Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 76 of 238 (285153)
02-09-2006 9:23 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:00 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
Your premise is wrong. The IBM family of OS for mainframes as well as everyother OS in teh last 25 years has error correcting code and yet the average number of patches to fix bugs is about 25 per month.
Are you saying that a mainframe cannot replicate a program a billion times?
Ever hear of the Blue Screen. Of course if you write 100% perfect code that never has a bug... I'd like to introduce you to Bill Gates.. because he sure as he-- doesn't.
Why on earth would one need to complicate life with an OS that is designed for the kind of thing windows is? Why not a basic UNIX kernal running one program, the one that replicates itself, checks replication was successful, runs the second copy of itself which deletes the original version.
The error rate in generated code or hand written code is much greater than one error in a billion operations.
Several lines of code is all it would take. And any errors that are generated are handled and corrected.
Again I spent 25 years in that business so please don't feed me that sort of cr--.
I'm not attempting to feed you crap, just demonstrate designed error handling is better than the ones we find in nature.
One answer is that the original creation and design were perfect and then it was corrupted by say the introduction of mutation causing agents or by a slight alteration to the copying apparatus so it became imperfect. (In fact that was the claim made in Genesis)
So the designer designed something that wasn't able to handle things? Do you have any evidence of this? What would we look for to find it? What agents might have this kind of affect? Why would this have such an affect as to not get corrected by the perfect correction mechanism?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:00 AM Evopeach has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 77 of 238 (285154)
02-09-2006 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:17 AM


microspheres
PLease no proteinoid or any Fox stuff ever resembled a cell, made deoxyribose, DNA, RNA or anything else
Your comment has no relevance to my post. Did I ever mention deoxyribose, DNA or RNA? Lets see what I actually said:
My shaving lather has bubbles that meld, bud etc. its not related to biologic cells.
Does your shaving lather produce ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids? Does it show signs of anything similar to cyclosis?
Nope, didn't say anything about DNA or RNA. It looks to me like I mentioned ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids as well as a process that resembles cyclosis. Care to respond to my actual post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:17 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 10:19 AM Modulous has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 78 of 238 (285155)
02-09-2006 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:00 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
So, how is machine code like self raplicating molecules? The error routines for operatins systems check data integrety, yes. It even has some error correcting. However, right now, the O/S code does not write itself. You are making a bad analogy there.
O/S Code is not self replicating itself. It is not writing itself. There lies the difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:00 AM Evopeach has not replied

U can call me Cookie
Member (Idle past 4953 days)
Posts: 228
From: jo'burg, RSA
Joined: 11-15-2005


Message 79 of 238 (285156)
02-09-2006 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 5:37 PM


mutation rate
Yet in life the error rate in replicating the DNA molecule is about one mistake in a billion base pairs.
It seems you've been operating with a little bit of a straw-man here.
The estimate you give as a mutation rate i.e. 10E-9, is not only outdated, but is also specific only to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).
Nowadays, a working estimate is taken to be around 10E-8. This also fluctuates depending on location (eg. areas of high recombination) and sequence content (eg. GC islands). NB. this is only for SNPs.
SNPs, however, are not the only forms of mutation out there.
The mutation rates for microsatellites (STRs) are much higher, ranging from 10E-3 to 10E-4. The mutation rates for Chromosomal rearrangements also fall within this range.
Thus, on average, mutation rate is substantially HIGHER than the estimate you provided.
It might also be (though I could be wrong, here) that lethal mutations - ones who cause spontaneous abortions - are not even reflected in the above estimates, making them lower estimates.
While i don't know much (if anything) about the sigma system, it seems biological systems do not have sigma 7 status.
PS. Dude, the acid-spitting, to me, is pretty unecessary. People don't agree with you; so what? It doesnt, override the duty to one's self to maintain civilty.
EDIT: Lower changed to HIGHER. stupid mistake.
This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 02-10-2006 01:16 AM
This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 02-10-2006 03:53 AM

