|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1478 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Data, Information, and all that.... | |||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: And as long as it maintains correspondence to the original...something Crashfrog clearly doesn't understand.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: No, it should read exactly as I stated it. When something is contrary to fact, you use the subjunctive mood..here, "were" instead of "was".
quote: I've shown that your implication that I was wrong was contrary to fact. So my phrasing is correct and yours is wrong.
quote: Clearly better than you!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Yep sure did, and if you could read and understand English you would see that what I said and what you said are not the same. Hence, I correctly pointed out that you were addressing something I didn’t say. Simple, really. Since you aren’t very sharp, let me explain the underlying logic here. There are multiple ways to view mutations in regards to being random/nonrandom — Richard Dawkins states this rather explicitly in the quotes I just posted today. Here you go, read this one...I’ve added some emphasis for you.
quote: So I am correct to say that hotspots show mutation to not be random in one respect. Now, if someone comes along and looks at random from some other perspective, then an even spatial distribution would not be required for the mutations to be considered random, but that person would not be addressing what I was addressing. Get it yet?
quote: Don’t you wish!
quote: So????? The fact remains that the distribution of mutations in such genomes is not even - it's concentrated in some regions and lower in others - and as the strongly anti-Creationist and "hardcore" evolutinoist Richard Dawkins himself states, that means one can legitimately state that those mutations are not random. It depends upon what one means by random mutation - a topic I already stated has been debated at great length at sites like these and that we shouldn't be getting bogged down in.
quote: I always do, and they always do. If you understood what was being said maybe you’d see that. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
Ah, nothing like the smell of fresh guideline violations in the morning!
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: And if you understood what that meant you would see that he asked the wrong question. He explicitly stated CELL when he asked about the common ancestor. The CELL that would have been the common ancestor to all extant life is thought not to have arisen until long after the origin of life had occurred...just as I stated. So my belief is that the information got into that cell by undirected evolution, just as I stated, and just as I was asked.
quote: No, I answered both the questions that I was asked.
quote: If that jab didn't come from someone too ignorant to follow the exchanges between me and Oook and between the two of us, it might mean something. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
It might help if you were a little more explicit. For example, would you be talking about this:
quote: No, that was yesterday, and no admin whined about things from yesterday. So I guess it's fine to act like a immature bully and devote a whole post to nothing but a childish insult, not adding anything of worth to the discussion. Gee, I guess the admins need to specify exactly what jabs are legitimate and which are not. [This message has been edited by DNAunion, 03-25-2004]
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: Sure, I recalled all those hundreds of quotes word-for-word, and what pages they were found on, off the top of my head. Get real. I KNEW that DNA contains information and when simple logic that SHOULD HAVE worked didn't (for some completely unknown reason), then looked in the indexes to find supporting quotes.
quote: Now, see, that's NOT the question I thought you actually wanted to ask when you changed your question yesterday to past tense. I thought you were wanting to know how the information got into the very first self-replicator, such as an RNA replicase. But now we see you weren't asking that, but were once again asking about an event that is believed to have occurred long after life had already arisen, and long after "random" mutation and natural selection were operating.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12995 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I wasn't focused on anything specific, but just wanted to issue a reminder that there *are* guidelines. I can how you might think I was talking about you with my comment about violations in the morning, since you posted this morning. But I was catching up on this thread from a couple days ago, so I read a lot this morning.
I think discussion here is going along pretty well, but thought I noticed a gradual increase in the number of personal comments, and in the time spent rehashing what was actually said. This seems a worthwhile thread, and I was just hoping to nudge it into being a little more focused, but I didn't mean to affect the discussion or single anyone out. I certainly see no specific behavior here requiring administrative action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22389 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Peter writes: program/data distintion is quite straight forward .... You can flip your interpretation of program and data as easily as that famous optical illusion of the goblets that morph into faces. Consider a microcoded machine. Is the top level program really a program, or is it data interpreted by the microcode? Or is the microcode just data driving a state machine? Is the offset field of a memory access instruction just part of the instruction, or is it data?
data doesn't perform any operations, program does. It isn't quite this simple. A program doesn't perform any operations either. Both program and data sit in memory. Both the program and the data control the operations the machine performs. Where you draw the line between program and data is not unambiguous. One can tighten up the definitions and define program as those elements within memory that can potentially be referenced (in a correctly operating program) by the machine's program counter, but I can write a program that writes program instructions to memory and then transfer control to that memory. Did I write data? Or program? Or I can purposefully place an illegal instruction, say 0, in memory in order to generate an illegal instruction trap. Is the 0 data? Or program? What about jump tables? Are they data or program? To me the question about what parts of genetic processes correspond to which parts of computers is a fluid argument. There are any number of ways in which the analogy can be drawn. The DNA can be considered data or program, any which way you like. I'm all for any analogy with strong explanatory power, but just because one analogy "works" doesn't mean there can't be other analogies that also "work". --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Now I know I must be wrong - an anonymous internet poster called me an idiot! How can I possibly refute that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
DNAunion Inactive Member |
quote: quote: Okay, since you seem incapable of figuring out where you made any kind of material change: ME: I discussed mutations in a genome, the only place where "they" occur YOU: You switched to discussing rolling craps at a craps table only, instead of rolling craps at the craps table and in the lobby and at the Bingo table, adding places where the event isn’t even supposed to occur. You can’t see how your analogy doesn’t parallel my original...where you strayed? Even if you don't, can't you see that arguing against me on this is pointless? I've already won, now that I’ve quoted the strongly anti-Creationist biologist Richard Dawkins stating that hotspots do show mutations to not be random, in that sense. So anyone trying to say I am wrong has already been refuted. But hey, if want to continue trying to prove a point you never can, be my guest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Jesus it takes a lot of work to get a meaningful response from you, DNA. Why is that?
I've already won, now that I’ve quoted the strongly anti-Creationist biologist Richard Dawkins stating that hotspots do show mutations to not be random, in that sense. Naturally, since Dawkins is the arbiter of all language. Oh, wait. Of course, all I was saying (which you might have noticed had you not flown off the handle exactly as I predicted) was that nobody who uses the word "random" in practice does so with the expectation that it always means "randomly distributed in space." So you're right, Dawkins is right, and I'm right. Mutations are random, except in space. That's still random. That's all my point has ever been.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
wj Inactive Member |
As a general observation, it appears to me that DNAunion is prone to making statements which are open to differing interpretations and then taking offense when someone adopts an interpretation which DNA apparently did not intend.
Instead of berating others for not reading his posts correctly, I suggest DNA give more thought to writing clearly and correcting any misreadings of his posts promptly and without condescension. And we can do without the apparent anger and insults. Communication is a two way street.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminAsgara Administrator (Idle past 2302 days) Posts: 2073 From: The Universe Joined: |
And with that said...and agreed with...
This seems as good a time as any to close this baby down. Close enough to 300 for me. AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024