von Neimann was the only person under discussion why is this not directed at him?

Nor is the subject of your OP about human built computer systems.Your argument is this:DNA replication in the human cell involves error checking and correction mechanisms which may or may not be efficient depending on what we decide to determine efficient.Therefore, by a magical wave of the hands, only an Intelligent Designer could have been responsible.So let's cut to the chase. Why are you so impressed with DNA replication that you immediately conclude there is a designer?Oh, sorry. I forgot. Your a priori assumption is that there is a designer, and now you are trying to find something you consider fantastic to try to convince the rest of us.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Evopeach Let's see. I disagree with Von Neumann on the statement he makes and you respond curtly with his curriculum vitae. However you then do the same thing yourself and no problem right?Since you are fond of quotes and such let take a contemporary of von Neumanns shall we? ``...it doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are - if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.''
Richard P. FeynmanDo you happen to know Feynman's C.V.?Does you have experimental verification peer reviewed and replicable?

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.