Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • TalkRational: shut up you house atheists

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - RAFH

1
Pingu: "mutations aren't mistakes."

Ayala:

Quote
Ayala, Francisco J., "The Mechanisms of Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 239 (September 1978), pp. 56-69.
p. 58
"A mutation can be considered an error in the replication of DNA prior to its translation into protein."

Lol

Important Words: "can be considered"

Subtle distinctions in the definition and interpretation of words: consider: "error" vs "mistake"
Don't be silly. It's not like:
In the real world (as opposed to your fantasy world) there are many shades of meaning that people attach to various words.  We only get the detailed view of what they mean when we hear them describe what they mean.
...That would be preposterous! Walks like a duck, it's a fucking duck I tells ya!
Or maybe a fish.
2
I refuse to entertain this perennial bullshit nonsense about copying errors in DNA not being mistakes. Utterly ridiculous and I refuse to waste my time.
Which is one reason nobody around here gives anything you post any credibility whatsoever.
Just like they don't give much credibility to the opinions of the clowns at the circus on evolution or quantum physics.
3
Politics and Current Events / Re: Trumpocalypse
The best people


Was he being interviewed by a Senate Committee? If so, was he under oath? If so, it would appear he's committed perjury and lying to federal officials. Maybe Mueller can indict him as well. Should be an easy conviction.
4
No one ever said "ORGANISMS are like code."

It's DNA that's "like code" ... somewhat ... but it's far more sophisticated. 

Quote
World J Biol Chem. 2014 Aug 26; 5(3): 275-278.
Published online 2014 Aug 26. doi:  10.4331/wjbc.v5.i3.275
PMCID: PMC4160521
Life is more than a computer running DNA software

Therefore, DNA organized in chromatin is far more complex than the human-made "software system", except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life[5,9,14].

You didn't even read the last part of that sentence, did you. The part about "except that we are confusing the algorithm-based simulation of real-life storage with the real life, the computer machines with the living cells and organisms, and the self-reproducing automatons with the real-life organisms that can replicate since the origins of life". In other words, don't buy into the confusion, Bluffy. There are only minimal analogies to be derived from computer science with regard to biology.
5
Does this have to be an Either God Or Evolution question?
Isn't it possible that evolution itself is God's design?
Why would God do things the same way we humans would? I think it is arrogant of any human to claim to understand the mind of God.
Well, if God made evolution, there's not a lot else left for him to do. He could just sit back and watch. Or just leave.
Also, does evolution need creating? If evolution doesn't need God to exist, what is he even for?
It appears to me that some extremely intelligent "made evolution" - which, rightly defined, could be called "pre-programmed adaptability" ... In other words, however organisms came to be (believe what you will) it does indeed appear that they are pre-programmed to adapt to various niches. 
What appears to be to you is of no consequence. You are a bluffoon.
6
Does this have to be an Either God Or Evolution question?
Isn't it possible that evolution itself is God's design?
Why would God do things the same way we humans would? I think it is arrogant of any human to claim to understand the mind of God.
Well, if God made evolution, there's not a lot else left for him to do. He could just sit back and watch. Or just leave.
Also, does evolution need creating? If evolution doesn't need God to exist, what is he even for?

That's essentially the Deist position, iirc, that god set the universe in motion and then effed off somewhere.
Probably Ursa Minor Beta.
7
Oh my God ... the stupidity ... it burns!!

Why do you keep making shit up?

He's not, his stupidity probably does burn. I know if I were that stupid and aware of it, I might feel a lot of burning in my cheeks when I said something really stupid and carried on like I actually knew something.
8
Hey Dave. Did you forget this post? Or are you badgering again?

I can safely say as the father of two expert bowhunting sons... That this is a poorly designed bow and arrow ... they would not be kill anything with this. WTF was the designer thinking!?



I cannot get this dang image to show
There we go ... it was an issue with my phone.

Anyway, do you see my point?
Yes, Dave. Your point is that you think we're idiots that can't think through the fact that there are differences.

