Junk DNA not refuted.

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Because I can read English. And I can understand the laymans version when an expert tells me it.

But what if that 'expert' is wrong?

See, if you can't understand the primary source, you have to rely upon others to interpret it for you. You seem to prefer one interpretation over any other, premised on your preconceived desires.


Have you looked at the data link yet?

Do you plan to?

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by Sky
I don't think you can either refute or prove that it is junk.

Prove? No. But it can clearly be established that large segments of it can be removed without detrimentally impacting the organism.

If not 'junk' in the colloquial sense, much of this DNA is certainly at least unnecessary.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by s0uljah
The discussion was civil until you jumped in Morat, as usual. Please refrain from the attitude, and we will have a better communication.

Souljah,

I know you and Morat have a history, but I think your accusations are too hasty.

I greatly appreciated Morat's comments, since I am only passingly familar with GAs. (My only project with them isn't finished yet.)

 

[Morat]

  Regardless of what you think of evolution, Genetic Algorithms are darn cool to play with. *grin*. Provided you get ahold of a good random number generator. My first attempt used the standard C++ one, and it was a disaster. I spent the next three weeks researching how software random number generators work.

  On a related note: A friend of mine once used a scanning laser (like grocery stores use) and a lava-lamp to generate random numbers.. It was pretty darn funny to watch, and especially fix. It's quite fun to tell someone, with a straight face, "We can't do anything until we get a new lava lamp".

   Admittedly, we had to spend over a month proving the results were sufficiently random for his needs, but it was a good enough source. Plus, you could watch it when bored.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by Morat
  Regardless of what you think of evolution, Genetic Algorithms are darn cool to play with. *grin*. Provided you get ahold of a good random number generator. My first attempt used the standard C++ one, and it was a disaster. I spent the next three weeks researching how software random number generators work.

I use a Mersenne Twister algorithm. I have a made a flexable Class that can take random input from any sourse to generate multiple distributions. I use this to add more flexability at runtime as to which generator my models run. For example, one such class will use a file to draw it's random numbers and not a prn generator.

 

[Morat]

  Atmospheric noise is an excellent source, if you can get a microphone somewhere windy and tape it for a bit. We studied a good deal of theory, but I've only used it maybe a half-dozen times. I've always found the hardest part, really, was writing a decent fitness function. Although the initial brainwork in setting a problem in terms GA's can address is often difficult.

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

I found a couple websites a while back that offer large data files of nothing but random bits. I'll probably use one of them.

 

[Morat]

  I think MIT (it might be one of the Ivy Leagues) offers a large array of GA templates. I've played with them, but haven't really had the chance to use them.

  It's done GNU-style, pretty much (free use, etc).

 

 

[RufusAtticus]

I've tried to use GA templates before. But I got no where. I'd prefer to build my own right now.

 

[Morat]

  Templates can be that way. Still, once you embrace the STL, there's no going back. However, with something as finnicky as genetic algorithms, you really need the skills (and, frankly, urge) to go hack into the template to fix something that clashes with your implementation.

   It might or not be worth the time and effort, depending. My current project, geeky as it is, involves evolving AD&D characters in an attempt to sort out the best combination of class, race, and skills. I'm still defining parameters, though. AD&D has really grown, and with third addition rules and prestige classes....

 

 

[MSBS]

Morat,
You're evolving AD&D characters? ROFLMAO..... now that should go over well on a christian forum.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Well it does explain alot. Fantasy games to show fantasy science.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by SLP
Prove? No. But it can clearly be established that large segments of it can be removed without detrimentally impacting the organism.

If not 'junk' in the colloquial sense, much of this DNA is certainly at least unnecessary.

Perhaps some or all of what can be removed without harm is redundant, which would falsify natural selection since it is illogical for natural selection to produce redundant genetic material.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I havent seen any evidence that it can be removed at all.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I havent seen any evidence that it can be removed at all.

I've read about knock-outs in DNA -- genes you can "knock out" without doing any visible harm to the organism. Whether or not it actually does harm is something I wouldn't commit to saying, personally, but the studies imply that no harm was done.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by npetreley
Perhaps some or all of what can be removed without harm is redundant, which would falsify natural selection since it is illogical for natural selection to produce redundant genetic material.

Why is that?

What do you mean by redundant?

Please go here:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm



and tell us where the redunatant and therefore illogical DNA is.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I havent seen any evidence that it can be removed at all.

It appears thatyou have seen no evidence for anything at all, since you rely on 'experts' to interpret information for you.

Please go to the link and offer your opinion.

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by SLP
Why is that?

What do you mean by redundant?

Please go here:

http://www2.norwich.edu/spage/alignmentgam.htm

and tell us where the redunatant and therefore illogical DNA is.

Please go here.

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000051.html

And then please go here.

http://www.yuckles.com/spacepigs.htm

 

[SLP]

Why go to those irrelevant links?

Are you the one posting as Peter Borger?

The Peter Borger posting there does not seem to have even a basic grasp of how science works or of evolutionary theory.

Were you linking to that as an example of shoddy creationist reasoning, or was it an attempt to divert the issue due to your lack of ability to offer anything of substance?


It is interesting to me to see how rapidly the creationist will run and hide when asked to actually look at some data - dat that they claim thay have creationiost explanations for.

Interesting, predictable, and a bit sad, really.

 

[Sky]

npetreley,

That is a great looking message board.