1. These are genes that your article discusses are come from the flu virus in duck hosts and the flu virus in human hosts. The article is not talking about human and duck DNA.
2. The original article was proposing sending a message via genetic code. Think of it this way. An organism, if it is still going to be capable of replication, will need to have two types of DNA. One type will allow it to replicate, make proteins, etc. We'll call this "Coding DNA". The other type of DNA is the 'message' that the aliens want to transmit and will get replicated along with the rest of the DNA, but will not make proteins. Degradations of the message DNA will not impact the vitality of the organism and the message will be easily changed. Coding DNA is preserved because it has a purpose. Non coding DNA (message DNA) is subject to random genetic drift, which will not be corrected by evolutionary processes. (note: message DNA is a term I made up here to describe the alien message. It has nothing to do with mRNA, etc. )
Some viruses (like Lambda phage)do pick up bits of DNA from their hosts. But this DNA is not constant from generation to generation and could not transmit a message after thousands of generations, let alone ten.
True, but how long will that data persist if the phage is replicating? You could fit a message inside a capsid but even if the thing is still fit for replication, the message will be lost.
A viral particle is fit for transmitting a message, or replicating itself. I doubt it could be used for both.
A non compete can't prevent you from using your skills for gainful employment. But if you're a freelancer, and you try to steal clients from your former employer, they can certainly nail you for that, so they're not totally void.
Albeit, there's a lot of non-coding DNA in Eukaryotic cells, but I wonder how many generations a random mutation would endure in that region unchanged. Those regions probably have a purpose re: the conformation of the DNA, among other things.
While using SETI on our genetic code might be helpful in identifying patterns and so forth, the notion that another creature would talk to us that way seems a little far fetched.
The big disagreement seems to be that I see the purpose of science as being able to produce experimentally derived information that has been fact checked by experts and reasonably well qualified so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence. If you're a scientist in the field, your perspective should be different, of course. A lay person doesn't need to know mechanisms or reasoning,, just so long as they get the conclusion right, and the matter isn't under scientific contention. That's the purpose of systematically analyzing objective reality.
Well now you're going to piss off the psychological science students. I mean we could take it a step further, I'm a physics major, I consider physics and math "hard science" and biology and pyschology "soft science". I guess I'm bringing this up to show the subjective nature of what you're saying.
Piss off the psychological science students? Bring it on.:) I'm a biotech major (though not using it to make a living). Biotech is a softer science than physics. The predictive value it generates isn't as reliable. But it does generate predictive value via the scientific method, which it elucidates through physical mechanisms. The problem is that the reductionist scientific method isn't as good at working with complex, non-deterministic systems. The value of conclusions gained from analyzing such systems decreases as the systems become more complex and non-deterministic.
And it was really the context of what that person was saying and suggesting to me, that I made the statements you replied to. That person was demonstrating the characteristics of the type of people who take science on faith, and have little firsthand or even useful understanding of science themselves. Those people are dogmatic and they are the reason religious people are so weary of science. They should just join a fricking cult if they want to irrationally and illogically argue for their one true faith.
I'd imagine that religious people who are 'weary of science' are weary for other reasons as well, namely they want revealed religion (i.e. their say so) to stand on the same level as conclusions supported via experimentation and proven to have predictive value. They're frustrated when it doesn't.
If you meet up with an irrational scientist, you can at least find out the premises of the people that he cites and argue with them based on that. Or, if not, then leave them. There are always some people who are going to persist in their own beliefes no matter what.
Most religious people I've argued with Re: certain sceintific conclusions don't even bother to address my points. Science is intended to understand physical reality. Religion is mostly intended to instruct people in how they should behave or contextualize reality. Its notion of objective reality tends to pander to its notions of how humans should act. Miracles happen. Belief about substance alters substance. etc That's religion. And these religous beliefs are not kept because they're backed up by physical evidence, but rather for their social value. Nobody is testing the cup of wine at communion to see if it's actually turning into blood. Scientific notions are thrown out if they don't acomplish their intended goals. Religious notions are not.
This was the point I was getting at... If you haven't seen the evidence, haven't utilized the scientific method for yourself, then you have taken things on faith. You have believed things because an authority told you they were so.
