RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (638) < ... 348 349 350 351 352 [353] 354 355 356 357 358 ... >   
  Topic: The Bathroom Wall, A PT tradition< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,10:18   

Back when I was grubbing for a way to get into the biological research community, I interviewed for a research assistant position. The interview was going along nicely, and as we were getting ready to part, my future boss noted that he had an order in for a personal computer for the lab, something I'd be working with a lot. I asked what he had ordered, and he said, "An Apple IIe." I pondered that briefly, then said, "Any chance that order can be cancelled?"

I have an Apple MacBook Pro from the lab. The Avida development process is easiest on Macs, followed by Linux and Windows. I haven't had any major complaints about my MacBook, though I've seen that other people have had various and sundry problems.

For ourselves, we have a variety of standard PC hardware, running Windows XP, Vista, Xubuntu, and FreeBSD. The laptops are set up to dual boot Windows and Linux. The file server runs on FreeBSD. The machine with the video capture card is WinXP only.

I'm much happier working on Macs since the introduction of OS X. It means that there is a way to get things done efficiently, as one can get a console via Terminal.

The computers I have are for getting things done, not for points in OS wars.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,11:59   

Quote (huwp @ Jan. 12 2009,13:07)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2009,05:47)
Hmmmm, Ladbroke Grove to Tooting Bec to Aldwych (closed) to Tower Hill, surely this is analogous to the Grand Opening of Her Majesty first viewed in the '50s if memory serves.

I assume that elevators are wild since it would appear that we have deviated from Stovold and moved into the dastardly realms of The Cardinals. This of course being the case I shall come from the East with a Masonic Lateral:

Fairlop.

Louis

P.S. This could get out of hand.

Good God man, you can't mention HM's Grand Opening here - there may be colonials around!  I know you're not renowned for tact and diplomacy round here, but there again, if what Arden's mother says about you is true...

Anyway, of course, we have deviated from Stovold; we're in the second week of January and, yes, naturally, lifts are wild (elevators!!!)

The Masonic lateral is interesting since it is both level and square.

I wish to keep my options open and definitely do not wish to go in Nid.  Hence:

Moorgate.

Moorgate eh? Devious.

As befits your kind.

Anyway, since elevators (not merely lifts, a distinction you missed, and I shall take advantage of) are wild, I shall plumb for a Loop and go for:

Cockfosters.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,12:05   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2009,11:59)
Moorgate eh? Devious.

As befits your kind.

Anyway, since elevators (not merely lifts, a distinction you missed, and I shall take advantage of) are wild, I shall plumb for a Loop and go for:

Cockfosters.

Louis

Good grief man, are you trying Pilkington's finesse?  In January?

Oh well, your loss.

Euston...

Have you written your will?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,13:23   

Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 10 2009,11:47)
Let's see.  You live in Wales
Went to Washington state, USA...

Nope.  Live in Seattle.  Went (back) to Yorkshire.

I think you're confusing me with Louis - he's the one with an affinity for the (woolly, baa-ing) pleasures of Wales.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4360
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,13:54   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 12 2009,13:23)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 10 2009,11:47)
Let's see.  You live in Wales
Went to Washington state, USA...

Nope.  Live in Seattle.  Went (back) to Yorkshire.

I think you're confusing me with Louis - he's the one with an affinity for the (woolly, baa-ing) pleasures of Wales.

Oops !  Sorry John - Have some Yorkshire Pudding on me.
And since I now know that you DO live in Seatle, please stop by the DI and laugh at Casey Luskin for me.

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,15:19   

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 12 2009,19:23)
Quote (J-Dog @ Jan. 10 2009,11:47)
Let's see.  You live in Wales
Went to Washington state, USA...

Nope.  Live in Seattle.  Went (back) to Yorkshire.

I think you're confusing me with Louis - he's the one with an affinity for the (woolly, baa-ing) pleasures of Wales.

{Shakes head vigorously, points at Huw}

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,15:21   

Quote (huwp @ Jan. 12 2009,18:05)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2009,11:59)
Moorgate eh? Devious.

As befits your kind.

Anyway, since elevators (not merely lifts, a distinction you missed, and I shall take advantage of) are wild, I shall plumb for a Loop and go for:

Cockfosters.

Louis

Good grief man, are you trying Pilkington's finesse?  In January?

