|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Building life in a lab - Synthetic Biologists | ||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards.
It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future. I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Why dont you ask me?
Do you have a problem with that? Kant page 63
quote:p63 Introduction to logic. "translation" indicates determination rathter than a prior reflectivity you may hold to unawares by me that I would guess is needed if you are not convicted to respond but only not persuaded. If you were trying to ajudge if to be persuaded by me or not then why did you ask someone other than me to answer WHILE responding TO ME???????????????????? You do not need to agree with (me etc)on a common assent in the dissent on the descent of man or not but give a few cents about the decent sent a taste for it rejoins on EVC please already sent and I am holding you to it. This is not a fire. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 12:45 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
This does not refer to a "source" but a "utility". They are not the same. Please give me something about either a part of that post or who "YOU" as in "we" you already posted are. What do you believe.
Do you really think that issues in quantum entanglement have NOTHING to do with ecological science? etc etc etc. Of course it made sense. I dont know which part you cant on your own enlarge on.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
You said previously
quote: I am afraid you would need to investigate this point further. I had saidIt is completely cognizable that if ID ushers in a differen event for the synthetic biologist that ID contains a social environment LARGER than the current lab paradigm that drives, let one say, nanotech onwards. It is going towards this area whether ID is true or if non-believers create a collopased ecological web in the future. I hope you sense and realize that it takes LONGER than the areas'daily work week to pursue the consequences of positing God(if) and calling THAT a day, while it only takes a day's worth of work to work for the same day. Good day. This time is not indeterminate even if the thought IS.
Time is not space. The position of communicable thought is. One can be a synthetic biologist and a creationist. In fact it is probably EASIER for that to happen but not in the current research environment of US unis. LauraG wrotequote: We need to differentiate natural products from purposed nanotech biologicals. Pleae investigate the artifical selection of it all else ask a particular in response. I was surprised how wimpy the evcers responded to what it might be imagined that we will evolve our-selves into. It seems you and I would do better discussing the object of this topical objective in that threa d where less would be at stake. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:12 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Ok- but I did take some "offense" to your USING the term "biology".
That is water under this bridge. I take it then that you would be against the "logic" ofDifficult Questions. Thoughtful Answers. | RZIM but more in tune with Gould's Magesteria concept?? Gould's crack in a church vault/spandrel
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Great, I guess.
I would only like to note that Ravi HEARD Polkinghornein the UK and I agree with the latter when not also the former on Gould's use of architeture IN BIOLOGY(analogically). I think nanotech can change things but that only time will tell. DIVINE ACTION: AN INTERVIEW WITH JOHN POLKINGHORNE This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-28-2005 01:56 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
You suggested
quote: How do you repose with the following information-?
quote:The Institute for Creation Research If creationists put out the tears it seems that the years will bring something other than "none".
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
Iano, someone's got to answer.
Look at how confused they got in BioScience (Aug 2005, vol 155 no 8)quote: Mayr needed to have said this to me in 88 if he didnt really want to respond to my question. I am glad he finally got it out. Now Henry Morris in Back to Genesis 201 clearly puts a question at the difference of synthetic biology from rocks or water. I think this is the correct division (hydro- vs hydrophobic) AND as he correctly indicates, it seems to me, is that the issue is a metabolism EITHER by catalysis or replication. LauraG has indicated that IF replication WERE done what would it change? I dont see you responding. I think it would change the relative amount of cyclic vs acyclic causal graph representations but because recursivity might be applied different first in rocks or out and then in catalytic structures or not (perhaps without retaining an ultimate division of ultimate and proximate biology without self-replications being referred to etc) it seems that Creationists could respond to changes either in creationist circles or out differently. Someone will respond if not just because some one will do it. Some one has cloned. What's next? I havent been able to locate this B->G but I got it already via snail mail. I guess I am just not used to ICR's new site.The Institute for Creation Research
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
If ID can self explain itself in terms of this FORM then it doesnt matter that they get the probabilistic constiuents wrong. time tolls and tools... But if this is not taught as "science" then it would have to be that math""(what goes for it even in some "higher" schools) is not 'empirical'. Kitcher has written a book challenging that.
