Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quality Control the Gold Standard
Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 136 of 238 (285641)
02-10-2006 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by nator
02-10-2006 1:40 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Main Entry: av·e·nue
Pronunciation: 'a-v&-"n, -"ny
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from feminine of avenu, past participle of avenir to come to, from Latin advenire -- more at ADVENTURE
1 : a way of access : ROUTE Accessing the public mind for instance.
Your post is a list of ACTIVITIES not avenues.
Precision in thought and word is quite important really... try harder.
Movies are an avenue of education and cultural change as is all state screen and sound.
As in Jarassic Park.. not Quark.
As in the hundreds of computer games, books and media forms presenting dinosaurs and cave men etc. and all things evolutionary.
Sorry no books for my grandkids on QM or Relativity.
See evolutionary theory is so non-mathmatical, so soft and squishey, no qualitative and plastic that people with no scientific training at all can be indoctrinated with out understanding tensor analysis or partial differential equations.
So every level of education from pre-school through college teaches science that assumes evolution is true and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
As to bad evolution being taught to people by creationists just where is that happening on anything other than a small scale.. certainly not in public schools, nor parochial schools nor in any collge at all.
Certainly not on TV documentaries, NOVA, sci-fi, A&E, NPR or any other outlet... that's 99.999% evolutionary based programming where science is concerned... period.
Those bad biology books and such are written by evos and reviewed by evos .. if the're bad its your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:40 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 5:03 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 149 by Rrhain, posted 02-12-2006 2:27 AM Evopeach has replied
 Message 153 by nator, posted 02-13-2006 4:44 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 137 of 238 (285646)
02-10-2006 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 2:12 PM


Re: References
No I'm looking at the Human Genome literature and a book published called exons entrons and ... which documents the results and history of same and about a dozen papers on the subject via google.
I am also looking at the net error rate after all repair mechanisms in the cell have performed their work.
If you can't read .. thats your problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 2:12 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 5:04 PM Evopeach has replied
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 02-11-2006 4:12 AM Evopeach has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 138 of 238 (285687)
02-10-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Going back off topic
As in the hundreds of computer games, books and media forms presenting dinosaurs and cave men etc. and all things evolutionary.
You've never heard of a little show called Star Trek?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:28 PM Evopeach has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 139 of 238 (285688)
02-10-2006 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 2:34 PM


Re: References
No I'm looking at the Human Genome literature and a book published called exons entrons and ... which documents the results and history of same and about a dozen papers on the subject via google.
I am also looking at the net error rate after all repair mechanisms in the cell have performed their work.
Right. And, in each of those sources, you're getting the substitution rate. We've been over this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 9:22 AM crashfrog has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 140 of 238 (285793)
02-11-2006 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 2:34 PM


Re: References
Hi Evopeach,
I think you must have missed the last paragraph of Message 128. It's an on-topic answer to your inquiry about the origin-of-life community's investigations into the possible evolutionary development of the modern cell's genetic machinery. It actually references Message 87, which you also missed.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:34 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 9:09 AM Percy has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 141 of 238 (285818)
02-11-2006 9:09 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Percy
02-11-2006 4:12 AM


Re: References
I would be interested in the paper if I had the reference.
Of course starting with rna de novo casts a long shadow as I suggest we can harly believe rna emerged by chance... its harly simple or crude.. just not up to the task it is asked to perform.
Was the experiment carried out in a primal environment or a very designed, protected and cultured one. If the latter were such conditions available in some pre-biotic setting to permit all those generations.. etc.
Still being the open minded type I'd like to read the details.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Percy, posted 02-11-2006 4:12 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 02-11-2006 9:49 AM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 142 of 238 (285820)
02-11-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
02-10-2006 5:04 PM


Re: References
So the rate that was measured or calculated from direct observations , etc. by the various scientific teams were just lucky. The rate they measured was by luck free of all other sources of error repeatedly so that their results wee only for one source and not the net effect of the cells operations including repair of many errors.. just not all.
How unfortunate that just by luck they were there when no other sources of error were occuring... many many times.
Do you you still have your mouseketeer ears?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 5:04 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Modulous, posted 02-11-2006 9:31 AM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2006 1:43 PM Evopeach has replied

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


Message 143 of 238 (285823)
02-11-2006 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Evopeach
02-11-2006 9:22 AM


substitutions
So the rate that was measured or calculated from direct observations , etc. by the various scientific teams were just lucky. The rate they measured was by luck free of all other sources of error repeatedly so that their results wee only for one source and not the net effect of the cells operations including repair of many errors.. just not all.
I don't think luck entered into it. I think they counted how many of the total mutations were substitutions, and how many were not substitutions, and calculated the frequency from that. Sounds fairly straightforward to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 9:22 AM Evopeach has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 144 of 238 (285828)
02-11-2006 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Evopeach
02-11-2006 9:09 AM


Re: References
The work I described was by Spiegelman back in the 1960s, and the original papers do not seem to be online. I was able to find this abstract to a more recent paper where Spiegleman was a co-author: RNA Replication: Required Intermediates and the Dissociation of Template, Product, and QP Replicase. It's closely related, but the work is 15 years more recent than what I described and seems to be much more narrowly focused.
You can also look into the work of Eigen, here's a link to an abstract for an article that appeared in Scientific American: The origin of genetic information.
Or you can look into the work of Szostak, for example Isolation of new ribozymes from a large pool of random sequences.
And there are many other researchers, of course. I just mentioned a few whose name I happened to run across while reading up about it. The point is that the origins of life community is very actively engaged in research. The concern that you stated back in Message 74 was that since primitive replicators are error prone, how could they have become the more accurate replicators in today's cell machinery? This is an area of active research.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 9:09 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 11:42 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 145 of 238 (285842)
02-11-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Evopeach
02-11-2006 9:22 AM