Oh well, your loss.

Euston...

Have you written your will?

Euston? EUSTON???? Such terrible play hasn't been seen since the Brompton fiasco during the Boer War, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you how THAT turned out.

Have at you, sir:

Trafalgar Square.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,16:01   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2009,15:21)
Euston? EUSTON???? Such terrible play hasn't been seen since the Brompton fiasco during the Boer War, and I'm sure I don't need to tell you how THAT turned out.

Have at you, sir:

Trafalgar Square.

Louis

Oh dear.  I thought it was such an obvious trap that not even you would fall for it, but you did.

Well enjoy the fountains and don't feed the pigeons.  My next move is Baker Street which allows me to declare 221b rules (yippee!) so all other rules are void and I don't see how you can stop my next move.

Louis old chum, you've blown it...

  
jeffox



Posts: 524
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,18:05   

This may not quite be what you guys are posting about, but (since I've been to both):

Buck's Row & Mitre Square.

(if you can understand the historical significance, then 'nuff said)   :)

p.s. I study very odd things sometimes.  :)

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,18:18   

Quote (huwp @ Jan. 12 2009,16:01)
Louis old chum, you've blown it...

According to Arden, that is his specialty.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,18:59   

Matt Taibbi gripes about Thomas Friedman's writing.

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,19:14   

Quote (carlsonjok @ Jan. 12 2009,16:18)
 
Quote (huwp @ Jan. 12 2009,16:01)
Louis old chum, you've blown it...

According to Arden, that is his specialty.

Hardly. Check out the kind of homoerotic stuff Louis admitted to above:

 
Quote
attempting to lateral shift at the same time as blocking a Northern Approach to Cockfosters


Of course, he tries to make himself sound responsible by adding this:

 
Quote
and rendering the whole Jubilee line out of bounds


...but I don't think any of us are fooled. :O

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,19:17   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 10 2009,17:40)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 10 2009,13:31)
The aspect of front-loading that might seem miraculous to us (and the part that I'm agreeing to) is the necessity for foreknowledge of world environmental conditions.  This may not be "miraculous" at all, if indeed there is a being that exists outside the constraints of time.If such a being exists, then this is not miraculous at all for him.  It's the natural state of affairs for such a being.  It just seems miraculous to us.  So, I'll agree that omniscience is a requirement for successful front-loading.  

That's tap dancing. The dust settles and omniscience is required for front loading. Hence front loading is a supernatural explanation and lies outside the purview of science.

Front-loading requires omniscience in the same way that successful DNA encoding does.  To build a successful DNA program for a functioning, reproducing, evolving organism would require knowledge far beyond that of man.  Also, (to use your argument), front-loading happened billions of years ago - so how can we know that all the genetic "spit-swapping" that went on back then didn't produce a super-genome from which all others descended?   I don't see how you can so quickly rule out natural mechanisms and arrive at the supernatural for one theory and not even consider using the same criteria to judge the other.  Personal bias again?                 
Quote
         
Quote
Let me clarify one thing here though: the "God hypothesis" operates from the assumption that there is a God.  It interprets nature in the light of such an assumption.  It is obviously no use to a methodological naturalist.

Hence it is of no use to science, and of no relevance to science. That's all I've been saying.

Bill, we seem to be dancing around each other's arguments - repeating the same basic premises.

Maybe I haven't been clear, maybe you don't want the argument to end, I don't know.  Let me try to state this one final time and hopefully we can move on...

I don't care if my argument is scientific or not, I don't care if it contributes anything to the empirical research of methodological naturalists, I especially don't care if those who embrace methodological naturalism reject it, I only care if it's true.

I only brought up the science of front-loading because those who presented the most powerful case for it were some of the most brilliant scientists in their respective fields.  One thing I should have made clearer though was that none of them called it front-loading.  Berg called it "Nomogenesis" which means "evolution by law".  He offered no explanation as to how it all began, (other than one sentence at the end of his book where he postulated "tens of thousands of primary forms"), all he did was chronicle evidence from nature that showed "lawful evolution" (and there was a lot).  Schindewolf directly rejected creationism and metaphysical explanations.  His theory was based on overwhelming evidence of patterns within the fossil record and the lack of transitional forms necessary for Darwinist gradualism.  Goldschmidt did not appeal to any supernatural mechanism either.  His view was that macroevolution was saltational and based on the chromosomes and not the gene.  Dr. John Davison built his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis on the work of these and others and he was the one who introduced the concept of front-loading into the mix.  His position is that there is no other possible explanation and that such a conclusion is obvious.  Incidentally, he also proposed a completely natural, testable mechanism for Goldschmidt's chromosome based evolution - semi-meiosis.

