Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, PaulK (3 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,353 Year: 999/14,102 Month: 402/597 Week: 12/168 Day: 12/23 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Simplest Protein of Life
Coyote
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 38 of 281 (675627)
10-13-2012 1:56 PM


Time out for some evidence
I think at this point some evidence on genetic networks and how they are derived might be of help.

Here is an excellent on-line lecture: Making Genetic Networks Operate Robustly: Unintelligent Non-design Suffices, by Professor Garrett Odell (University of Washington).

Abstract: Mathematical computer models of two ancient and famous genetic networks act early in embryos of many different species to determine the body plan. Models revealed these networks to be astonishingly robust, despite their 'unintelligent design.' This examines the use of mathematical models to shed light on how biological, pattern-forming gene networks operate and how thoughtless, haphazard, non-design produces networks whose robustness seems inspired, begging the question what else unintelligent non-design might be capable of.


Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by zaius137, posted 10-14-2012 2:33 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 117 of 281 (675965)
10-17-2012 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-17-2012 9:19 PM


Turtles?
So it's turtles all the way down?

http://evolvingthoughts.net/2011/03/turtles-all-the-way-down


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 9:19 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-17-2012 10:22 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 189 of 281 (676331)
10-21-2012 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Alfred Maddenstein
10-21-2012 7:01 PM


Speaking of lost...
What you do in science is assume your opponent's proposal without reservations. After that you analyse all the logical implications and bring them into the extreme open for all to see.

One does not assume that a proposal in science is true. What we do is say something like "If A is correct, then we must see B and will not see C." Then we look for B and C and use that data to give us some idea if A is indeed correct. This can be called modeling or hypothesis testing.

This is the exact opposite of "assuming your opponent's proposal without reservations."

That is what the ID lot often do with your proposals and they succeed to make you cut a rather poor figure.

What the ID lot do is start with a conclusion (divine creation) and cherry-pick anything they can to support that conclusion, using a liberal dose of exaggeration, wishful thinking, ignorance of science, misrepresentation, fabrication, and outright lying. The lying part includes pretending that they are not the same folks who pushed creation "science" a few years earlier.

What you lot do instead is to keep propping up your own assumptions with equivocations and vague data. How stupid is that?

More likely with data.

As a scientist what use do I have for false data and errors? Science builds on a foundation going back to our beginnings, and half of our work is rooting out and correcting past errors, or expanding on existing theories to make them more accurate.

Creation science is the exact opposite; is it any wonder scientists have little use for it?

Edited by Coyote, : Correct improper formatting.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-21-2012 7:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Alfred Maddenstein, posted 10-22-2012 5:27 AM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 192 of 281 (676339)
10-22-2012 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:04 AM


New information
Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?

Snowflakes are purportedly all different. As such, the next snowflake that is examined and compared to previous ones provides information: either that snowflake is indeed different from all others on record, or it matches a previous one. Either way, this is information.

And it is not "guided" but happens according to the laws of chemistry and physics, etc.

I believe that this answers your question.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:04 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 892 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(3)
Message 195 of 281 (676344)
10-22-2012 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by ICANT
10-22-2012 12:31 AM


Re: New information
Put the goalposts back where they were!

You asked "Can you produce some information that was generated without a guided process?"

I showed you a picture that contains some information, whether you say yea or nay. You been whupped, boy!

There is no blueprint or genetic code that guides the growth of a snowflake, yet marvelously complex structures appear, quite literally out of thin air.

So? There are lots of things that constitute information that are not biological.

Clouds for example. Meteorologists can infer quiet a bit from the nature and behavior of clouds, and they too appear "quite literally out of thin air." If you see a funnel cloud ripping the ground up for a mile around and headed straight for you do you claim there's no information there or do you head in the opposite direction?

Geology is rife with examples of information that was generated without a guided process. Crystals, stalactites and stalagmites, shrinkage cracks in clay, and sand dunes all qualify. So do ripples and waves: I hear every afternoon on a local radio station reports on the height and frequency of waves. And on occasion I hear that so many hundredths of an inch of rain fell--important information for farmers and a lot of other folks.

All of these are examples of information that was generated without a guided process.

They are also off-topic.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:31 AM ICANT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by ICANT, posted 10-22-2012 12:52 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021