Support NeoGAF

[zoku88]

Well, it would be deemed statistically impossible, I would think. Not really representative of evolution anyways, since code does not alter itself (well, most doesn't).

Well, you can make code that creates programs.

But that's besides the point, since I assume that the analogy assumed that programs could manipulate itself or else it would fail as a proper analogy...

Statistically impossible... given a finite time.

 

[mrkgoo]

I'll make it brief.

Ok, so we've established that the 4 DNA bases are like the 1s and 0s used to code computer programs. DNA is simply the code for the Operating System, and different programs, that runs our hardware.

Accidents while replicating the code, usually lead to program bugs and malfunctions. Maybe the damage is not apparent at first. The problem is that because the ORIGINAL code is the fully functioning one, the more accidents happen in the sequence of 1's and 0's the less the OS works. Maybe even an accident happens that turns the font red on screen, and it makes it easier for a specific user to read (apparently a beneficial accident).

The more changes are introduced to the original code, the less viable it is. This translates into breaded species becoming less viable than the original, mutants less viable than the original, and this is what we CONSTANTLY observe in nature.

Moreover, it takes a leap of faith to believe that the code for the calculator program, can be altered little by little and become the code for Excel.

Seriously, THIS was your argument? SERIOUSLY?

The analogy between DNA and binary code only holds as far as information storage, and information interpretation machinery goes. But that's it. As for all analogies, you can only take it so far. You have gone beyond that.

For one, DNA code reading is redundant. Changes in the code often has no effect whatsoever. On top of that the instruction set is NOT essential. In fact, a lot can change. Consider a protein structure, the typical 'result' of a piece of genetic code. Many parts of the protein are completely changeable, giving rise to completely viable mutations that have little to no effect whatsoever.

The code itself can have a lot of meaning, or none at all. It's hard to predict. How does ID explain useless parts, or more likely, vestigial parts?

The main difference between talking about changes in code on a genetic basis and a computer one is that the computer model is not 'naturally-selective' - they're not hereditary in hardware that is replicating. The point with evolution is that it's occurring in replicative organisms that are naturally selected to be viable or not, by the environment. That's where the analogy has to stop.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Okay I have to take issue with the criticisms. For us less informed, why don't you try actually, you know, listing what's wrong with their theories rather than just saying it's plain out wrong or they "don't understand science". What you said does not make you seem any smarter.

He keeps going on and on about how historians would be laughed out of academia if they posited theories on how things may have happened. This is precisely what they do: just like biologists, they take physical evidence, compare it with previous discoveries and then hypothesise on what took place. Theories can and do change rapidly.

One good example is the significance of Bronze Age Mycenaean cult in Archaic (and later Classical) Greek religion. Well, originally, people like Nilsson said that Mycenaean cult was a direct precursor to Classical Greek cult. Then others showed problems with the theory and said there was no direct continuation. Now we're finding evidence that while there were breaks in tradition, some of them were less than fifty years and could easily be understood via oral tradition. So now we're coming back to a much modified hypothesis where Mycenaean cult DID have a direct influence on later Archaic and Classical cult, but it wasn't a direct continuation of ritual and beliefs, but the same sites, and similar rituals do show the lineage. All of this turbulence in less than fifty years.

In fact, in some cases evolutionary biology has better physical evidence than some theories in archaeology. Something like the ritual and religious beliefs of the Etruscans (though we're making steady progress on that in terms of physical recovery). Hell, there are things about Alexander the Great and ancient Macedon that were only discovered in the past ten to fifteen years, which finally confirmed previous theories. (For instance the modern site of Vergina actually being the site of ancient Aegae.)

 

[mrkgoo]

He keeps going on and on about how historians would be laughed out of academia if they posited theories on how things may have happened. This is precisely what they do: just like biologists, they take physical evidence, compare it with previous discoveries and then hypothesise on what took place. Theories can and do change rapidly.

One good example is the significance of Bronze Age Mycenaean cult in Archaic (and later Classical) Greek religion. Well, originally, people like Nilsson said that Mycenaean cult was a direct precursor to Classical Greek cult. Then others showed problems with the theory and said there was no direct continuation. Now we're finding evidence that while there were breaks in tradition, some of them were less than fifty years and could easily be understood via oral tradition. So now we're coming back to a much modified hypothesis where Mycenaean cult DID have a direct influence on later Archaic and Classical cult, but it wasn't a direct continuation of ritual and beliefs, but the same sites, and similar rituals do show the lineage.