I have gone from a thought where I used to actually assume that logical propositions DO interpret as being about forms to clear thoughts about what the consituents of the forms the propostions form are. I guess this kind of evidence is not what you are asking for Theus. It is interesting to trace in set theory and logic how Russell’s use of propositional functions have been depreicated.
quote:page 239 in Logic and Knowledge . This series of lectures was given in 1918 at Gordon Square London.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
the "rim" is geodesic & the reference punts to physical teleology denied by BEST"" elite philosophy of biology as not necessary.
Sure something can be sufficient but not necessary. If the rim is a geodesic it might be necessary also. It is a lot harder to imagine the spherical symmetry in Russell's view on perception but I'll bet a discontinuous aggregate might demand such a one and would answer your questions a bit better.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
creation and evoltion thinking is not hard. One just has to have the mind for it. I guess it is becoming more the norm that two posters want to post the same thought at the same time as we are getting quite good on evc in the facts.
It is taking me some time to get a good handle or hook on your posting so it might take a few days to a week say before I really start in on your rather voluminous recent amounts of posts. I needed to say something to LauraG so as to try to keep this thread in its own weave. You seem to be presenting enough details to enable me to push my own converstation here on evc further. as for spoke and hub well it seems that one synthetic biologist might try to be Aristophanes' tailor. Plato wrotequote:from Plato's Symposium. Let's eat!
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote: quote: AEA, dont think I dont know how to play the glass bead game. here is the link that I did not get in in time as it was not on-line at the time The Institute for Creation Research
quote: The question is what would change for the creationists given the existence of synthetic biology. Yes, it is indeed true that the two model approach c/e or e/c etc leads to "seperate and distinct tools" given our currently original science and thus "these scientists know" as you said, but as Henery Morris was reporting there has been a change IN THE SCIENCE from a tendency to look into waters to looking into rocks. You may feel free to think that this reporting is just playing into ICR rated hands and feel free to so comment. I also assume that this is the STATE of origin/synthetic biology research as I have not found Dr. Morris to misreport BUT one must also understand that the consensus science that appears in front of creationist speakers IS science that matters first and mostly only for different positions being taken by creationists themselves, scientists, as you said. Using the case of TIME is just NOT what is relevant in this thread as the issue is where practical results will substitute for where ethical invariances currently reside, unless the times were correlated for anyone to see to actual chemical rxns in or out of water or in or out of rocks. Why cant we see someone next saying all this is in the atmosphere? or deep space?? By filtering through what IS creationist product in Dr. Morris well takeable article I can not conclude that "debate" starts AFTER consensus science finds contra evidence, we have NO IDEA"" on origins really but we do know or could know where the labs are or will be that are trying to make synthetic life, and the TOOLS themselves will not be seperable in the sense we are discussing. It is true that they "are" seperable to the extent that ICR can START GENE
quote:link The Institute for Creation Research but it is how the research will be done and what other reasearch it entails (much like RATEI->RATEII) that pudding is proof of or QED has been defined and presented for the seperation you wrote. Think of it as a priority QUEUE not a check board!!!!!!!!!! This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 08:43 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
quote:Page Not Found: 404 Not Found - I am maintaining propositionally, that this strategy, as cited in the opening link above "engineering strategies" ARE NOT sufficient where current ethical concerns are concerned. I also think that creationist who might work with the same tools/resources COULD end up with DIFFERENT enginerring structures. It is true that it seems more likely that making DNA Computers might not come from creationists to begin with but these applications which DO abstract computer strategies etc into life only bear on implementations of secondary applications in biology unless some notion of what synthetic life really was is. As I see the literature there is consistent writing that creationists did not forsee the exisitence of poorly desinged shapes in organsims, ("why cant god produce mal formed things on purpose?") and that what will change is the perception of consensus scientists