In a sense. But faith and trust are not identical, and faith in the apostle of a revealed religion is not the same as trusting a scientist using the scientific method. The scientist can be proven wrong, in time. The religious person can't. The scientist can be 'audited' by his peers based on evidence. The religious apostle can only be held in conformity with the views of his ancestors. He ha
What it basically boils down to is, todays science students, having taken a good deal of what they've learned on faith, especially with regards to things like the big bang, evolution, etc... have developed very closed minds and dogmatic adherence to what they have been taught. Now I'm arguing something, feel free to argue this back.
There's enough evidence for each of these things you mention that faith isn't required. The universe is expanding, judging by things such as the red shift. Viewing distant galaxies which are, by our perception, further back in time shows them more tightly clustered. If you have a theory of the history of the universe that's more predictive, or as predictive as the dominant scientific theory, that's one thing. A predictive view based on evidence may be an opinion, but it is an opinion based on reason and physical evidence rather than arbitrary faith. The ability to say that 2+2=4 and not 5 is not condescending. The ability rank items in terms of their probable authenticity is not condescending.
Re: evolution, I can point out times when the CDC has tried to make their model of an epidemic conform to Burnette(sp?) and White's view of the evolution of infectious disease when Ewalds could explain things more accuratly, but this isn't faith. It's deductive reasoning based on flawed premises. But because those premises are explicitly stated, they can be called into question and corrected. If someone says 'you're wrong because I say so' and offers no reasons or faulty reasons to back that up, or if the theory is non-predictive, such views should be attacked. "Because I said so" is flamebait.
Probably it would be better to argue with the premises of the 'non-mainstream' poster as opposed to modding them down. But if you're going to take the opinion that all views are equal, and that faith is the equivalent of reason, then the notions of truth and falsehood fly out the window.
Isn't trying to understand what other people believe and where other people come from a scientific goal in and of itself
Not really. Science is focused on objective reality and repeating patterns that can be measured objectivly, modeled, predicted and so forth. Understanding other people scientifically might useful in predicting their behavior, but doesn't extend much beyond that. And psychology is still more art than science.
In my book, you're the same type of character that those fundies who thump the bible are.
Granted, the person arguing against you made a number of incorrect statements. It's difficult, if not impossible, to disprove prophecy, particularly the biblical kind, since it's very vauge.
I noticed you convieniently left out philosophy out of your list. Do you discount philosophy in general?
Discount it in what capacity? What type of philosophy? As a science capable of producing predictive value? "Philosophy" is a pretty broad catagory, especially considering that science is "natural philosophy." Some types, like solipsism (sp?) I would reject.
Of course, talking about 'the expense of gas' would make more sense if you were manufacturing the gas as opposed to mining it. Nobody, as far as I know, is actually producing gasoline from water and air.
Yup. They are, and still accepting patients too. Though I don't think they're doing much better. As far as they're concerned, most contact with the west has resulted in attempts to rip them off, and they're probably right. So things stay as they are, and they live on a shoestring.
Russia to cure a type of cancer using stem cells and congress would pass a law funding it the next day.
Soviet Georgia has phages which could replace antibiotics in some instances and kill antibiotic resistant infections. We haven't funded it yet. Possibly since Soviet Georgia hasn't found a way to capitalize on the tech.
Speaking as someone who as purchased targeted hits on both Overture (MS run) and google, Overture has a much better ROI. Google farms out hits to other search engines, who can make more money by paying people to click on google's links.
While I agree with you completely... funding sports might give benefit in terms of the millitary. After all, that was the reason for establishing Gym Class. After WWII, it was realized what shitty shape American kids were in and they wanted people fit enough to be good soldiers. Wonder how many college athletes participate in the millitary...
People don't go to college to major in football, typically.
You pretty much answered your own question. The purpose of college sports is not, with most schools and for most students, to prepare atheletes for a career in atheletics. That's not where their priorties lie.
Of course, people were allowed to hire Champions in trial by combat. So it's really not much different than our current system, except that someone would get killed. Fighting and random outcomes.
But at least a person would have a chance in hell of being their own attorney.
Just look at Anime. Japanese companies don't enforce copyright. People make all kinds of derivative art, stories, etc. have anime conventions where they share this stuff. It builds a market for the product. Of course, this is a good strategy for any niche market. This may not be a good strategy for major establishments since it diminished their ability to pipe the products of their choice directly into your CD player.
The MPAA and RIAA represent a specific list of major artists. They don't represent the whole industry and more than the Christian Coalition represents all Christians.
