Re: The HP Way


John Larkin wrote:
On 18 Sep 2006 07:34:52 -0700, bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:


John Larkin wrote:
On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 21:43:51 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In message <e5udg250gqfoabu8m7kp4c2mdedog8addc@xxxxxxx>, dated Tue, 12
Sep 2006, John Larkin <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
writes

Simply by very sophisticated self-organizing adaptive algorithms,
bootstrap designed by evolution itself. If the simple Mandelbrot
equation can produce infinite and beautiful complexity, and Conway's
Game of Life can build glider factory factories, why would DNA not be
infinitely more complex?

The problem is that too many people are afraid to let themselves think,
for fear of being called creationists or the equivalent.

No, the point is that anyone can postulate ANYTHING using the type of
reasoning that you employ. You are free to do that, but it doesn't
advance human knowledge and it's not science; it's pure speculation.

Well, I'm not a biologists (although one of my kids is.) But it seems
inevitable that such mechanisms must exist, but lots of people demand
that they be impossible; they *refuse* to speculate and argue against
people who do.

There's a lot more going on here than science, which is my real point.

The science, the *real* science, doesn't know enough yet to say.

Nobody demands that non-random mutations be impossible - it is just
that nobody has yet postulated a plausible mechanism.

Nobody has postulated a plausible way that DNA can define the
structure of a foot, either. Does it therefore logically follow that
nobody should propose such mechanisms, excuse me, handwave?

The way that DNA defines the structure of the foot is understood, at
least in broad outline - it's all about the genes setting up chemical
concentration gradients in the developing tissue, and other genes
reacting to the local concentration by setting up their own gradient.
The reactions involved have to be second order in order to be able to
produce periodic structures, so it is rather like setting up the rules
of Conway's "Game of Life" as a mechanism for making glider guns.

Understanding what is going on well enough to be able to manipulate the
result in any positive way does seem to be a long way off.

We do now do have some idea how we might make non-random changes in
DNA, but our level of understanding about what our DNA does - in terms
of having useful effects on the body or mind, as opposed to messing
them up - is woefully inadequate to the task.

Surely DNA can do better for itself than sit there passively, letting
cosmic rays tear it up.

It has, and we are probably going to be that better way.

It does.

Prove it.

You can do as much handwaving as your like, but we wouldn't know enough
to recognise such a mechanism in action, even if we could demonstrate
that it existed, which hasn't happened yet, despite the enthusiasm of
the religiously indoctinated to find something like that to validate
Bishop Paley's watchmaker.

Now we get to the botttom line: don't dare suggest that Neo-Darwinism
isn't all there is, or everyone will know that you're some sort of
religious nut. And don't use an opamp as a comparator.

You misunderstand. All I was saying that there are a lot of highly
motivated people out there looking for counter examples, and there have
been since Darwin first went public.
They've come up empty after more than a century of trying -
neo-Darwinism may not be all that there is, but the alternative
explanations don't seem to be able to come up with supporting evidence.

And you are welcome to use an op amp as a comparator, because you do
understand exactly how badly an op amp performs when used as a
comparator. Many people are less sophisticated, and need the heads-up.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The HP Way
    ... Game of Life can build glider factory factories, why would DNA not be ... inevitable that such mechanisms must exist, ... There's a lot more going on here than science, ... Nobody demands that non-random mutations be impossible - it is just ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... DNA strands. ... parts of the theory of evolution) that can be presented rather easily. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Honest Creationists Argument wanted
    ... I would think that most scientists have no intention of being dishonest ... science. ... Because the line between life and non-life is blurred, ... DNA strands. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... images, pi, primes, that "language" ... DNA would certainly boost even Behe's version of ID. ... science has to have any explanatory or predictive power either. ... Primes have been proposed by many scientists as a way to get cosmic ...
    (talk.origins)