We talked about one principle of programming before: a programmer documentary his code on all levels he thinks someone else will use. A programmer that doesn't is either an inconsiderate programmer, an incompetent programmer, or a hostile programmer.

God didn't document his work on most levels. So which one is he? Inconsiderate, incompetent, or hostile?
Though this is a bit late, I believe the designer of that nerf bow and arrow was not trying to make a lethal weapon for actual hunting and/or warfare but rather to make a play toy bow and arrow that was safe for kids to play like they were hunting or at war. Sort of like kid's cap guns don't really shoot bullets and play swords are made of foam so they don't actually cut things.

Bluffy really is a bluffoon.
9
Does this have to be an Either God Or Evolution question?
Isn't it possible that evolution itself is God's design?
Why would God do things the same way we humans would? I think it is arrogant of any human to claim to understand the mind of God.
Well, if God made evolution, there's not a lot else left for him to do. He could just sit back and watch. Or just leave.
Also, does evolution need creating? If evolution doesn't need God to exist, what is he even for?

Not just living things, but the entire universe is evolving, and has been since the Big Bang. We cannot explain what caused the BB and if something came from nothing. Until or unless we can, I think there is room for some people to have a belief in a Creator God. At least, I can't see how anyone can positively rule out the possibility by using any sort of logic and science, including software.
The problem is not with attempting to rule the supernatural out but with people trying to rule it in. Science rules out the supernatural. Creationists try to rule it in.
10
But you would also be taking the analogy much too far.
... which was pretty much the point of the article Hawkins quoted in the OP.

Hence the own-goal.  :cheer:
Own goals are something else Bluffy doesn't suck at.
11
How does someone unironically give a thread this title?

Have you not yet realised?  Dave is doing 8-D irony. He is so incredibly ironic that no-one can see it.
Including himself.
12
I know for a fact that functional software can be made by people who don't understand what they are doing.
I am living proof of that!  :wave:
I have had my turn at it, and decided I should either take it seriously and learn how to do it or leave it to others.

There is a really cool bit of software called Squeak, which became Croquet and then became Open Cobalt. It's open platform/machine, extremely powerful and relatively easy to use. One of the primaries in it's development was Alan Kay. It's really quite amazing. I play with it now and then. It's really great for kids. And it's free.
13
Lots of chaff and flares here ...

To clear things up ... let's state things simply ...

1) ST started this whole thing by saying that "biological software" looks like it was poorly designed ... as if by a trial and error process
2) I countered by asking "how can you be qualified to judge it's quality when we are only familiar with 1.5% of it - the coding regions?"
How are you qualified to discuss the topic?
That's part of the militantly ignorant and narcissistic bits of being a militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboy.
14
Also ... Life is mind numbingly complex ... so ST thinks that's a sign of bad design ...

But many man made items are also quite complex ... does this mean THOSE are bad design too?
Getting confused here again. You are failing to understand the difference between something being complex, and being designed. Yes, it's commonly a characteristic that in human software, complexity is an indication of poor design. And, no, not overall complexity but complexity beyond necessity. You seem to believe that complexity, in itself, is good. It isn't. And particularly not in systems that are already fairly complex.

I doubt you can quote any recognized designer that advocates for complexity simply for it's own sake. Some human made things, as a matter of necessity, are quite complex. But I doubt you'll find anyone who would argue they should be made more complex just because, well, Rube Goldberg and they could.

15
Lots of chaff and flares here ...

To clear things up ... let's state things simply ...

1) ST started this whole thing by saying that "biological software" looks like it was poorly designed ... as if by a trial and error process
2) I countered by asking "how can you be qualified to judge it's quality when we are only familiar with 1.5% of it - the coding regions?"

I still have not got an answer to this ...
It does look poorly designed. Using the common definiton of "designed" as in was made with intent and with goals and objectives. It does look like it's more a result of trial and error.

As to your 1.5%, that's a mischaracterization.
We know a lot more about genomics than you apparently are aware of. And, no, one doesn't have to know the exact workings of every bit of DNA in every genome that exists or has ever existed to see the broad patterns. One can look at samples and get a pretty good idea of what's going on. Indeed, a lot of the examples are not even at the level of DNA. Many of those have been posted in threads here in TR.