I don't know how you'd actually measure it (voluntary reporting seems a bit inconclusive), but I'd be interested in how downloading altered the distribution of music sales. Who is helpedmost, and who is hurt most.
Nope. Just like a scientist who performs experiments on mice isn't interested in injecting himself with the same stuff.
My poit was
#1 My point was in response to the original and the reply to my original post. The reproductive system is mostly redundant. It affects life, but isn't required to maintain it, and thus successful alterations of the reproductive system are not good models for the saftey of altering other systems. Not that we can't alter other systems, but alterations to the reproductive system are not good models.
#2 Anything that affects lifespan in animals or humans is interesting because it helps us to understand the process of aging, scientifically. I'm not volunteering for CR any more than a scientist who does tests on rats wants to inject the same garbage into himself. I didn't advocate it anywhere. Understanding things like the role of oxidative damage, the role of telomeres, etc. in the process of senescence may eventually be helpful in extending lifespan without the negative effects associated with things like CR, castration, etc.
If the life extensions caused by CR and castration were linked, this would help to explain the underlying mechanism for CR.
Has anyone ever heard of the plane Deadalus? It was powered entirely by a person and flew across the English Channel. That'd be the perfect vehicle for me. Of course, to be light and strong enough, it had to be made of some lithium alloy so it was rather expensive.
Castration reduces testostrone by about 90% but it doesn't eliminate it and some castrati were still capable of romantic encounters. In fact, they were prized as lovers, in part because they were said to last longer in bed.
The effects seem similar to caloric restriction, and I sometimes wonder if the the lifespan gains from the two are related. Would a castrated animal on CR get two lifespan boosts or just one?
Slashdot Mirror
1. These are genes that your article discusses are come from the flu virus in duck hosts and the flu virus in human hosts. The article is not talking about human and duck DNA.
2. The original article was proposing sending a message via genetic code. Think of it this way. An organism, if it is still going to be capable of replication, will need to have two types of DNA. One type will allow it to replicate, make proteins, etc. We'll call this "Coding DNA". The other type of DNA is the 'message' that the aliens want to transmit and will get replicated along with the rest of the DNA, but will not make proteins. Degradations of the message DNA will not impact the vitality of the organism and the message will be easily changed. Coding DNA is preserved because it has a purpose. Non coding DNA (message DNA) is subject to random genetic drift, which will not be corrected by evolutionary processes. (note: message DNA is a term I made up here to describe the alien message. It has nothing to do with mRNA, etc. )
Some viruses (like Lambda phage)do pick up bits of DNA from their hosts. But this DNA is not constant from generation to generation and could not transmit a message after thousands of generations, let alone ten.
True, but how long will that data persist if the phage is replicating? You could fit a message inside a capsid but even if the thing is still fit for replication, the message will be lost.
A viral particle is fit for transmitting a message, or replicating itself. I doubt it could be used for both.
A non compete can't prevent you from using your skills for gainful employment. But if you're a freelancer, and you try to steal clients from your former employer, they can certainly nail you for that, so they're not totally void.
Keep in mind that space isn't a perfect vacuume. At fractions of the speed of light, it can even become abrasive.
Albeit, there's a lot of non-coding DNA in Eukaryotic cells, but I wonder how many generations a random mutation would endure in that region unchanged. Those regions probably have a purpose re: the conformation of the DNA, among other things.
While using SETI on our genetic code might be helpful in identifying patterns and so forth, the notion that another creature would talk to us that way seems a little far fetched.
viruses and non-eukaryotes have to be too efficient with their DNA. Anything not needed will get discarded
I agree, we see eye to eye on most points.
:) I'm a biotech major (though not using it to make a living). Biotech is a softer science than physics. The predictive value it generates isn't as reliable. But it does generate predictive value via the scientific method, which it elucidates through physical mechanisms. The problem is that the reductionist scientific method isn't as good at working with complex, non-deterministic systems. The value of conclusions gained from analyzing such systems decreases as the systems become more complex and non-deterministic.
The big disagreement seems to be that I see the purpose of science as being able to produce experimentally derived information that has been fact checked by experts and reasonably well qualified so that lay people can make statements without having to dig into the evidence. If you're a scientist in the field, your perspective should be different, of course. A lay person doesn't need to know mechanisms or reasoning,, just so long as they get the conclusion right, and the matter isn't under scientific contention. That's the purpose of systematically analyzing objective reality.
