Quality Control the Gold Standard

Six Sigma is for human driven processes. If humans were driving evolution then you'd have a point, but we aren't. If it was a human process it would be. However I have written a program which replicates itself perfectly every time. It does this through checksum algorithms. The biological system is very good, but it isn't as perfect as a designed system. Which is good for us, because we wouldn't have evolved. I'd imagine a rigidly perfect quality control system would be selected out because life is best when it is adaptable. It is adaptable when it doesn't replicate perfectly.Ironically perhaps, airplane fatality rates are approaching 7 sigma levels, so its hardly undreamed of. Well of course not, one wouldn't want airplane designers to built real planes that get 'selected out' of the design circulation. However, evolutionary algorithms can simulate this process so no planes have to be lost. Its cheaper.Time and again, optimum results are found using evolutionary methods as inspiration. Funny that. Falsified. They wouldn't do it using real life product, but they would do it using simulations (which aren't cheap). Not all evolutionists accept abiogenesis. Many do, but not all. Simple replication has been acheived, but it is not the kind of replication that would truly class as life. It is a good step though.This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 08-February-2006 04:06 PM

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

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.

It may be the case that Shapiro is right, I've not read his work, but it would seem that not all authorities on the subject agree with him on that. Does your shaving lather produce ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids? Does it show signs of anything similar to cyclosis? I'm not aware of the Black and Decker class, is that related to the tool company? I didn't assume anything. I asked a question 'I take it you you haven't worked in any six sigma programs?' and continued with why I would think such a thing:

quote:

---

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.

---

I think I was pretty justified in thinking that you might have limited experience in the field based on what ou were saying. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd ask. Your assumption that I was assuming superior knowledge is unjustified as with all creationists martyr complexes. Anyone can say stuff like that Evopeach.So back to my point: A system that has self error-correcting mechanisms such as computer programs or DNA replication cannot be compared with systems that don't. Indeed, we know that if we design a self error-correcting replicating program it will have a higher sigma success than DNA replication. Why is DNA's error correction as bad as it is if it was designed?

Are you saying that a mainframe cannot replicate a program a billion times? 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. Several lines of code is all it would take. And any errors that are generated are handled and corrected. I'm not attempting to feed you crap, just demonstrate designed error handling is better than the ones we find in nature. 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?

Your comment has no relevance to my post. Did I ever mention deoxyribose, DNA or RNA? Lets see what I actually said: 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?

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.

---

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

So does oil produce polypeptides, nucleotides etc? Cyclosis? excitability? motility and conjugation? Does your oil/water mixture do all the things I have previously mentioned?If it does, publish it and the Swedes will review it.

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.