In fact, in some cases evolutionary biology has better physical evidence than some theories in archaeology. Something like the ritual and religious beliefs of the Etruscans (though we're making steady progress on that in terms of physical recovery). Hell, there are things about Alexander the Great and ancient Macedon that were only discovered in the past ten to fifteen years, which finally confirmed previous theories. (For instance the modern site of Vergina actually being the site of ancient Aegae.)

Yup.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Yup.

Don't get me started on philology or historical linguistics either. It's much the same thing: we don't have all the data, and unless some other significant writings of Wulfila show up, we ain't going to know much more about Gothic, let alone the differences between Visigothic and Ostrogothic, if there were any.

 

[Slightly Live]

Hmm, Bulla is banned it seems, there goes a reply I was in the middle of writing, no point posing a counter argument when he can't answer back. Although Dragona seems to have captured and related my main beef and response to what was said.

Nice to see a major step forward in science here.

 

[wayward archer]

To start, name the plausible evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction, considering it has immediate adverse effects on the capabilities of reproduction of an organism. Feel free to list the supposed advantages too.

See this is where ID fails, utterly and completely. You automatically assume that sexual reproduction came out of nowhere, and that a male and a female HAD to form at the same time, and in sufficient numbers so that an unfortunate accident didn't take them both out before they did the nasty.

What you fail to consider is that there was likely an intermediate state in which an organism could produce both sexually and asexually. Take heterogeny (asexual and sexual reproduction, found in organisms today) and lateral gene transfer (proven to exist in bacteria, where certain bacteria can take genetic material from another bacteria and splice it into it's own code) and it's very, very easy to imagine a species that could do both.

In time, as this mutation became widespread, minor mutations that cause some members of the speices to be either more aggressive at spreading their seed or some members to be more receptive to receive genetic material and it's not that difficult to see that if one last mutation occured that removed asexual reproduction, the population would be large enough and widespread enough that they could carry on without ever having to experience a hard transition.

 

[TheExodu5]

Thanks.

edit: not that I was agreeing with Bulla...I'm more of a casual observer at this point since the discussion has went way beyond me, but it didn't seem like he/she did anything to get banned over. =\

 

[VanMardigan]

Bulla's the one that got banned in this thread?!?

Oh, wow.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Thanks.

edit: not that I was agreeing with Bulla...I'm more of a casual observer at this point since the discussion has went way beyond me, but it didn't seem like he/she did anything to get banned over. =\

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to "sound smarter". I saw little point in typing out the post I eventually did because Bulla would just "argue" back something completely irrelevant and incorrect.

(Bad analogy time) Say we're arguing about the distance to the moon. Someone gives an informed and detailed answer about the current calculations and Bulla says "BUT THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE". That's the equivalent of what's been going on in this thread.

While I didn't ban him, his ban is due to the fact that he completely derailed an incredibly interesting topic with his frankly nonsensical arguments.

 

[TheExodu5]

Just so you know, I wasn't trying to "sound smarter". I saw little point in typing out the post I eventually did because Bulla would just "argue" back something completely irrelevant and incorrect.

(Bad analogy time) Like say we're arguing about the distance to the moon. Someone gives an informed and detailed answer about the current calculations and Bulla says "BUT THE MOON IS MADE OF CHEESE". That's the equivalent of what's been going on in this thread.

While I didn't ban him, his ban is due to the fact that he completely derailed an incredibly interesting topic with his frankly nonsensical arguments.

Alright, gotcha. Sorry, didn't mean to sound so offensive when I originally wrote my response to your first post. :lol

 

[VanMardigan]

While I didn't ban him, his ban is due to the fact that he completely derailed an incredibly interesting topic with his frankly nonsensical arguments.

This really can't be it, considering the frequency with which derailings happen on gaf and the fact that what was being argued (evolution vs ID) was made relevant in the OP and in subsequent posts questioning the theistic perspective. That really should not have been the focus of the thread, but it DID become the focus, and NOT because bulla picked that direction. It is common for gaf to have an evolution vs. God approach, and in EVERY SINGLE THREAD where a scientific topic is discussed relevant to evolution, theism is mocked as outmoded or the realm of the ignorant.