Well now you're going to piss off the psychological science students. I mean we could take it a step further, I'm a physics major, I consider physics and math "hard science" and biology and pyschology "soft science". I guess I'm bringing this up to show the subjective nature of what you're saying.
Piss off the psychological science students? Bring it on.
And it was really the context of what that person was saying and suggesting to me, that I made the statements you replied to. That person was demonstrating the characteristics of the type of people who take science on faith, and have little firsthand or even useful understanding of science themselves. Those people are dogmatic and they are the reason religious people are so weary of science. They should just join a fricking cult if they want to irrationally and illogically argue for their one true faith.
I'd imagine that religious people who are 'weary of science' are weary for other reasons as well, namely they want revealed religion (i.e. their say so) to stand on the same level as conclusions supported via experimentation and proven to have predictive value.
They're frustrated when it doesn't.
If you meet up with an irrational scientist, you can at least find out the premises of the people that he cites and argue with them based on that. Or, if not, then leave them. There are always some people who are going to persist in their own beliefes no matter what.
Most religious people I've argued with Re: certain sceintific conclusions don't even bother to address my points. Science is intended to understand physical reality. Religion is mostly intended to instruct people in how they should behave or contextualize reality. Its notion of objective reality tends to pander to its notions of how humans should act. Miracles happen. Belief about substance alters substance. etc That's religion. And these religous beliefs are not kept because they're backed up by physical evidence, but rather for their social value. Nobody is testing the cup of wine at communion to see if it's actually turning into blood. Scientific notions are thrown out if they don't acomplish their intended goals. Religious notions are not.
This was the point I was getting at... If you haven't seen the evidence, haven't utilized the scientific method for yourself, then you have taken things on faith. You have believed things because an authority told you they were so.
In a sense. But faith and trust are not identical, and faith in the apostle of a revealed religion is not the same as trusting a scientist using the scientific method. The scientist can be proven wrong, in time. The religious person can't. The scientist can be 'audited' by his peers based on evidence. The religious apostle can only be held in conformity with the views of his ancestors. He ha
What it basically boils down to is, todays science students, having taken a good deal of what they've learned on faith, especially with regards to things like the big bang, evolution, etc... have developed very closed minds and dogmatic adherence to what they have been taught. Now I'm arguing something, feel free to argue this back.
There's enough evidence for each of these things you mention that faith isn't required. The universe is expanding, judging by things such as the red shift. Viewing distant galaxies which are, by our perception, further back in time shows them more tightly clustered. If you have a theory of the history of the universe that's more predictive, or as predictive as the dominant scientific theory, that's one thing. A predictive view based on evidence may be an opinion, but it is an opinion based on reason and physical evidence rather than arbitrary faith. The ability to say that 2+2=4 and not 5 is not condescending. The ability rank items in terms of their probable authenticity is not condescending.
Re: evolution, I can point out times when the CDC has tried to make their model of an epidemic conform to Burnette(sp?) and White's view of the evolution of infectious disease when Ewalds could explain things more accuratly, but this isn't faith. It's deductive reasoning based on flawed premises. But because those premises are explicitly stated, they can be called into question and corrected. If someone says 'you're wrong because I say so' and offers no reasons or faulty reasons to back that up, or if the theory is non-predictive, such views should be attacked.
"Because I said so" is flamebait.
Probably it would be better to argue with the premises of the 'non-mainstream' poster as opposed to modding them down. But if you're going to take the opinion that all views are equal, and that faith is the equivalent of reason, then the notions of truth and falsehood fly out the window.
Isn't trying to understand what other people believe and where other people come from a scientific goal in and of itself
Not really. Science is focused on objective reality and repeating patterns that can be measured objectivly, modeled, predicted and so forth. Understanding other people scientifically might useful in predicting their behavior, but doesn't extend much beyond that. And psychology is still more art than science.
In my book, you're the same type of character that those fundies who thump the bible are.
Granted, the person arguing against you made a number of incorrect statements. It's difficult, if not impossible, to disprove prophecy, particularly the biblical kind, since it's very vauge.
I noticed you convieniently left out philosophy out of your list. Do you discount philosophy in general?
Discount it in what capacity? What type of philosophy? As a science capable of producing predictive value? "Philosophy" is a pretty broad catagory, especially considering that science is "natural philosophy." Some types, like solipsism (sp?) I would reject.
