Quality Control the Gold Standard

Solaris logs these. Rereads due to data errors are logged on solaris. In the case of corrections, the log reports whether the data was refreshed or was relocated to an alternate track. That depends on what is meant by "operation". For comparison with your assertions regarding base pairs, it ought to mean a 1-bit operation, whether setting, toggling or copying that one bit. Many 1-bit operations take place in each machine cycle. Incidently, the particular computer has two CPUs. I have examined each days logs on this machine from the time it was first installed.

Your mistake. That text is the author's signature text, which he has automatically appended to each post. It was not in any way a comment on the contents of your message.

---

I do not pupose to convince this group of the truth of my position but rather to counter the fairy tale of general evolution with a little logic and light and hope for the best.I see no counterpart of evolution in the universe and certainly not in life processes. I see no demonstration of abiogenesis, a viable first repliator, chemical predestination or any other theory yet proposed, demonstrated or thought of publically.All other observations are dependent on the true believer mentality and world view predispositions of your community.In short any resemblance between science and general evolution is illusory at best.Now as a resonably intelligent and technically literate person I look at the world about and see the most complex ordered and information rich collection of matter known.. the human brain and central nervous system.I see that absolutely no where at any time has any science been performed, any technology developed or progress made except when it was guided by the human brain.. not ever. We call the collection of knowledge, cognitive ability, consciousness and allied abilities "intelligence". I see that until this intellect is used to plan, design, implement, monitor and otherwsie hybridize onto matter that matter can never perform anything that requires organization, instructions, rules, principles and information processing ... not ever.I observe that every attempt to do such without intellectual involvement fails 100% of the time utterly and catistrophically.In no case have I ever seen or been factually informed of a single experimentally varifiable, repeatable example of matter , unaided by any intellectual input past or present operate counter to our collective real experience.Falsification it would seem is 100 years of abject failure to produce a single abiogenic experiment, a reliable replicator, a new phylum, a new species anything that in the slightest way supports the general theory of evolution that is quantitiative, experimentally reproducible and scientifically viable.Oh I forgot your true believer mentality and world view presuppose purely natualistic causes and you choose arbitrarily to define away any alternate explanations.

Then I take it signature text no matter how off target, insulting, out of context and valueless is admissible under forum rules.

Note that you are off topic. You should have raised this in the thread on moderation (see link below).Signatures are expected to be generic, therefore not related to the current topic. Insults are not welcome, and placing them is signatures does not excuse them.

---

Insulting signatures are not permitted. Signatures are intended to say something about the author or his point of view, not about the thread. They are inherently out of context most of the time. This is true of signatures at any discussion board. That's a matter of opinion. Sideline's signature is a quote from Richard Feynmann. You can find the fuller context of the quote at many places around the Internet, for example, at Mr. Feynman's Politics | Mises Institute.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

What connotation do you give to advantageous vs deletereous other than good or bad?I thought evolution referred to the gene pool in a large population rather than individuals. Thus the P53 gene and other causes for BC are ubiquitious throughout the female population by definition since about 16% of women will have BC by age 70.So unless some unknown, undefined, unquantifiable, unmeasureable, , constantly varying genetically related incidence of death causing mutation "threshold of frequency before reproducing" is crossed the mutation would not be selected against.Gosh I just love hard science. LOL

quote:

---

All other observations are dependent on the true believer mentality and world view predispositions of your community.

---

Evopeach, allow me to introduce you to Ms. Kettle. I see that you two have a lot to discuss.-

quote:

---

In no case have I ever seen or been factually informed of a single experimentally varifiable, repeatable example of matter , unaided by any intellectual input past or present operate counter to our collective real experience.

---

Of course you haven't. Because once a one such example is observed, it becomes part of our collective real experience. It is a tautology to say that no one will observe something that is counter to our collective real experience. This is the problem with your posts -- they are meaningless just like this statement.-

quote:

---

Falsification it would seem is 100 years of abject failure to produce ... a new species....

---

You see, this is another problem with your posts -- you make completely factually incorrect statements like this. In fact, new species have been observed. Even creationists admit this.-

quote:

---

In no case have I ever seen or been factually informed of a single experimentally varifiable, repeatable example of matter , unaided by any intellectual input past or present operate counter to our collective real experience.

