|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 51 (9219 total) |
| |
swooptaxi | |
Total: 920,732 Year: 1,054/6,935 Month: 335/719 Week: 123/204 Day: 15/28 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6937 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quality Control the Gold Standard | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
The present Six Sigma paradigm attempts to design and operate complex processes so accurately that only 3.4 errors per million operations is realized over the long run. That is the three sigma level of performance. Six Sigma is for human driven processes. If humans were driving evolution then you'd have a point, but we aren't.
The cell/DNA replication process is operating at about 7 sigma... an undreamed of level of accuracy and quality performance. If it was a human process it would be. However I have written a program which replicates itself perfectly every time. It does this through checksum algorithms. The biological system is very good, but it isn't as perfect as a designed system. Which is good for us, because we wouldn't have evolved. I'd imagine a rigidly perfect quality control system would be selected out because life is best when it is adaptable. It is adaptable when it doesn't replicate perfectly. Ironically perhaps, airplane fatality rates are approaching 7 sigma levels, so its hardly undreamed of.
At no stage is the improvement sought by introducing a source of random error, operating, seeing if the market accepts the new result keeping those that are accepted and discarding those that are unworkable or inefficient or otherwise unmarketable. Why,,, because it would absolutely never work in the real world. Well of course not, one wouldn't want airplane designers to built real planes that get 'selected out' of the design circulation. However, evolutionary algorithms can simulate this process so no planes have to be lost. Its cheaper. Time and again, optimum results are found using evolutionary methods as inspiration. Funny that.
No such R&D effort would ever result in a new or higher quality profitable marketable product... not ever and the enterprise would simply go bancrupt. Falsified. They wouldn't do it using real life product, but they would do it using simulations (which aren't cheap).
Yet evolutionists suppose that a seven sigma replicator arose by a random error generator and an accept/reject "market " mechanism, namely random mutation and natural selection. Not all evolutionists accept abiogenesis. Many do, but not all. Simple replication has been acheived, but it is not the kind of replication that would truly class as life. It is a good step though. This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 08-February-2006 04:06 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Human driven has nothing to do with it. Its analysis and mathmatics pure and siimple physical reality which is applicable and being applied in Nanoscience every day. See thats why our only hope of realizing Nano machines is to use molecules, DNA etc. because we have no hope of building them ourselves or "waiting for them to evolve". It has a lot to do with it. 3.4 DPMO applies to human orientated activities. It is used in nano science to help balance manufacturing and design defects. One can apply six sigma to anything one wants but the 3.4 DPMO is the holy grail for human orientated activities.
Think about it ... if there were one airplane crash in all aviation military, public and private per billion flights we would essentially never have a crash. Yet we have reported crashes somewhere in the USA every day.. check the national database if you care to. Its more like 4 sigma even for the airlines. I'm fairly sure I was discussing airline fatalities. I can assure you they are approaching 7 sigma... I think it is about 6.4. I can't find an online source to give the exact figure, but my source is Paul Keller, here is an excerpt from an article about it quote: You program is designed, has an OS with error correcting processes none of which evolved.. period. Right, it was designed. That's the point. A designed error correcting process can be perfect, why does this system you propose as looking designed (biology) have imperfect replication.
This is the same old .. look we made life using only a very small piece of rna or dna .. blah blah blah. No it isn't. By applying simple chemistry to amino acids, microspheres form which engage in rudimentry replication.
Assuming the answer you want or asserting that something is true is not rigerous science.. its a form of metaphysics. Agreed. So let's neither of us do this.
Having spent several year as as an OR analyst in the defense industry and energy industry I can assure you that design was never approached by random trial and error componentry pertubation. I am quite familiar with Monte Carlo methods , etc and the modeling of error propagation models. Never was there any attempt to design from random trial and error using simulation.... not ever. Despite the fact that you have been provided with examples of this very thing? Are you assuming it hasn't in spite of the evidence? Perhaps you just need more. What about a NASA example? This message has been edited by Modulous, Wed, 08-February-2006 06:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I had hoped to spre you the embarrassment but you persist. Dr. Robert Shapiro has disected every proposed theory of origins in his treatise by the semae name Origins. It is his and quoted colleagues that totally discount every theory so far advanced with hard number calculations. That is precisely why Shapiro has joined and written on the metaphysical concept of the Universal Life Force. Now he remains a hardened evolutionist no doubt about that and rejects Creation and ID in toto; but simply as a choice and not from any scientific evidence.. period. Hi! How is this relevant exactly?
You fail to notice that a crash can occur which is a failure of the airline safety program and not a death. The death is outside the program and is age and health dependent. If you include ALL reported safety incidents in the industry which are a result of airline variables it is nowhere near Seven Sigma. I take it you haven't worked in six sigma programs? One doesn't go to a company, count all the defects, all the opportunities and leave it at that. You look at individual scenarios. Airline fatality is one thing. If each fatality costs the airline $x (both directly (Compensation) and indirectly (losing customers) it would be wise to keep those figures down and measure it using DPMO. Of course, there is always dispute over DPMO as a measuring device, and some companies shun it entirely, but we're not doing that here are we?
