tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post4454457709859860831..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing ScienceUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46500118188524685192012-04-04T05:51:08.495-07:002012-04-04T05:51:08.495-07:00Flatterer!Flatterer!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-90212394856597721422012-04-02T11:56:09.391-07:002012-04-02T11:56:09.391-07:00It's unclear why you're assuming that muta...It's unclear why you're assuming that mutations that effect how genes are translated must necessarily be non-neutral <b>in regards to an organisms fitness</b>.<br /><br />For example, if both protein A and protein B are required for function Z, some sort of mutation that causes A to appear earlier would still be neutral, as protein A just "waits around" until protein B to appears to perform Z. The net result is the same. <br /><br />And if the specific appearance of Z occurs earlier than actually necessary to have an impact on an organism's fitness, then mutations that cause B to appear later would not necessarily have a net effect either. <br /><br />Perhaps you've reached this conclusion since you think the expression of genes was intentionally specifically designed to expressed proteins at specific times in the first place. And this design is such that there is no tolerance as to how they could be expressed. As such, it would have an impact on the organism fitness. <br /><br />However, this would represent extrapolating observations using an explanatory framework, right?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33324371421350879992012-04-02T11:25:57.672-07:002012-04-02T11:25:57.672-07:00Cornelius,
It's not clear how this represent...Cornelius, <br /><br />It's not clear how this represents "A completely different way of doing science."<br /><br />For example, before one could even begin to speak in terms of pre-translational and post-translational, we must first have conjectured the theory that some genes are translational, while others are not, then test this theory via observations. Right? If not, what other approach should we have taken?<br /><br />Nor does the lack of an assumption of design necessarily result in concluding a lack of function, as we assumed these translated genes had a function despite never assuming they were designed specifically for that purpose beforehand. <br /><br />As such, It's unclear why the research you cite is any different or how assuming design wouldn't also represent extrapolating observations using an explanatory framework. <br /><br />More importantly, the results of research is meaningless without some sort of explanatory framework to interpret the resulting data. If we do not have an explanation for what non-translating genes do, then how can we devise experiments to test an un-conceived explanation? <br /><br />The vague assumption they should "do something" isn't an explanation we can test. <br /><br />Furthermore, If we are truly objective about a supposed designer, one could have intentionally "designed" the genome to contain non-functional genes, or even designed a process that would result in non-functional genes by design. <br /><br />For example, when you delete a file off of a computer it's bytes are not zeroed out. Rather, the sequence of bytes that file resided at is merely marked as no-longer reserved. We do this because, in most cases, actually erasing the pre-existing data isn't necessary, and doing so would have a negative impact on performance. However, this means that new files are written over the bytes of old files. And if they are smaller than the original, this can result in fragmentation. So, here we have a concrete example of designing a process that intentionally results in non-functional sections of data. <br /><br />I'd also note, when an error occurs while updating the boundary locations of these files, this results in what was intended to be "non-functional" sections are interpreted as being "functional" parts of a file. So, even if we assume these bits were "designed" when written, what we read out doesn't always end up as intended. <br /><br />So, it's unclear how you can say that the biosphere we observe actually represents the specific purpose and intention the designer actually had in mind. Not to mention, if there could have been multiple designers, each with different intentions. So, what ends up being written is a compromise that represents what none of them wanted in the first place. <br /><br />In other words, the assumption that the biosphere did end up as a designer intended would also represents extrapolating observations using some sort of vague explanatory framework, which clearly isn't "science neutral", if such a think is possible in the first place. <br /><br />So much for "a completely new way of doing science"Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18249735936949429652012-04-02T03:05:20.357-07:002012-04-02T03:05:20.357-07:00as to:
'evolutionary biologists using the sam...as to:<br /><br />'evolutionary biologists using the same old methodology that has served so well in the past?'<br /><br />and yet "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results." <br /><br />Of related interest:<br /><br />Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity<br />https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfMjdoZmd2emZncQbornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2076800888655483762012-04-01T21:11:53.282-07:002012-04-01T21:11:53.282-07:00Ian H Spedding
Has anyone bothered to check with ...<i>Ian H Spedding<br /><br />Has anyone bothered to check with the authors of the paper to find out if they are design theorists trying out revolutionary new scientific practices or evolutionary biologists using the same old methodology that has served so well in the past?</i><br /><br />You evil evo scientist thug.<br /><br />;)Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59340744434799801862012-04-01T21:00:17.152-07:002012-04-01T21:00:17.152-07:00Has anyone bothered to check with the authors of t...Has anyone bothered to check with the authors of the paper to find out if they are design theorists trying out revolutionary new scientific practices or evolutionary biologists using the same old methodology that has served so well in the past?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35727567016550613652012-04-01T18:53:14.236-07:002012-04-01T18:53:14.236-07:00We're not all thugs.We're not all thugs.Kazammirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05385224517399344892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36555154355478623352012-04-01T17:46:53.499-07:002012-04-01T17:46:53.499-07:00Thanks for the excellent analysis and overview Dr....Thanks for the excellent analysis and overview Dr. Hunter.,,, Cue up religiously motivated insults, and denial of the obvious design implications, by the resident neo-Darwinists. :)bornagain77https://www.blogger.com/profile/16666666037080692370noreply@blogger.com