---

When you're done calling the kettle names, get back to me on making an actual logical argument concerning your OP.I will repeat your points of the OP:(1)The DNA replication process includes mechanisms for error checking and correction. These mechanisms are highly efficient.You need to include some sort of criterion for judging whether something is "highly efficient", and that criterion should be somewhat relevent to the point that you are making.(2)This mechanism could only be the result of conscious design by an intelligent entity. Again, you have included no deductive logical steps to justify this conclusion beyond your own incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.When you feel capable of making a logical argument beyond your own personal incredulity, willful ignorance of the current state of scientific research in these matters, and gratuitous insults to those who do not agree with you, please come back.Edited to include the last several paragraphs.This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 08-Feb-2006 10:00 PM

---

"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 no one can observe and analyze the presentation of new knowledge presented as novel and not a part of collective experience because the instant it is discovered it becomes an accepted part of the collective accepted body of knowledge and experience.SO thats whay evolution can never be falsified no matter what evidence is presented ... Wow I'm sure glad you cleared that up. LOLBeam her back up Scotty she's overdue for a telepathic meal from her home planet Zazbot.So maybe you could show me a wolf turning into a whale some saturday afternoon.

I'd really like to join this discussion, it feels like one that should be right up my alley, but when it came down to finding a specific post or subissue to respond to I couldn't find one. The more I read the more uncertain I became about what this thread is discussing. But I see lots of discussion so I figure everyone else must know what this thread is about. So someone please help me out here. Is this thread about the unlikelihood of abiogenesis? Or is it about the unlikelihood of evolution being able to produce sufficient change to account for life's diversity? Something else? What?Thanks in advance! --Percy

I presumed it was about what was in the OP, about how engineers would "never" use mutation and selection in the process of design.After that was rebutted with examples of engineers doing exactly that, EP didn't see fit to continue that discussion. At this point he seems mostly content to call people names and then call "foul" against imagined infractions by his opponents.

When you can stop committing the fallacy of restating peoples posts in language contrived to fit your own arguments please fell free to come back.I have yet to see a logical argument advanced in any of your posts.Lets see you illustrate a new species which is the step by step genetic alteration by random mutation and natural selection of a genome in a population of organisms that reproduces over many generations until the possibility is zero that the original population members and the new population members engage in sexual reproduction or is never successful in the sense that the resulting offspring is always, dead, aborts or is sterile. Please no hypothetical viruses or bacteria or panspermatically delivered space bugs. I want out of the lab non-contrived naturally occurring speciation exclusive of radiated fruitflys with twelve heads.Get it.. naturally occuring is the operative phrase.

So I'd be on-topic if I started talking about genetic algorithms? Or would that be redundant now?--Percy

Sure,The debate is intended to ague whether the random mutation and natural selection processes of evolution are consistent with the Seven Sigma quality performance of the human cell and associated organelles in replicating the human genome ie, 1-3 errors per billion base pairs in the genome.Given that the best a few million manhours and dollars invested by quite intelligent people is six sigma in a few isolated cases both mfgt and admin in nature using our collective knowledge of all things scientific and technical ... how could anyone logically believe that an unguided random process could achieve a thousand fold improvement observed every day in biology when there is not a scintilla of repeatable scientific experimentally deriverd data to illustrate such a developmental sequence of events.

quote:

---

When you can stop committing the fallacy of restating peoples posts in language contrived to fit your own arguments please fell free to come back.

---

Well, if you could write a post that makes your point in a clear manner, then maybe this wouldn't be necessary for others to try to restate it.Since I am clearly a moron, why don't you try to explain the point of your OP?Your OP seems to state that you feel that the error correcting mechanisms in DNA replication are amazingly efficient. Is this correct or incorrect? If this is incorrect, what are you trying to say about DNA error correction mechanisms?Your OP seems to state that a designer must have created this mechanism. Is this correct? If not, what is it that you are trying to say about these correction mechanisms?Try to explain your point to us simpletons. I know that this is a pain for a super genius like you, but please humor 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