Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Not nearly as retarded as those other "rational" sites.

Recent Posts

91
I assumed she meant "perfect recombination" ... which living cells approach closely, but don't quite ever achieve.

If she didn't mean that, then WTH did she mean?
WTF do YOU mean?
What is "perfect recombination" supposed to mean?
What "living cells" approach it, whatever it is?
By what criteria do you judge how closely these "living cells" (whatever they are) approach it (whatever it is)?

You have no idea what you're talking about.
92
So make that Pingu ... AND Martin ... AND uncool ... that don't understand basic genetics.
Aaaaand ...
Here's Hawkins's signature totally inappropriate condescending  insulting bluster/bravado when trying to bluff his way through a subject in which he lacks the first clue.

No, Hawkins. It's YOU who doesn't understand basic genetics.

Remember how you went on for days (weeks? months?) condescendingly, insultingly, insisting that your biblical Adam and Eve must have had hundreds or thousands of alleles at every locus? 

:rofl:
:rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:


Good times!  I suppose you would have us believe you've actually studied the subject since then, and now you've not only moved beyond such hilarious boners, your brilliant mind now runs circles around people who have studied molecular genetics all their lives.

Dave Hawkins:  poster child for militant ignorance
 
93
By realizing that, by the definition she used, either recombination is an "error", or it doesn't even make sense to ask if it is an error.
YOU are the one not reading carefully. 

When she talks about an "error rate" that's low but non-zero being best for adaptability and long lineages, she is definitely not referring to regular old vanilla recombination.  She's talking about the same thing the Nature article describes which the cell works very hard to prevent, but it happens an little bit anyway.

You people are idiots.
She explicitly said "i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent"

That doesn't happen with recombination.
I assumed she meant "perfect recombination" ... which living cells approach closely, but don't quite ever achieve.

If she didn't mean that, then WTH did she mean?

Did the post I put up immediately after yours not give you a clue?
94
Ahh., so you disagree with the methods used to silence invited conservative speakers at college campuses via riot and threats of violence?
dear pandora plz eat a tide pod kthx
95
By realizing that, by the definition she used, either recombination is an "error", or it doesn't even make sense to ask if it is an error.
YOU are the one not reading carefully. 

When she talks about an "error rate" that's low but non-zero being best for adaptability and long lineages, she is definitely not referring to regular old vanilla recombination.  She's talking about the same thing the Nature article describes which the cell works very hard to prevent, but it happens an little bit anyway.

You people are idiots.
She explicitly said "i.e. in which every offspring is identical to its parent"

That doesn't happen with recombination.
I assumed she meant "perfect recombination" ... which living cells approach closely, but don't quite ever achieve.

If she didn't mean that, then WTH did she mean?
She meant precisely what she said. A population where every offspring is identical to its parent.

It's not that hard a concept.
96
That's a lovely bare assertion, Dave.

But if you noticed, I even addressed that: "or it doesn't even make sense to ask if it is an error. "

And if your objection is her use of terminology, that completely validates my claim that you failed at reading her post.
97
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.
That's...kind of his point.
Yes exactly ... An African bushman might see this bow and arrow and think "poor design" (by African bushman bow and arrow standards) because he can tell by looking that he could not kill an animal with it ... Just as Saunt Tonga can tell by looking that "biological software" exhibits "poor design" as well assuming human software writing standards.
You are confusing function and design again. Design is about how the function is achieved. Your bushman is thinking poor function, it will not kill, not poor design.
If a fully functional bushman's bow was made with three times as much material in three times a much time. And being a bow maker, the bushman sees all this, the bushman might well think, OK, it works, but the guy that made it is incompetent.

That's what I mean by bad design.
I'm not confusing anything. If you prefer, consider the bush man seeing a compound bow for the first time. He might think that it's bad design because of all those pulleys and extra lengths of string.

The point is that if he tries to authoritatively assert that it's bad design, he's making a mistake because the truth is he simply doesn't have knowledge about compound bows.

Just like you don't have knowledge about biological software. Or certainly not very much knowledge. None of us do.
If he tries the compound bow and it works exactly the same as one he could make himself he should call it a bad design.
But compound bows are not designed to work the same as simple ones are they?

Remember your original assertion about "bad design" in "biological software" did not involve "trying it."  How would you even do that?  Your assertion only concerned "how it looks" ... so I think my analogy is spot on.
Trying it is a way to determine function: does it work. For biological systems, organisms, this would be: is it alive, is it in danger of extinction. My assertion is not concerned with "how it looks", but with "how it works" and "how it's made". Perhaps that is the same as"how it looks" to a maker/designer and "how it looks" to a user. A competent user could determine "how it works" from "how it looks". A competent maker could also see "how it's made".
Functional things can be made by incompetent makers. So functional organisms are not proof of God's competence.
98
No real geneticists talk about "recombination" = "error"
Funny you should say that.
Quote from: real geneticist
Errors Are a Natural Part of DNA Replication

Should we take the word of "real geneticist" for one thing, but not the other? And by what criteria?
100
No real geneticists talk about "recombination" = "error"

Whenever geneticists talk about "error" they are talking about the stuff discussed in this article ... https://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/dna-replication-and-causes-of-mutation-409

So Pingu is either talking nonsense ...

Or she actually believes exactly what I thought she believes.

Which is incorrect.