For me, though, I'm only interested in how all these things fit together and how the findings of science fit within a theological worldview.  I reject methodological naturalism because it cannot consider God as a source.  I instead, embrace natural theology.  So, although most scientific work is done within the framework of methodological naturalism, I evaluate it from a theological perspective.  From this perspective, I fully expect methodological naturalism to fail when it comes to explaining what God has done.  Just as science would fail to explain the origin of the space shuttle or any of its parts if it could not consider humans as a source, so must methodological naturalism fail in its quest to explain the works of God.  I think there is much to be gained - for me personally - from this.  Just as you can tell much about a creator through their work--be it a song, a painting or a space shuttle--so too can we learn much about God through the study of his creation.  In the field of archaeology, we often learn everything we know about a culture by studying their creations.
               
Quote
         
Quote
I agree that it would take a being like God to successfully front-load a genome (or genomes), but I also think it would take a being like God to design a ribosome, or to successfully integrate systems such as biochemical pathways, enzymes and co-enzymes, protein synthesis, intra and extra-cellular communications, anabolic and catabolic processes, DNA as an information carrier, etc. together into a functioning organism.  You were able, in a wink, to decide that front-loading would require God, how about putting those powers of deduction to use on whether or not it would require God to make an organism?

My position is that the search for a natural explanation of the origins of these structures is within the purview of natural science. Assertions motivated by reference to either the existence (or non-existence, for that matter) of God aren't relevant to that process. I hope, and believe, that scientific accounts (e.g. naturalistic accounts) will be attained for these structures and processes - although the precision of such accounts will certainly be constrained by the historical nature of these events, because events that occurred billions of years in the past are likely to be only incompletely knowable.

I don't think that logically follows from the proposed mechanism of the current theory.  This mechanism is random variation sifted through natural selection.  It is an accidental cause sorted through an often arbitrary filter.  Arriving at the best idea would have to be a slow, indirect, sloppy process where most random variations wouldn't work.  The number of workable variations would be few and should be easily reconstructed.  "Billions of years" is no excuse - since that's the time it takes for such an inefficient process to work.               
Quote
         
Quote
I knew you'd say that.  But God - as the causal effect of the natural world - can also thus be linked.  IOW, if God created the natural world, the natural world itself is evidence - and a link to - God.

See? Everybody is happy. Indeed, you could fully embrace evolutionary theory and abandon your reactionary anti-scientific stance by taking that philosophical attitude to the history of life generally.

I came here to challenge and to have my views challenged and so far, it's been productive for me.  I've brought my own philosophy into sharper focus through our exchanges here.  You have been one of the few to actually engage in debate.  And, although I think you sometimes reject anything that might force you to consider God, I feel as though you have at least tried to consider my arguments.

There are some here who have not even tried.  There is one here whose name I won't mention, whose posts I haven't replied to in months (in fact I haven't even been reading them), yet he continues to reply to everything I post.  The sad thing is, I don't even think he's noticed that I'm not replying.  I guess he feels he's winning our imaginary debate.

So thanks Bill, for not being totally dismissive (and at least noticing whether I respond or not).

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,19:22   

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2009,03:42)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 11 2009,10:44)
[SNIP]

I expect a warm thank you from Daniel for this...

May I be the first to wish you a long and happy life together.

Mazltov!

Oh sorry. Was that not what you meant?

I know we here at AtBC Towers are often mildly snarky and possibly even bordering on the sarcastic when confronted with people advocating the various forms of The Argument Regarding Design, but one has to confess that Danny is providing much some entertainment for Bill and a few others.

I am genuinely disappointed in myself that my patience and tolerance for dealing with these people has waned to the point where mockery is my major recourse. I look back into the dim and distant past when I used to compose posts on Word, tweak them, archive them and the replies/stimuli etc and take arguing with T.A.R.D. advocates seriously. It's like something died. Oh wistful melancholy, thou art all that remains of an inferno of SIWOTI syndrome....