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 5:37 PM Evopeach has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2006 1:14 PM U can call me Cookie has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 80 of 238 (285167)
02-09-2006 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:00 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
Evopeach writes:
Your premise is wrong. The IBM family of OS for mainframes as well as everyother OS in teh last 25 years has error correcting code and yet the average number of patches to fix bugs is about 25 per month.
Hopefully this is just misexpressed. Hardware error correcting codes and software patches are not related in the way you imply here. Such codes have nothing to do with software bugs. I've been praying for years for the "do what I mean, not what I said" correcting code, but alas, in vain.
Seriously, you do understand that hardware error correcting codes are for correcting data read from media like DVDs and hard drives or transmitted across some types of internal buses. They do not correct software bugs. There is no such thing as correcting codes for software bugs. The best that can be done is when the error becomes fatal to raise an exception that calls a routine that attempts recovery. These recovery routines can be quite sophisticated, and many software packages include their own recovery routines, but just the same, there are no correcting codes for software bugs.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:00 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 10:24 AM Percy has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 81 of 238 (285169)
02-09-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
02-09-2006 9:27 AM


Re: microspheres
Sure show me one authenticated paper peer reviewed that experimentally demonstrates the formation of a Fox protenoid or protocell that evolves into ATP or a nucleic acid used in life processes? LOL
There was no resemblance between Fox stuff and a real cell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 9:27 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 02-09-2006 11:50 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 82 of 238 (285170)
02-09-2006 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Percy
02-09-2006 10:06 AM


Re: Six Sigma isn't a good comparison
Surely you understand that I/O routines and comunications routines and screen handlers etc. are part of the OS and do incorporporate error correcting code as well as memory correcting code implanted as firmware.
I am not implying the code itself is rewritten on the fly although thats a possibility that may be out there but I am not aware of it in practice.
Anyway you are not commenting on the challenge presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 10:06 AM Percy has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 83 of 238 (285171)
02-09-2006 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 9:13 AM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Evopeach writes:
Mutation is the only mechanism evolution has as raw material for changing the genome from the current pre-rna first replicator which would have been highly error prone step by step pair by pair into the genome and cellular machinery that operates at the 7 sigma level.
This is very difficult to parse, but I'll give it a shot.
First, I agree the early replicators were more error prone. This has been established in the lab where primitive RNA replicators have been constructed and evolved. Selection mechanisms quickly improve the accuracy.
But pre-life and early life are also thought to have traded, swapped and exchanged genetic material much more freely than modern cells currently do. And cells which consume other cells can end up also acquiring some of the genetic material. Invasive forms like viruses inject genetic material into cells that take it up into their own genetic machinery.
Sexual life has even more mechanisms for modifying the genome, since the allele frequency of a population can vary over time without a single mutation ever surviving.
So you would be incorrect to state that "Mutation is the only mechanism".
How quickly did the evolutionary mechanism get from a very high error rate to the near perfect current error rate?
Quickly enough to be consistent with the trilobite eye in fast forward evolutionary time?
I don't know. Life spent the first several billion years doing pretty much the same thing. I expect that the collective genome of life on earth was gradually building up variation and complexity until it reached the point around 700 or 800 million years ago when the first multicellular life forms began appearing. It is possible that the replication accuracy increased gradually over this period, but how would we ever know?
Are the assumptions of evolutionary mutation rates and the so called fossil record of evolving organisms internally consistant in consideration of avail time periods?
If so, how unless the rates are estimatred or assumed constant or undefined so they can be set to whatever is required to explain what is observed in evolutionary terms.
Are you trying to say the measured rates are insufficient to support observed evolution? Or are you saying the estimated rates are fabricated to give correct results? Or are you saying something else?
Whatever you're saying, raising the possibility is not the same as making the case. You haven't made any case yet.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 9:13 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 10:52 AM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 84 of 238 (285176)
02-09-2006 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Percy
02-09-2006 10:30 AM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Reading your post is illuminating in the sense it is consistent with all evolutionary explantions...90% I don't know, unmeasured, unquantifiable assertions about the unobservable past, just so and what if and maybe statements without a scintilla of evidence and highly improbable of occuring by any standard.
For instance explain in detail the selective mechanism that operated on the pre rna to the rna etc that resulted in a "quick" move to a more reliable replicator. Assertions are not science.
Besides your post simply begs the question which was how do higly error prone early replicators ever evolve into the current state of seven sigma operation by evolutionary mechanisms?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 10:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 11:56 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 99 by NosyNed, posted 02-09-2006 1:16 PM Evopeach has replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 85 of 238 (285183)
02-09-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 1:52 PM


Re: Red Herring Master
I might add I was in the business for 25 years using about ten OS and never was such performance observed.
You must have used shitty hardware then. The scenario that nwr laid out is common and I have witnessed it many times. I have seen a pegged file server stay up with no syslog errors other than network related for over 2 years. A power outage finally took it out or I am confident it would still be continuously running today.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 1:52 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 11:58 AM Jazzns has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 86 of 238 (285189)
02-09-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 10:19 AM