You have provided exactly ZERO biological or even IT based random evolutionary examples unguided by human intellect.. period. Since we are comparing biology with something that would be silly. I have shown you evolutionary systems being used to design various things because evolutionary systems are better than human design in many cases.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Relevant because you proclaim Sidny Fox' protenoids , and soap bubbles to life replicators when Shapiro destroys any efficacy (and many othere have as well) of his work to real cell and replication. It may be the case that Shapiro is right, I've not read his work, but it would seem that not all authorities on the subject agree with him on that.
My shaving lather has bubbles that meld, bud etc. its not related to biologic cells. Does your shaving lather produce ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids? Does it show signs of anything similar to cyclosis?
Actually , I went theough the Black and Decker Sig Sigma class and am in charge of a Six Sigma blended learning program at my college although I do not teach it I made it happen. I'm not aware of the Black and Decker class, is that related to the tool company?
Your assumption of superior knowledge is unjustified as with all evo super egos. I didn't assume anything. I asked a question 'I take it you you haven't worked in any six sigma programs?' and continued with why I would think such a thing:
quote: I think I was pretty justified in thinking that you might have limited experience in the field based on what ou were saying. I wasn't sure, so I thought I'd ask. Your assumption that I was assuming superior knowledge is unjustified as with all creationists martyr complexes. Anyone can say stuff like that Evopeach. So back to my point: A system that has self error-correcting mechanisms such as computer programs or DNA replication cannot be compared with systems that don't. Indeed, we know that if we design a self error-correcting replicating program it will have a higher sigma success than DNA replication. Why is DNA's error correction as bad as it is if it was designed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Your premise is wrong. The IBM family of OS for mainframes as well as everyother OS in teh last 25 years has error correcting code and yet the average number of patches to fix bugs is about 25 per month. Are you saying that a mainframe cannot replicate a program a billion times?
Ever hear of the Blue Screen. Of course if you write 100% perfect code that never has a bug... I'd like to introduce you to Bill Gates.. because he sure as he-- doesn't. Why on earth would one need to complicate life with an OS that is designed for the kind of thing windows is? Why not a basic UNIX kernal running one program, the one that replicates itself, checks replication was successful, runs the second copy of itself which deletes the original version.
The error rate in generated code or hand written code is much greater than one error in a billion operations. Several lines of code is all it would take. And any errors that are generated are handled and corrected.
Again I spent 25 years in that business so please don't feed me that sort of cr--. I'm not attempting to feed you crap, just demonstrate designed error handling is better than the ones we find in nature.
One answer is that the original creation and design were perfect and then it was corrupted by say the introduction of mutation causing agents or by a slight alteration to the copying apparatus so it became imperfect. (In fact that was the claim made in Genesis) So the designer designed something that wasn't able to handle things? Do you have any evidence of this? What would we look for to find it? What agents might have this kind of affect? Why would this have such an affect as to not get corrected by the perfect correction mechanism?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
PLease no proteinoid or any Fox stuff ever resembled a cell, made deoxyribose, DNA, RNA or anything else Your comment has no relevance to my post. Did I ever mention deoxyribose, DNA or RNA? Lets see what I actually said:
My shaving lather has bubbles that meld, bud etc. its not related to biologic cells.
Does your shaving lather produce ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids? Does it show signs of anything similar to cyclosis?
Nope, didn't say anything about DNA or RNA. It looks to me like I mentioned ATP, polypeptides and nucleic acids as well as a process that resembles cyclosis. Care to respond to my actual post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Sure show me one authenticated paper peer reviewed that experimentally demonstrates the formation of a Fox protenoid or protocell that evolves into ATP or a nucleic acid used in life processes? LOL Metabolism of proteinoid microspheres, Nakashima T. quote: There was no resemblance between Fox stuff and a real cell. Well that's your opinion, and not one shared by many authorities on the issue:
quote: source
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
a film-like outer wall. osmotic swelling and shrinking. budding. binary fission (dividing into two daughter microspheres). streaming movement of internal particles. There I just poured a can of Pennzoil 10w-40 into a bucket of warm water and bingo everyone of the above properties are observed right there. So does oil produce polypeptides, nucleotides etc? Cyclosis? excitability? motility and conjugation? Does your oil/water mixture do all the things I have previously mentioned? If it does, publish it and the Swedes will review it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member (Idle past 308 days) Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
So the rate that was measured or calculated from direct observations , etc. by the various scientific teams were just lucky. The rate they measured was by luck free of all other sources of error repeatedly so that their results wee only for one source and not the net effect of the cells operations including repair of many errors.. just not all. I don't think luck entered into it. I think they counted how many of the total mutations were substitutions, and how many were not substitutions, and calculated the frequency from that. Sounds fairly straightforward to me.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025