What a bluffoon.

What you don't get is you are trying to impress upon biology the characteristics of a human-developed technology. While there are some parallels, the analogy, as with most of your analogies, is bad and taken way to far. Plus you still don't get that analogies are not evidence of anything but simply tools to help explain. Just because a particular rock is hot to the touch does not mean all rocks that are hot to the touch are hot to the touch for the same reasons. Some are volcanic, some have been laying in the hot sun. Some are surrounding a fire pit. Some are hot because they are being compressed. All are hot though. So, in the Bluffoonic mind, they are all hot for the same reason. Have to be. They're all rocks and they're all hot.
16
Some of what you say here is true.  One thing you seem to miss is - as Ayala observed in that quote that I wheel out every so often - most of the variation we see in organisms already exists within the respective genomes.  What does NOT exist previously within genomes is random stuff - mistakes - which the cell is designed to rigorously try to prevent.  And it does a damn good job, but not perfect as we have often discussed.  So mistakes happen and so we do get new variants.  And there are almost zero examples out of trillions of any of these random variants that can be in any way spun as being "beneficial" to the organism or the population.  The number may actually be zero now as we have learned more (for example, antibiotic resistance in bacteria used to be the "textbook example" of random mutations being beneficial but that crashed and burned). 

The more we learn about genomes, the more we realize that this amazing adaptive system that your describe HAS ALWAYS BEEN THERE.  IOW, we don't have any evidence of it having NOT been there ... EVER.  Any speculation that it wasn't at some point in the past is just that ... speculation ... and pretty stupid speculation at that.  That idea flies in the face of all reason and logic and experience.
::)  Pure preaching.  And pretty stupid preaching, at that.
Well, of course it's stupid. This is Bluffy we are talking about. The BRILLIANT Bluffy with the high speed mind that runs circles around everyone else.

BTW, Bluffy, we do have evidence it was not there at one time. We have evidence there was no life on this planet, probably for at least a couple hundred million years. And then it was very, very simple. And gradually, very gradually, got more and more complex. Until it reached a sort of equilibrium with the physical world we live on. That keeps changing, and so does life. Some lineages get more complex, some get less, some new lineages develop, some die out.
17
Yeah ... organisms don't operate very well ... if God would just update the software ...
No one said "organisms don't operate very well".
Or anything like that.

Your strawman campaign continues.
It is profoundly dishonest.
Quote

Lolololol
idiot
Ahem.

Yes they DID say that.

Here's the whole convo which you dishonestly omitted part of ...

Quote
Also, this
Quote
Quote
The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions. This is not possible for any human-made software.
is nonsense. Software used to work like that, it turned out be be a spectacularly bad idea. We stopped doing it that way.

Quote
Hahahahahaha

Yeah ... organisms don't operate very well ... if God would just update the software ...

Lolololol
More...Quick EditQuote

Um, Bluffy, you failed to cite your sources for those quotes. A typical dishonest tactic of yours. When Vox said nobody said that, he was clearly referring to people here in this forum, which is what you were referring to in your post that he was responding from. And he was clearly stating that nobody said "organisms don't operate very well".

The first quote was clearly not from one of us, the obvious point being it's got a footnote in it. Nor sure where that came from.
The second quote, from Saunt Taunga, was noting the statement in the quote quoted, that it was not possible for any human-made software to self-edit thus generating large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts those into the program without damaging the functionality of the program, was nonsense, that previous human efforts to develop software that mimic certain aspects of evolution did not work very well, which is why efforts in that direction stopped.

You really do have serious and significant problems with comprehension.

BTW, the quote: "The genome itself, via natural genome editing[19], generates large amounts of coherent new sequences and inserts these into DNA genomes without damaging essential protein-coding regions." completely blows your notion that evolution, via mutations and selection is not possible. The authors are clearly stating is not only is possible but is a primary characteristic of evolution.