Re: microspheres
Sure show me one authenticated paper peer reviewed that experimentally demonstrates the formation of a Fox protenoid or protocell that evolves into ATP or a nucleic acid used in life processes? LOL
Metabolism of proteinoid microspheres, Nakashima T.
quote:
The literature of metabolism in proteinoids and proteinoid microspheres is reviewed and criticized from a biochemical and experimental point of view. Closely related literature is also reviewed in order to understand the function of proteinoids and proteinoid microspheres. Proteinoids or proteinoid microspheres have many activities. Esterolyis, decarboxylation, amination, deamination, and oxidoreduction are catabolic enzyme activities. The formation of ATP, peptides or oligonucleotides is synthetic enzyme activities. Additional activities are hormonal and inhibitory. Selective formation of peptides is an activity of nucleoproteinoid microspheres; these are a model for ribosomes. Mechanisms of peptide and oligonucleotide syntheses from amino acids and nucleotide triphosphate by proteinoid microspheres are tentatively proposed as an integrative consequence of reviewing the literature.
There was no resemblance between Fox stuff and a real cell.
Well that's your opinion, and not one shared by many authorities on the issue:
quote:
. Intensive study of the properties of the protein microspheres by many different protobiochemists have revealed that, while they are definitely not full-blown modern living cells, they exhibit many of the properties of living cells, including membrane structures with semipermeable properties, enzymatic activity associated with various metabolic reactions, synthesis of protein linkages as well as nucleic acid linkages, growth, excitability (neuro-electric phenomena similar to those in nerve cells), motility and conjugation (Fox, 1981a; 1984; Peterson, 1985).
source

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 10:19 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 12:11 PM Modulous has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 87 of 238 (285192)
02-09-2006 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Evopeach
02-09-2006 10:52 AM


Re: Hey, can I play?
Evopeach writes:
Reading your post is illuminating in the sense it is consistent with all evolutionary explantions...90% I don't know, unmeasured, unquantifiable assertions about the unobservable past, just so and what if and maybe statements without a scintilla of evidence and highly improbable of occuring by any standard.
That's just unsupported assertion. Could you provide some specific examples to support your claims?
For instance explain in detail the selective mechanism that operated on the pre rna to the rna etc that resulted in a "quick" move to a more reliable replicator. Assertions are not science.
One experiment performed by the origins of life community involved putting primitive RNA replicators into a beaker of raw materials, such as amino acids and so forth. These primitive RNA replicators were fairly error prone, so changes accumulated very quickly, and the replication process was not very fast. After being in the beaker for a fixed time period, say 30 minutes, they extracted the most successul replicators and put them in a new beaker of raw materials for 30 minutes. They did this again and again, and in a relatively short time, I'm not sure how long, maybe 20 or 30 cycles, they had evolved an RNA that was very fast and highly accurate. If you'd like references to the paper I could probably find out for you.
Besides your post simply begs the question which was how do higly error prone early replicators ever evolve into the current state of seven sigma operation by evolutionary mechanisms?
I assume it would happen through some equivalent selection process to the experiment I just described. The fastest most accurate replicators win the competition for resources and get to produce more of themselves.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 10:52 AM Evopeach has not replied

Jazzns
Member (Idle past 3912 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


Message 88 of 238 (285194)
02-09-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Evopeach
02-08-2006 5:04 PM


Re: Red Herring Master
So maybe you could show me a wolf turning into a whale some saturday afternoon.
This would be an act of special creation and thus not evolution at all.

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Evopeach, posted 02-08-2006 5:04 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Evopeach, posted 02-09-2006 12:01 PM Jazzns has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 89 of 238 (285195)
02-09-2006 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jazzns
02-09-2006 11:28 AM


Re: Red Herring Master
I don't respond to crude talking trashmouth posts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jazzns, posted 02-09-2006 11:28 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Jazzns, posted 02-09-2006 12:53 PM Evopeach has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6614 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 90 of 238 (285197)
02-09-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jazzns
02-09-2006 11:58 AM


Re: Red Herring Master
Actually a placental prehistoric wolf is the most popular candidate for the direct ancestor of the whale ... that is if you care to read the current literature.
Not the hair of my chinny chinny chin... I'll spout and I'll spout til I drown you out.
LOL!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jazzns, posted 02-09-2006 11:58 AM Jazzns has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Jazzns, posted 02-09-2006 12:52 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 95 by Admin, posted 02-09-2006 12:55 PM Evopeach 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