Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: We talk, you rationalise.

Topic: Introduction to Systems Biology (Read 17101 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3100
And we First Wayers are sitting here waiting to pick off Third Wayers who get tired of scratching their heads trying to figure out how the hell all these parts and pieces of genomes that are getting rearranged originated in the first place.
And jeerleading.

*props to Vox

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3101
And of course it's been shown now to be complete and utter horseshit and the third weighers have figured that out but they're not quite as outspoken as me cuz they still want to get invited to the cocktail parties. Sorry for the funky spelling and capitalization I'm using Siri
Don't apologize for the spelling. Apologize for your abject ignorance, mindless cheerleading, and bloated self-image.

  • Photon
  • I interfere with myself
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3102
Another way to look at it this is the first wayers are like Jesus and the apostles. Second wayers are like John Tetzel selling indulgences for the corrupt papacy. And the third wayers are like Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the church.

There really is not much difference.
Hell, why stop there? Dave is like Superman, swooping in with a bright cape to save the wailing, manipulative bitches that are helpless and hopeless and victims of a failed paradigm. They admire his angular jaw, and strong morals, and he only sometimes uses his xray vision to ogle an eyeful.

If you are going to cast yourself as the hero of your fantasy Dave, work for it a bit.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3103
And we First Wayers are sitting here waiting to pick off Third Wayers who get tired of scratching their heads trying to figure out how the hell all these parts and pieces of genomes that are getting rearranged originated in the first place.
This calls for an eyerollamid.

::)
 ::)      ::)
 ::)      ::)      ::)
 ::)      ::)      ::)      ::)
 ::)      ::)      ::)      ::)      ::)


I guess you'll never understand, no matter how many times it's explained, that goddidit is not an explanation of anything.
It's the end of inquiry.
It's giving up on trying to learn.

"How did genomes come into being?"
"Goddidit."
"But how did God do it?"
"Dunno. Goddidit."

How very Mavericky.  ::)
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3104
Here's the Second Way in a nutshell and if you don't believe me, read Shapiro.

RM + NS + MOY = BIOSPHERE
What does moy stand for again?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3105
Here's the Second Way in a nutshell and if you don't believe me, read Shapiro.

RM + NS + MOY = BIOSPHERE

Well, if you want to demolish straw men, Dave, feel free.  Just don't set your house on fire.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3106
And of course it's been shown now to be complete and utter horseshit and the third weighers have figured that out but they're not quite as outspoken as me cuz they still want to get invited to the cocktail parties. Sorry for the funky spelling and capitalization I'm using Siri

It's no so much "complete and utter horseshit" as "childish misunderstanding from a grown man who should know better".

And don't blame Siri for your inability to understand how science works, and what evolutonary biologists actually do and think.

But here's a thought-question for you: do you think that Einstein showed that Newton's Laws of Motion were "complete and utter horseshit"?  Or do you think he showed that Newton's Laws were a simplification of something that turned out to be rather more complex? 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3107
Here's the Second Way in a nutshell and if you don't believe me, read Shapiro.

RM + NS + MOY = BIOSPHERE
What does moy stand for again?
Millions Of Years

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3108
Another way to look at it this is the first wayers are like Jesus and the apostles. Second wayers are like John Tetzel selling indulgences for the corrupt papacy. And the third wayers are like Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the door of the church.

There really is not much difference.

Well, as you understand virtually nothing about evolutionary theory or the way scientific knowledge increases, your way of looking at it isn't going to help anyone.

The fact that you can even use belief systems as a metaphor for science is telling.

I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3109
Here's the Second Way in a nutshell and if you don't believe me, read Shapiro.

RM + NS + MOY = BIOSPHERE
What does moy stand for again?
Millions Of Years
In that case your stupid letters should read BOY not MOY
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3110
And of course it's been shown now to be complete and utter horseshit and the third weighers have figured that out but they're not quite as outspoken as me cuz they still want to get invited to the cocktail parties. Sorry for the funky spelling and capitalization I'm using Siri

It's no so much "complete and utter horseshit" as "childish misunderstanding from a grown man who should know better".

And don't blame Siri for your inability to understand how science works, and what evolutonary biologists actually do and think.

But here's a thought-question for you: do you think that Einstein showed that Newton's Laws of Motion were "complete and utter horseshit"?  Or do you think he showed that Newton's Laws were a simplification of something that turned out to be rather more complex?
Lol.

Nice try.

But no.


  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3111
And of course it's been shown now to be complete and utter horseshit and the third weighers have figured that out but they're not quite as outspoken as me cuz they still want to get invited to the cocktail parties. Sorry for the funky spelling and capitalization I'm using Siri

It's no so much "complete and utter horseshit" as "childish misunderstanding from a grown man who should know better".

And don't blame Siri for your inability to understand how science works, and what evolutonary biologists actually do and think.

But here's a thought-question for you: do you think that Einstein showed that Newton's Laws of Motion were "complete and utter horseshit"?  Or do you think he showed that Newton's Laws were a simplification of something that turned out to be rather more complex?
Lol.

Nice try.

But no.



No to what? 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3112
Newton's Laws actually work for lots of applications.  Without anything from Einstein.

RM + NS doesn't.

Unless you're trying to destroy things.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3113
Newton's Laws actually work for lots of applications.  Without anything from Einstein.