BTW2, simplicity is always the best route for design. Why make things any more complex than necessary. That's the joke you don't get about Rube Goldberg. It may work, but there's so many much easier ways to go about it. Evolution is Rube Goldberg, just as Edison was more Rube Goldbergish than not. He simply tried everything he could think of until he succeeded. Fortunately for him and the rest of us, he had plenty of time and money and associates to use that process. Had he known and utilized something about chemistry and molecular bonds and thermodynamics, he could have significantly reduced the potential materials to try as filaments.
18
"There is a new class of software that is quite a bit more like biological systems."

Wait.

Why?

I thought biological software was "bad design".

Wow.

Take the time to understand what people are saying. You'll garner a modicum of respect even if you disagree. As it is, you might as well be farting into the wind for all the sense you're making.
I'd say more like farting in a small closed closet, because, well, Bluffy likes the smell of his own farts.

Hey, he shits in a bucket in his make do shower. Then piles it up just outside his tarped pile of straw.
19
Not that Dave will understand what pingu just said. :(
Or what anyone else have or will say.
20
Here is a quick and dirty version, Dave:

First a short preamble:

Biological organisms reproduce themselves, with variance, i.e. offspring are close enough to their parents that we can call it "reproduction" but there are always small differences.  These small variations have lots of different causes, but quite a lot of them are due to the offspring having slightly different DNA sequences to the parent.

Let's for now talk about sexually reproducing organisms to keep things simple-ish.  Sexually reproducing organism produce offspring that have some features of one parent and some features from another.  The combination itself makes them unique. But the combination at genetic level means that sometimes brand-new genetic sequences are generated.  Other mechanisms can also result in novel sequences.

Now for the main point:

As with Joe Hopping's sheep, sometimes a variant will appear with no obvious reproductive advantage or disadvantage to the organism.  Dark, slow-growing hooves for instance, instead of lighter, faster growing hooves.  Because there's no clear advantage or disadvantage, populations of these sheep will have some dark-hooved individuals and some light-hooved ones.  Then a specific population finds itself owned by Joe Hopping.  Now light hooves are seriously disadvantageous, because Hopping doesn't let them breed.  He only breeds from the dark-hooved ones.

But you know this.  You also know that this happens NATURALLY - instead of being owned by Joe Hopping, the sheep may find themselves in a very boggy environment, where their hooves don't wear down easily, and they also trap what my grandmother called gubbins.  So they tend to get infected feet.  So the dark-hooved onces have a reproductive advantage.

In other words, the population genome becomes OPTIMISED for boggy ground by dint of that population mostly bearing the dark-hooved sequence.  Rinse and repeat, over and over, and you end up with shorter/longer horns, thicker/thinner wool etc.

Great system for optimisation.  In the process lots of other not very useful variants appear.  They get weeded out if they are actually harmful, but not if they don't.  They just sit there in the population doing nothing, until the environment changes in a way that they are either useful, in which case they will become more prevalent, or disadvantageous, in which case they will become less so.  Or they may just hang around to delight us with variety.

That method of optimising a genome is not the way a human designer would do it.  There are loads of disadvantages.  You get lots of redundant code.  And you can't transfer good bits of code into other bits of code very easily to get the best of both worlds (sexual reproduction isn't a very efficient means of horizontal transfer).  And you waste a lot of sheep and time.

But it doesn't matter because you have plenty of sheep and time.

A human designer doesn't.  So a human designer has to figure out what is needed, as efficiently as possible.  She has to decide on a single solution quite quickly - she can't afford to experiment with weird and unlikely solutions of no obvious immediate benefit.  She doesn't want to write a whole bunch of redundant code. 

However, what she can do, is easily splice bits of code in from some other programme.  She can make the code quite modular in fact, and call on lots of existing functions, many developed by different teams for different purposes.  And she expects them to be easily understood and readable, and not be full of irrelevant extra stuff.