that this was really only an adaptive oversight on the part of non religous folk and those that later agreed the modern evolutionary synthesis entialed a "hardening" of adaptationism etc. I could be wrong but I do see changes in the creationist work accompanying changes in evos sociality not the other way around. Evos seem to change if forced but not willingly. Of course this is sort of guessing the future for there are many science criticisms of just such attempts to build life with current mole bio tools and fix disease that way. It plays rather into macroeconomic concerns than the ethical ones that the original question in this thread remands. If you think that creationism can not rewrite our understanding of "current genetic code" then simply think about the difference of stack (LIFO vs FIFO) abstracted by an array vs a linked list. I guess it is all just par for the course. This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 09:27 AM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
As long as there is some original mystery it is not possible to seperate origin from rates of change since any supposed starting point preCISEly due to the size derivable from Weyl's
quote: Thus while we can be in basic data agreement, as I do believe you and I are, unless you are, inaddition to be a seperatist of the Gouldian variatey etc, you are a FISHERIST or an HALDANIST (IE NOT A CROIZATIST etc) there is no way to CHOOSE a graphical seperation of TOE and ABIOG(enisis) as is discussed NOT ingernal IN THIS THREAD but remands in the blue-print or whatever color scheme is used in reconstuction of any proposed dissection. The dissection is not the section of seperation even if metadata be stored methodically. The gene point and the point physics are not textually seperated anymore in this discussion, hypothetically. I personally think that evergreen seeds fall to the sun and angiosperm seeds fall to the earth but hey, that is just me. Cognitive dissonace is irrelavant. It is how you think of deceptive evolution individually (Fire flies out blinking other fire flies, do plants really have neuroendocrinological valences etc). The theory of evolution deals with synthetic biology in so far as there are or we can delimit the limits of natural selection BY artifical selection. If you are a Fisherist you will not think necessarily that fitness and the second law of thermo are more than kissing cousins, otherwise you might make sure you are not within kissing distance of this idea. This is not a matter of belief, in so far as I have analyzed it properly but only about the d-sep tests that distiguish cases of acyclic and cyclic representations so pre-printed before the tests contra morality ensue or were already violated. The more viscous nature of the science in creationism is less likely to cause this violation prima facie as relevant inter thread alia. But as for the degree of incredulity one might sense at first, and sometimes with first hand experience, moving OFF the topic in this particular thread,"recent, supernatural creation" has to be taken as the three words that it WAS not as is 'read' readability included. Ruse for instance refused to admit that there was a difference of terms "creation science " and "scientific creationism". There just is. Thus his more general sympathy, say with DS WILSON etc , towards the social nature of creationism IS LOST MENTALLY in such writings of e/c simply by failure to locate the group involved. I admit I am not a dillitant of creationism and am likely to step on some creationistic mice now and then but I am ready to be corrected on that. What you say here does not seem to indicate what you think will change if a cloned human population were made on Mars. Instead you seem be thinking that "no change" from creationism (as they aready said it was "supernatural") as iano said and yet there is so much writing between the two of yous such that I cant see how what both of you say has anything to do with the time when the "recent" becomes "now". Is that too thick or can that be thought by you? Agains you say "philosophy" but it would be "Scientific Creationism" rather than "creation science" on my reading if ICR's GENEs dominate the genomic influence(the origin of genetic information) of baraminologists on general directions within research stratgies to be engineered, hopefully with proper controls, both inside and outside secular research universities. Quote from PHILOSOPHY OF MATHEMATICS AND NATURAL SCIENCE by Hermann Weyl This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-02-2005 05:34 PM
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5023 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I messed up my trees!
I had actually thought the angiosperm goes to the sun not the evergreens.
This might invert some perimeter a meter or so, so it might matter but I have not found anyone reading my own posts as closely as I do. The trees between Oxford and Cambridge are way too straight. Iguess the earth got in my way.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024