Re: References
So the rate that was measured or calculated from direct observations , etc. by the various scientific teams were just lucky. The rate they measured was by luck free of all other sources of error repeatedly so that their results wee only for one source and not the net effect of the cells operations including repair of many errors.. just not all.
I guess I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say. They stated out by wondering at what rate substitutions occured; they observed how many substitutions occured; then the reported the rate at which substitutions occured. Luck didn't have anything to do with it.
Then, you read a table of the rate at which substitutions occured, and assumed that substitutions accounted for all mutations that ever occur in nuclear mammalian DNA. And then when I pointed out your error, you started calling me names out of embarrasment. Seems pretty straightforward to me.
You've read a table of the rate of nuclear substitutions, and misunderstood it to refer to the general mutation rate of nuclear DNA. This error has been pointed out to you several times so far but you have refused to correct yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 9:22 AM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 11:38 PM crashfrog has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 146 of 238 (285924)
02-11-2006 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by crashfrog
02-11-2006 1:43 PM


Re: References
I just refer you to the book exond entron and genes the history of the Human Genome project among others. It was not a table it was a rather detail analysis of the subject. You are boring me with your equivocations so just drop it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2006 1:43 PM crashfrog has not replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 147 of 238 (285925)
02-11-2006 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Percy
02-11-2006 9:49 AM


Re: References
Yes he won the Nobel prize for taking a dead RNA section and putting into a nutrient environment of amino acids and seeing the dead RNA use the beitiens to make a virus that was alive in the sense that it could continue to replicate. All it needed was complete rna and the nutrients. Hmmm all it needed was rna.
Think about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Percy, posted 02-11-2006 9:49 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 11:44 PM Evopeach has not replied
 Message 151 by Percy, posted 02-12-2006 2:02 PM Evopeach has replied

Evopeach
Member (Idle past 6613 days)
Posts: 224
From: Stroud, OK USA
Joined: 08-03-2005


Message 148 of 238 (285926)
02-11-2006 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Evopeach
02-11-2006 11:42 PM


Re: References
I suggest you fellows and gals read Origins by Shapiro very carefully and then come back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Evopeach, posted 02-11-2006 11:42 PM Evopeach has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 149 of 238 (285932)
02-12-2006 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Evopeach
02-10-2006 2:28 PM


Re: Going back off topic
Evopeach writes:
quote:
Movies are an avenue of education and cultural change as is all state screen and sound.
Indeed, but the science in movies is typically piss poor. As we would say when Geordi came up with the "particle-of-the-week" that was causing trouble on the Enterprise, "Doubletalk generators at maximum, Captain."
quote:
As in Jarassic Park.. not Quark.
And people think that the scene of Jurassic Park really could come to pass when it's all a bunch of hooey.
quote:
As in the hundreds of computer games, books and media forms presenting dinosaurs and cave men etc. and all things evolutionary.
...except that paleontology shows us that dinosaurs and humans never existed at the same time.
quote:
See evolutionary theory is so non-mathmatical, so soft and squishey, no qualitative and plastic that people with no scientific training at all can be indoctrinated with out understanding tensor analysis or partial differential equations.
Incorrect. Evolutionary theory is heavily mathematical. It's why we have population biology. You need a heavy dose of statistical theory in order to be able to do it.
quote:
So every level of education from pre-school through college teaches science that assumes evolution is true and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
(*chuckle*)
When was the last time a pre-school class did any sort of biology? And since when did the typical high school biology class spend any real time on the subject? Quick: Which of us remember the evolution part of our high school bio class? Now, how many of us remember having to remember the steps of the Krebs cycle or vaguely remember the names of the organelles in the cell such as "Golgi apparatus" and "endoplasmic reticulum"? Most high school biology is concerned with the cell and dissection, not foundational concepts.
quote:
Certainly not on TV documentaries, NOVA, sci-fi, A&E, NPR or any other outlet
You really haven't watched all of those outlets, have you? Go turn on Discovery or the Learning Channel and just see how many programs they run regarding ghosts, astrology, and angels. Turn on SciFi and see how many programs about extraterrestrials and alien abductions show up. And since when did A&E become the Science Channel?
There are some good moments out there. It was good to see Discovery replay the Cosmos series and the Science Channel doesn't seem to fall prey to pseudoscience nearly as often, but they are niche-market channels. You wouldn't tune in unless you were already interested in the subject.
quote:
Those bad biology books and such are written by evos and reviewed by evos
BWAHAHAHA!
You really think the typical high school biology text was written by a biologist? Are you really that naive? High school textbooks are written by the publishers who know that unless they can convince Texas to buy the book, they aren't going to sell any of them.
And with the ex-governor of Texas claiming that "intelligent design" should be taught in public schools, what do you think those publishers are going to do?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Evopeach, posted 02-10-2006 2:28 PM Evopeach has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2006 12:57 PM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 156 by Evopeach, posted 02-13-2006 11:49 AM Rrhain has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 150 of 238 (285962)
02-12-2006 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by Rrhain
02-12-2006 2:27 AM


Re: Going back off topic
As we would say when Geordi came up with the "particle-of-the-week" that was causing trouble on the Enterprise, "Doubletalk generators at maximum, Captain."
Heh. My friends and I simply repeat what Giordi just said, only we substitute the word "pesudoscience" for every made up science word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Rrhain, posted 02-12-2006 2:27 AM Rrhain 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