So to her, a sheep genome, even of one of Hopping's sheep, would look like "bad code".  Lots of useless stuff, some of it potentially useful for some non-obvious purpose, lots of it simple leftover junk.  And she'd find it was virtually impossible to transfer any of it to anything other than a subsequent version of the code.  No swapping anything other than tiny bits over into somebody else's code.

In other words: human software looks like it's been designed by and for human designers.  Biological genomes look like they evolved.

The first shows evidence of the limitations and non-limitations of human designers.  the second shows evidence of the limitations and non-limitations of evolution.

Which is why most people find the ID argument pretty flawed.  The very things that DON'T look like the way humans design things are the very things that are TYPICAL of things that have been optimised by evolution.  Which is a pretty good system.
If you have the time to fuck around with what is essentially trial and error in a constantly changing environment. And if you don't really give a rat's ass whether any of it succeeds or fails. Because there's no goal, no intent, no objective. Life is just a side show.

On the other hand, human designers, while they can and occasionally do use trial and error*, usually doesn't have the time to fuck around. They usually do give a rat's ass whether any of it succeeds or fails. And they usually do have definitive goals, intents and objectives.

And it's those differences that make the ID argument fall apart. For ID or BluffyDesign to work, one needs to state the intent, the goals and objectives. That's generally taken by Bluffy and his ilk to be to be advantageous to humanity. If so, then being an unlimited intellect with unlimited powers to make things happen, a lot of what's out there in the real work either seems to be indifferent of humanity or is actually deleterious to it. Take stars that are billions of light years away. What we see is the past, it's gone, done. And it's so far away now, both in time and space, it literally has no effect upon us one way or the other. So, what's the point. Why go to all that effort (of course, for a omnipotent god, it's no effort at all) for no purpose. Which brings up the issue of why would a god even bother? Why the fuckups? Being omniscient, it already knows the outcome of everything it does so there's no reason for any fuckups but more so, really no point in doing it at all. Sort of the ultimate Bluffoonic thought experiment. Either that or humanity is simply fooling itself that it's the purpose of all this. Which is not a bad assessment of what are often militantly ignorant narcissistic DK posterboys, thinking they are the apples of their god's eye.

So, either way, either we are the purpose of all this or we're simply narcissistically fooling ourselves that we are, it falls apart. If we are the purpose, this god is a bumbler. If we're fooling ourselves, well, we're just fooling ourselves. Sort of like Bluffy thinking his little hobby farm and hobo heaven is the start of SAVING THE WORLD, while he militantly refuses to even consider the ramifications of his "Plan" when it's expanded beyond his little plot of land.

*Edison was a great practitioner of trial and error. He would set up a very reductionist experiment, such as for the filaments of light bulbs, and doggedly try every material he could think of.

**I strongly recommend the Connections series by Edmund Burke.
21
Not so much police abuse, but police-of-no-use.

https://boingboing.net/2018/02/23/last-responders.html

Why give these guys real guns? They'd be just as useful with nerf weapons or even just making a "gun" with their fingers and going "pew, pew, pew".
23
Gates pleads guilty...
https://www.vox.com/2018/2/23/17045226/robert-mueller-flip-rick-gates-russia
But I'm sure your buddy Sundance will tell you how that's great news for Trump and Hillary is going to jail any second now, eh Dave?
manafort and gates are such old news. Come on.
Yes, and their heads are rolling.
24
He woo hoos sex with kids so not that far out of the realm of possibility he would lol @ killing them too.
this is a great example of the mental debauchery that many people who post here have. When you lie to yourself and to everyone else constantly, then you say nonsensical things like this. The truth is I woohoo with those who are woo-hooing ( the Young Bride and her elderly groom for example ) and I am sympathetic toward those who are not woo-hooing such as all those poor families that were victims of the shooting.
But there is no account presented that either the bride nor her groom woo-hooed.
And you sympathies do not show readily. Almost like you don't have any.
25
Ah, the resort to authority, in this case one who isn't much of authority. Very successful business person, but as an actual coder, nah. Beyond which you didn't reference your source.

Not to mention you've no qualifications to judge the complexity of software. Nor to judge others as to whether or not they may be qualified.