Of course, talking about 'the expense of gas' would make more sense if you were manufacturing the gas as opposed to mining it. Nobody, as far as I know, is actually producing gasoline from water and air.
... we don't need no education... ... we don't need no thought control...
Yup. They are, and still accepting patients too. Though I don't think they're doing much better. As far as they're concerned, most contact with the west has resulted in attempts to rip them off, and they're probably right. So things stay as they are, and they live on a shoestring.
Russia to cure a type of cancer using stem cells and congress would pass a law funding it the next day.
Soviet Georgia has phages which could replace antibiotics in some instances and kill antibiotic resistant infections. We haven't funded it yet. Possibly since Soviet Georgia hasn't found a way to capitalize on the tech.
This doesn't really disprove what he said. He said an improperly repaired monitor could emit X-rays. He didn't say a damaged one would.
Speaking as someone who as purchased targeted hits on both Overture (MS run) and google, Overture has a much better ROI. Google farms out hits to other search engines, who can make more money by paying people to click on google's links.
Google is making money now, but it's vulnerable.
...and, more importantly, MS can countersue.
While I agree with you completely... funding sports might give benefit in terms of the millitary. After all, that was the reason for establishing Gym Class. After WWII, it was realized what shitty shape American kids were in and they wanted people fit enough to be good soldiers. Wonder how many college athletes participate in the millitary...
I'm not sure what you're arguing for here.
People don't go to college to major in football, typically.
You pretty much answered your own question. The purpose of college sports is not, with most schools and for most students, to prepare atheletes for a career in atheletics. That's not where their priorties lie.
This one is actually really worth a read to see just how bizarrely corrupt this all is. Enjoy.
Heh. Yeah, nice try.
Of course, people were allowed to hire Champions in trial by combat. So it's really not much different than our current system, except that someone would get killed. Fighting and random outcomes.
But at least a person would have a chance in hell of being their own attorney.
Just look at Anime. Japanese companies don't enforce copyright. People make all kinds of derivative art, stories, etc. have anime conventions where they share this stuff. It builds a market for the product. Of course, this is a good strategy for any niche market. This may not be a good strategy for major establishments since it diminished their ability to pipe the products of their choice directly into your CD player.
The MPAA and RIAA represent a specific list of major artists. They don't represent the whole industry and more than the Christian Coalition represents all Christians.
I don't know how you'd actually measure it (voluntary reporting seems a bit inconclusive), but I'd be interested in how downloading altered the distribution of music sales. Who is helpedmost, and who is hurt most.
Nope. Just like a scientist who performs experiments on mice isn't interested in injecting himself with the same stuff.
My poit was
#1 My point was in response to the original and the reply to my original post. The reproductive system is mostly redundant. It affects life, but isn't required to maintain it, and thus successful alterations of the reproductive system are not good models for the saftey of altering other systems. Not that we can't alter other systems, but alterations to the reproductive system are not good models.
#2 Anything that affects lifespan in animals or humans is interesting because it helps us to understand the process of aging, scientifically. I'm not volunteering for CR any more than a scientist who does tests on rats wants to inject the same garbage into himself. I didn't advocate it anywhere. Understanding things like the role of oxidative damage, the role of telomeres, etc. in the process of senescence may eventually be helpful in extending lifespan without the negative effects associated with things like CR, castration, etc.
If the life extensions caused by CR and castration were linked, this would help to explain the underlying mechanism for CR.
http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Daedalus
I was confused with the Albatros, though, in that Daedeuls didn't fly across the English Channel. That was the record it beat.
Has anyone ever heard of the plane Deadalus?
It was powered entirely by a person and flew across the English Channel. That'd be the perfect vehicle for me. Of course, to be light and strong enough, it had to be made of some lithium alloy so it was rather expensive.
Huh? Gravity doesn't work sideways. Either I misunderstood your post or you're pulling my leg.
Length of life is affected. Castration increases lifespan by an average of 14 years.
/ 30 /immortal/print.html
http://archive.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03
Castration reduces testostrone by about 90% but it doesn't eliminate it and some castrati were still capable of romantic encounters. In fact, they were prized as lovers, in part because they were said to last longer in bed.
The effects seem similar to caloric restriction, and I sometimes wonder if the the lifespan gains from the two are related. Would a castrated animal on CR get two lifespan boosts or just one?