|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quality Control the Gold Standard | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member 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 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
So, how is machine code like self raplicating molecules? The error routines for operatins systems check data integrety, yes. It even has some error correcting. However, right now, the O/S code does not write itself. You are making a bad analogy there.
O/S Code is not self replicating itself. It is not writing itself. There lies the difference.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
U can call me Cookie Member (Idle past 4983 days) Posts: 228 From: jo'burg, RSA Joined: |
Yet in life the error rate in replicating the DNA molecule is about one mistake in a billion base pairs. It seems you've been operating with a little bit of a straw-man here.The estimate you give as a mutation rate i.e. 10E-9, is not only outdated, but is also specific only to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Nowadays, a working estimate is taken to be around 10E-8. This also fluctuates depending on location (eg. areas of high recombination) and sequence content (eg. GC islands). NB. this is only for SNPs.SNPs, however, are not the only forms of mutation out there. The mutation rates for microsatellites (STRs) are much higher, ranging from 10E-3 to 10E-4. The mutation rates for Chromosomal rearrangements also fall within this range. Thus, on average, mutation rate is substantially HIGHER than the estimate you provided. It might also be (though I could be wrong, here) that lethal mutations - ones who cause spontaneous abortions - are not even reflected in the above estimates, making them lower estimates. While i don't know much (if anything) about the sigma system, it seems biological systems do not have sigma 7 status. PS. Dude, the acid-spitting, to me, is pretty unecessary. People don't agree with you; so what? It doesnt, override the duty to one's self to maintain civilty. EDIT: Lower changed to HIGHER. stupid mistake. This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 02-10-2006 01:16 AM This message has been edited by U can call me Cookie, 02-10-2006 03:53 AM "The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evopeach writes: 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. Hopefully this is just misexpressed. Hardware error correcting codes and software patches are not related in the way you imply here. Such codes have nothing to do with software bugs. I've been praying for years for the "do what I mean, not what I said" correcting code, but alas, in vain. Seriously, you do understand that hardware error correcting codes are for correcting data read from media like DVDs and hard drives or transmitted across some types of internal buses. They do not correct software bugs. There is no such thing as correcting codes for software bugs. The best that can be done is when the error becomes fatal to raise an exception that calls a routine that attempts recovery. These recovery routines can be quite sophisticated, and many software packages include their own recovery routines, but just the same, there are no correcting codes for software bugs. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA 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
There was no resemblance between Fox stuff and a real cell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Surely you understand that I/O routines and comunications routines and screen handlers etc. are part of the OS and do incorporporate error correcting code as well as memory correcting code implanted as firmware.
I am not implying the code itself is rewritten on the fly although thats a possibility that may be out there but I am not aware of it in practice. Anyway you are not commenting on the challenge presented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evopeach writes: Mutation is the only mechanism evolution has as raw material for changing the genome from the current pre-rna first replicator which would have been highly error prone step by step pair by pair into the genome and cellular machinery that operates at the 7 sigma level. This is very difficult to parse, but I'll give it a shot. First, I agree the early replicators were more error prone. This has been established in the lab where primitive RNA replicators have been constructed and evolved. Selection mechanisms quickly improve the accuracy. But pre-life and early life are also thought to have traded, swapped and exchanged genetic material much more freely than modern cells currently do. And cells which consume other cells can end up also acquiring some of the genetic material. Invasive forms like viruses inject genetic material into cells that take it up into their own genetic machinery. Sexual life has even more mechanisms for modifying the genome, since the allele frequency of a population can vary over time without a single mutation ever surviving. So you would be incorrect to state that "Mutation is the only mechanism".
How quickly did the evolutionary mechanism get from a very high error rate to the near perfect current error rate? Quickly enough to be consistent with the trilobite eye in fast forward evolutionary time? I don't know. Life spent the first several billion years doing pretty much the same thing. I expect that the collective genome of life on earth was gradually building up variation and complexity until it reached the point around 700 or 800 million years ago when the first multicellular life forms began appearing. It is possible that the replication accuracy increased gradually over this period, but how would we ever know?
Are the assumptions of evolutionary mutation rates and the so called fossil record of evolving organisms internally consistant in consideration of avail time periods? If so, how unless the rates are estimatred or assumed constant or undefined so they can be set to whatever is required to explain what is observed in evolutionary terms. Are you trying to say the measured rates are insufficient to support observed evolution? Or are you saying the estimated rates are fabricated to give correct results? Or are you saying something else? Whatever you're saying, raising the possibility is not the same as making the case. You haven't made any case yet. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Reading your post is illuminating in the sense it is consistent with all evolutionary explantions...90% I don't know, unmeasured, unquantifiable assertions about the unobservable past, just so and what if and maybe statements without a scintilla of evidence and highly improbable of occuring by any standard.
For instance explain in detail the selective mechanism that operated on the pre rna to the rna etc that resulted in a "quick" move to a more reliable replicator. Assertions are not science. Besides your post simply begs the question which was how do higly error prone early replicators ever evolve into the current state of seven sigma operation by evolutionary mechanisms?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
I might add I was in the business for 25 years using about ten OS and never was such performance observed. You must have used shitty hardware then. The scenario that nwr laid out is common and I have witnessed it many times. I have seen a pegged file server stay up with no syslog errors other than network related for over 2 years. A power outage finally took it out or I am confident it would still be continuously running today. No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Evopeach writes: Reading your post is illuminating in the sense it is consistent with all evolutionary explantions...90% I don't know, unmeasured, unquantifiable assertions about the unobservable past, just so and what if and maybe statements without a scintilla of evidence and highly improbable of occuring by any standard. That's just unsupported assertion. Could you provide some specific examples to support your claims?
For instance explain in detail the selective mechanism that operated on the pre rna to the rna etc that resulted in a "quick" move to a more reliable replicator. Assertions are not science. One experiment performed by the origins of life community involved putting primitive RNA replicators into a beaker of raw materials, such as amino acids and so forth. These primitive RNA replicators were fairly error prone, so changes accumulated very quickly, and the replication process was not very fast. After being in the beaker for a fixed time period, say 30 minutes, they extracted the most successul replicators and put them in a new beaker of raw materials for 30 minutes. They did this again and again, and in a relatively short time, I'm not sure how long, maybe 20 or 30 cycles, they had evolved an RNA that was very fast and highly accurate. If you'd like references to the paper I could probably find out for you.
Besides your post simply begs the question which was how do higly error prone early replicators ever evolve into the current state of seven sigma operation by evolutionary mechanisms? I assume it would happen through some equivalent selection process to the experiment I just described. The fastest most accurate replicators win the competition for resources and get to produce more of themselves. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jazzns Member (Idle past 3941 days) Posts: 2657 From: A Better America Joined: |
So maybe you could show me a wolf turning into a whale some saturday afternoon. This would be an act of special creation and thus not evolution at all. No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
I don't respond to crude talking trashmouth posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Evopeach Member (Idle past 6643 days) Posts: 224 From: Stroud, OK USA Joined: |
Actually a placental prehistoric wolf is the most popular candidate for the direct ancestor of the whale ... that is if you care to read the current literature.
Not the hair of my chinny chinny chin... I'll spout and I'll spout til I drown you out. LOL!!!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024