So does the basic evolutionary algorithm of Descent with modification that is random with respect to fitness plus natural selection over many iterations.

What that leaves out is the mechanics of how variation arises. But our understanding of that increases decade by decades.  As does our understanding of the levels at which natural selection operations to select not only for the fitness of individuals but the fitness of populations.


RM + NS doesn't.

Unless you're trying to destroy things.

Well that's because you don't understand it.  It works brilliantly in human applications - why shouldn't it work a gazilllion times better in Nature?
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3114
Let me revise my statement...

RM CE + NS doesn't work.

Unless you're trying to destroy things.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3115
And actually Newton was a heck of a lot wronger about the Laws of Motion than "neo-Darwinists" were about the mechanisms of heredity and of variation.  They were basically right - by far the most powerful vector of heredity is DNA, and by far the most important driver of variation is DNA mutation.

Whereas Newton was only correct at extremely small scales.  Even terrestrial satellites have to use Newtonian models, and his model of the universe was basically completely wrong.

Which is not to knock Newton.  He may have stood on the shoulders of giants, but he himself had giant's shoulders. 
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3116
"CE"

"Copying Errors"

Do not work brilliantly in human applications.

Or in biology.

  • uncool
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3117
"CE"

"Copying Errors"

Do not work brilliantly in human applications.

Or in biology.
Interesting.

http://kk.org/mt-files/outofcontrol/ch15-a.html

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1803.03453.pdf

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3118
Let me revise my statement...

RM CE + NS doesn't work.

Unless you're trying to destroy things.

Well, that is a totally different statement, and effectively meaningless.  As I said, "RM + NS" doesn't even begin to explain how the mutations are generated.  What "RM + NS" attempts (badly) to summarise is a system in which a population of self-replicators replicates with variance, and in which the variants differ in their ability to self-replicate.

It won't work if any variant is lethal and only perfect copies can self-replicate.  Nor will it work if every copy is perfect.  It only works if the system is such that a range of viable variants are generated.

That variation might be introduced during the actual copying process; or it might be introduced before the copying process begins.  How it works depends on the system.  In biology, there are lots of way sin which variants aka mutations are generated.  In silico the same is true.  The issue is not whether the mutations appear during the copy process.  Nor is the issue whether you call them "errors" - any mutation is a non-faithful copy of the original and thus an error.

The key thing is that non-identical copies have to be generated, and a reasonable proportion of them need to be viable.  That's all "RM + NS" means.

But you won't ever understand this, because you don't want to.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3119
"CE"

"Copying Errors"

Do not work brilliantly in human applications.

Or in biology.

They work fine in both.  All "copying error" means is that the offspring are not a faithful copy of the parent.  When I write evolutionary algorithms I get it to randomly choose some of the offspring to have a randomly changed genome.  It works great.

BTW I also make natural selection pretty random too - I just get the environment to exert a slight bias, as in Nature, which will often let a pretty crap variant reproduce through dumb luck and accidentally stamp on a potential winner.
  • Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 02:17:01 PM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3120
The thing is, Dave, that you simply do not know what the fuck you are talking about here.  You must have decided it was stupid a long while back before you'd thought about it very much, and since then you've lost the ability to revisit things you once thought you knew.

You could probably find it again, but you'd have to give up DaveHasToBeRightism.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3121
So as not to being accused of destroying straw men let me be clear...

I really don't have any quibbles with Darwin except his idea of a universal common ancestor and what some call "macroevolution."

What I have a problem with is the idea that random copying errors created everything in the biosphere. ( not Darwin's idea )

  • Pingu
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3122
So as not to being accused of destroying straw men let me be clear...

I really don't have any quibbles with Darwin except his idea of a universal common ancestor and what some call "macroevolution."

What I have a problem with is the idea that random copying errors created everything in the biosphere. ( not Darwin's idea )

That's because you don't even know what "random copying errors" even means. It just means that offspring are produced that are different from the parents in a way that is random with respect to fitness.

At genetic level, it means that not all DNA sequences are identical to the original.  i.e. the "copy" has "errors".  That's all the word "mutation" means.

How those discrepancies come about isn't essential to the theory.  It never was.  What IS essential to the theory is that the variants should be both very simular to the parents and also viable.  If mutations that occur during copying produce that result, then fine (and they do).  If mutations that occur because bits of the genome get shunted around or exchanged, also produce that result, then fine.  All that matters is that change happens, occasionally, and that the changes result in a viable organism.
  • Last Edit: March 18, 2018, 02:40:38 PM by Pingu
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3123
"CE"

"Copying Errors"

Do not work brilliantly in human applications.

Or in biology.
Machine learning, training a neural network, works like that. Face recognition for iPhones was made that way.

  • borealis
  • Administrator
Re: Introduction to Systems Biology
Reply #3124
I will never understand the failure of reason that prompts the belief in 'microevolution' but not 'macroevolution'. Of course the only difference is time, but given YECs hardly give enough time for 'microevolution' to do anything - there would be human generations who could recall a time when lions birthed tigers and sheep begat mountain goats and mice bore beavers in the span of a few generations. Yet somehow those marvels are not recorded in the Compleet Recorde of Alle Tyme YECs consider the Bible to be.