I'm guessing I can't go too far here without risking a ban, plus you are not responsible, but I just wanted to say that what happened here is not unique, nor was it initiated by the person banned. Sorry for the further derailment

As I posted already, it's a fantastic discovery and I don't see the need to make it a religion vs. science thread. It was never supposed to be that.

 

[wolfmat]

It is common for gaf to have an evolution vs. God approach, and in EVERY SINGLE THREAD where a scientific topic is discussed relevant to evolution, theism is mocked as outmoded or the realm of the ignorant.

Really makes you think, doesn't it?

 

[djtortilla]

lame.

geez, it seemed like a fair and intelligent discussion was going on here.

too many players on the other team.

 

[MrSardonic]

I like skipping from the first page to the last and imagining the clusterfuck that took place in-between.

Same old stuff and same old confusion between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, historical theory, and layman's theory.

 

[Sibylus]

In Bulla's defence, he has taken some initiative to educate himself on the subject. He hasn't gone nearly far enough however, and he should also start reading sources that don't agree with his views at all. At the very least he'll gain perspective and he'll know what the people across the table are talking about.

 

[Instigator]

lame.

geez, it seemed like a fair and intelligent discussion was going on here.

too many players on the other team.

Another thread killed.

 

[Steppenwolf]

Accidents while replicating the code, usually lead to program bugs and malfunctions. Maybe the damage is not apparent at first. The problem is that because the ORIGINAL code is the fully functioning one, the more accidents happen in the sequence of 1's and 0's the less the OS works. Maybe even an accident happens that turns the font red on screen, and it makes it easier for a specific user to read (apparently a beneficial accident).

The more changes are introduced to the original code, the less viable it is. This translates into breaded species becoming less viable than the original, mutants less viable than the original, and this is what we CONSTANTLY observe in nature.

Those "bugs" are called cancer. People/animals with them usualy die without treatment and therefore get a lesser chance to reproduce.

 

[BreakyBoy]

In Bulla's defence, he has taken some initiative to educate himself on the subject. He hasn't gone nearly far enough however, and he should also start reading sources that don't agree with his views at all. At the very least he'll gain perspective and he'll know what the people across the table are talking about.

As Dragona and mrkgoo have tried to demonstrate, Bulla seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic tentets of practically all scientific research. He seems to dismiss the entire model of current evolutionary theory because many large scale adjustments have been made to it in the relatively recent past. He seems to be unaware that practically all science is founded on the notion that everything we fundamentally hold to be true is not unassailable. When it comes down to it, a scientist does not accept anything as an absolute fact. A scientist has to accept that any one thing that he or she accepts as a "fact" at the moment, may be overridden by a more complete understanding of how the world works at a later date.

A classic example is the acceptance of Newton's Laws of Physics by practically all modern scientists until Einstein came along and pissed all over it. Now, modern scientists generally see Newton's laws as a handy kludge to make observations and calculations within a certain acceptable degree of (im)precision.

 

[TheExodu5]

As Dragona and mrkgoo have tried to demonstrate, Bulla seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic tentets of practically all scientific research. He seems to dismiss the entire model of current evolutionary theory because many large scale adjustments have been made to it in the relatively recent past. He seems to be unaware that practically all science is founded on the notion that everything we fundamentally hold to be true is not unassailable. When it comes down to it, a scientist does not accept anything as an absolute fact. A scientist has to accept that any one thing that he or she accepts as a "fact" at the moment, may be overridden by a more complete understanding of how the world works at a later date.

A classic example is the acceptance of Newton's Laws of Physics by practically all modern scientists until Einstein came along and pissed all over it. Now, modern scientists generally see Newton's laws as a handy kludge to make observations and calculations within a certain acceptable degree of (im)precision.

Nothing worth getting banned over, especially since Bulla was not the one to start the thread derail (no, that was started by 4-5 people).

Well, you can make code that creates programs.

But that's besides the point, since I assume that the analogy assumed that programs could manipulate itself or else it would fail as a proper analogy...

Statistically impossible... given a finite time.

We do have a finite time. Scientists have labeled the universe as being only a few billion years old. I'd be interested in hearing a compilation of probabilities of a lot of things happening since then given the time frame. And well, since they seem to keen on accepting that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate, it would be hard to imagine the universe collapsing in itself to create another big bang.

 

[Sibylus]

As Dragona and mrkgoo have tried to demonstrate, Bulla seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic tentets of practically all scientific research. He seems to dismiss the entire model of current evolutionary theory because many large scale adjustments have been made to it in the relatively recent past. He seems to be unaware that practically all science is founded on the notion that everything we fundamentally hold to be true is not unassailable. When it comes down to it, a scientist does not accept anything as an absolute fact. A scientist has to accept that any one thing that he or she accepts as a "fact" at the moment, may be overridden by a more complete understanding of how the world works at a later date.

A classic example is the acceptance of Newton's Laws of Physics by practically all modern scientists until Einstein came along and pissed all over it. Now, modern scientists generally see Newton's laws as a handy kludge to make observations and calculations within a certain acceptable degree of (im)precision.

Indeed, which is why I suggest he read much, much more (especially material that doesn't conform with his world-view). His perspective is awfully narrow, hopefully he'll take the opportunity to widen it.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Since when is being in the minority a justification for a ban? His ban is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Not to mention the treatment with his tag... in fact and no offense to GAF mods, but I am getting sick of "tags" especially mine. It limits real discussions by labeling people..

You wanna know how many times people just replied to my point by quoting my tag...

 

[Bit-Bit]

Since when is being in the minority a justification for a ban? His ban is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Not to mention the treatment with his tag... in fact and no offense to GAF mods, but I am getting sick of "tags" especially mine. It limits real discussions by labeling people..

You wanna know how many times people just replied to my point by quoting my tag...

I too don't agree with him being ban. If this thread is indeed the reason he is banned. Free discussion should be promoted no matter how misinformed the person is.

However, the tag business is all for fun. Don't put too much thought into it.

 

[Malfunky]

He was being a hypocrite. Criticizing circular logic and unexplained concepts while using the very same.

But he plays a necessary role, I think. Someone bringing up common misconceptions derived from traditional misunderstandings sets the stage for those who are able to educate the rest of us. Without vocal contrarians, what value is there in the discussion for people on or over the fence? Even with unreasonable zealots, this place is perfect for entry-level discussions like that, not scholarly debates.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I too don't agree with him being ban. If this thread is indeed the reason he is banned. Free discussion should be promoted no matter how misinformed the person is.

However, the tag business is all for fun. Don't put too much thought into it.

I don't mind tags that are fun... but labeling me "stupid" is fucking annoying cause users don't respond to my posts seriously. I would appreciate it if I just went back to "member."

This is all I will say about this, lets get back to talking about this discovery

 

[Slightly Live]

Since when is being in the minority a justification for a ban? His ban is totally unacceptable in my opinion.

Not to mention the treatment with his tag... in fact and no offense to GAF mods, but I am getting sick of "tags" especially mine. It limits real discussions by labeling people..

You wanna know how many times people just replied to my point by quoting my tag...

He was banned because he wasn't properly responding to what people said, he blanketed his replies with false information and wrongful assumptions and then did it multiple times when it was pointed out.

This does happen a lot when these debates come up, I believe it has to do with the core argument of one side, it cannot stand up to proper scrutiny. On the net, people will lay into each other arguments, so you have try not to talk out of your ass and try to properly respond to people instead of saying they are wrong and making up false reasons.

When you post on GAF, you risk receiving a tag on the whims of the admins and mods, everyone knows this, some folks actively tag fish. It's just how the community works, and by posting here you either agree to those rules or just don't post.

 

[Karma Kramer]

He was banned because he wasn't properly responding to what people said, he blanked his replies with false information and wrongful assumptions and then did it multiple times when it was pointed out.

This does happen a lot when these debates come up, I believe it has to do with the core argument of one side, it cannot stand up to proper scrutiny. One the net, people will lay into each other arguments, so you have try not to talk out of your ass and try to properly respond to people instead of saying they are wrong and making up false reasons.

When you post on GAF, you risk receiving a tag on the whims of the admins and mods, everyone knows this, some folks actively tag fish. It's just how the community works, and by posting here you either agree to those rules or just don't post.

GAF as a collective has the choice to just ignore him though... in essence continuing to respond to his posts you were encouraging his behavior.

Its bullshit, regardless of how incorrect he was with his opinion.

 

[Bit-Bit]

Back on topic. I'm going to print out this study and post it around my workstation.

This truly is a monumental breakthrough. To show that RNA forms pretty easily. Even the scientists were surprised. I remember reading a while back that scientist didn't think they would be able to do this for a long time. And yet here we are.

 

[mrkgoo]

A better response would have been to lock the thread, as it was obviously heading into bad territory.

But I'm not about to question mods. Or backseat mod.

 

[senahorse]

It's breakthroughs like this that make me wish I didn't quit biotech to become a Network Engineer. *hugs science*

 

[Rorschach]

Is Bulla permabanned? It's not hard to troll when it comes to this topic, but the lengths he went to were admirable. He was the only reason why this topic was alive. After he was banned, it sank like a rock to the obscurity of the second page. I'd give him a B+.

He was banned because he wasn't properly responding to what people said, he blanked his replies with false information and wrongful assumptions and then did it multiple times when it was pointed out.

I don't think that's a bannable offense. If it was, there are a few poli-gaf posters who would have been gone ages ago.

 

[Slightly Live]

I remember reading a while back that scientist didn't think they would be able to do this for a long time. And yet here we are.

This happens to me all the time, I read abut something, pay no heed to further coverage or updates and suddenly it's made some great jumps or break through. Love science. I wonder how quickly they will get to the next step...

 

[Zaptruder]

He was being a hypocrite. Criticizing circular logic and unexplained concepts while using the very same.

But he plays a necessary role, I think. Someone bringing up common misconceptions derived from traditional misunderstandings sets the stage for those who are able to educate the rest of us. Without vocal contrarians, what value is there in the discussion for people on or over the fence? Even with unreasonable zealots, this place is perfect for entry-level discussions like that, not scholarly debates.

It's a good point you make, but I think he was giving the smart people a headache.

At some point it shifts from interesting (to elucidate what they know) to frustrating for them (to restate the same information in different ways to someone who just doesn't get it).
What you really want to avoid (with regards to the interests you brought up) is driving off the smart people (or at least making it so they're not interested in posting in threads like this), leaving only the inspid stupid ones behind to continue making noise.

 

[Flo_Evans]

I think IDers are onto something. But when they find out it was aliens instead of god that fucked with our genes what will they do? :lol

 

[VanMardigan]

I think IDers are onto something. But when they find out it was aliens instead of god that fucked with our genes what will they do? :lol

Wonder what designed the aliens? I mean, doesn't aliens seeding earth just push the question back one step instead of answering it?

 

[Flo_Evans]

Wonder what designed the aliens? I mean, doesn't aliens seeding earth just push the question back one step instead of answering it?

Time traveling aliens obviously. duh.

 

[liquid_gears]

Just saw this thread and came in to say that I know a few of the Ph.D guys and gals who worked on this at Manchester, I showed them this thread and it gave them a few laughs.

Classic GAF, carry on.

 

[mckmas8808]

Just saw this thread and came in to say that I know a few of the Ph.D guys and gals who worked on this at Manchester, I showed them this thread and it gave them a few laughs.

Classic GAF, carry on.

What did they say?

 

[VanMardigan]

What did they say?

"Stop wasting our time by emailing us links to a message board!"

 

[SonOfABeep]

As a religious person these kinds of discoveries don't bother me because I find scientific discoveries to be completely and totally divorced from my personal religious beliefs. One can't disprove or discredit the other, in my opinion. As well as using one to prove the other is a mistaken cause.

The way I see it no matter what I don't know what happened and I always think that it's possible that the universe was created in motion. It seems like a cop-out but I always take these kinds of scientific discoveries as uncovering the ways that life and the universe were put together to have occurred on their own.

Because what sense would it make if we could just discover proof of it happening one way or another? If believing in creation or disbelieving in creation was that easy the belief wouldn't mean anything. That's just my opinion though. I don't think scientists and people who have religious beliefs need to be at each other's throats so much.

I think if the religious nuts would just stop taking everything science does as an affront to their beliefs and if the scientific/atheist zealots would just stop seeing religion as the lone tarnished spot to be wiped from humanity's otherwise obviously perfect face, we could all be a lot happier.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

I was never a big fan of Biology but this bioengineering stuff is pretty awesome. I wish I was somehow a part of that

 

[zoku88]

You bumped this to say that? I was expecting news!