;-)

Louis

It's too bad Louis.  I would've liked to have been the benefactor of such efforts.  Oh well...

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,19:43   

I'll bet anything Heddle is all over this guy.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,19:50   

Quote
I came here to challenge and to have my views challenged and so far, it's been productive for me.  I've brought my own philosophy into sharper focus through our exchanges here.  You have been one of the few to actually engage in debate.  And, although I think you sometimes reject anything that might force you to consider God, I feel as though you have at least tried to consider my arguments.


Which god?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,20:12   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Jan. 12 2009,20:43)
I'll bet anything Heddle is all over this guy.

Saw that and was frightened. Yet another deranged Calvinist.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,20:22   

I don't know of enough interesting sites to read on a day when I don't have much to do. So I'll ask everybody here what sites you go to most frequently or find most informative. My list:

Andrew Sullivan
Kevin Drum
Boing Boing
Schneier on Security
Washington Monthly
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Scienceblogs: last 24 hrs

Those are the sites I go to frequently enough to have in buttons on a toolbar under my address bar.

   
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,20:32   

Scienceblogs:
Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Respectful Insolence
Denialism
Greg laden

http://icanhascheezburger.com/

http://www.jimhightower.com

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/dailydose/

and of course: here

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,20:51   

the five categories of heavy metal names

   
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,20:59   

Quote (khan @ Jan. 12 2009,17:50)
Quote
I came here to challenge and to have my views challenged and so far, it's been productive for me.  I've brought my own philosophy into sharper focus through our exchanges here.  You have been one of the few to actually engage in debate.  And, although I think you sometimes reject anything that might force you to consider God, I feel as though you have at least tried to consider my arguments.


Which god?

You know. THE God. I.e., Daniel's God.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,21:12   

Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 12 2009,18:51)
the five categories of heavy metal names

Amazingly, Corncob Rape is a real band.

Some good song titles, tho:

Quote
"You're Gonna Die Clown"
"Guns Don't Kill People, I Do"
"Marta"
"Lesbian Orgy at Bible Camp"
"Big Balls" (AC/DC cover, if you can call it that)
"Gorbachev's Mother Russia"
"Nippletweeker"
"A Street Car Named Randy"
"Retarded Cyclops"
"Womb Steak"
"Hayley"
"Bomb Corn"


--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,21:32   

Quote
Richard: It just occurred to me: perhaps those onions with huge genomes are front-loaded for another couple of billion years of evolution, while those with small genomes are fated to soon become extinct. Perhaps some front-loader could study their genes to determine what is next on the schedule for them.


Quote
keiths: I, for one, welcome our new onion overlords.  


Especially while picking the condiments for a hamburger.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 3998
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,21:33   

Quote
I don't see how you can so quickly rule out natural mechanisms and arrive at the supernatural for one theory and not even consider using the same criteria to judge the other.  Personal bias again?

Doesn't look like bias to me. The current theory is based on what's expected based on the physics of how heredity works; it's not based on proposed mechanisms that have never been observed.

Quote
The number of workable variations would be few and should be easily reconstructed.  "Billions of years" is no excuse - since that's the time it takes for such an inefficient process to work.

I think you're underestimating the amount of data needed to compare a large number of genomes to each other.

Quote
I don't care if my argument is scientific or not, I don't care if it contributes anything to the empirical research of methodological naturalists, I especially don't care if those who embrace methodological naturalism reject it, I only care if it's true.

It's one thing to care if an idle speculation is true; it's an entirely different thing to have any way of reliably finding out whether it's true. If there's no way to test the validity of an idea, no amount of caring will change that.

Henry

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,21:42   

Quote
keiths: I, for one, welcome our new onion overlords.  


If you're a carnivore: roast your favorite critter on a bed of onions (possibly also include garlic carrots celery potatoes herbs).

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,21:48   


   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,22:22   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2009,19:17)
The number of workable variations would be few and should be easily reconstructed.

How do you determine what is a workable variation? Remember, most genomes have not been sequenced, most proteins are not known and most switches are not known. In addition, it is my understanding that determining the 3-D structure of a protein is a computer-heavy process that is still in its infancy, as is determining the function of a protein from its structure. You may think that it is a trivial matter; I suggest that this is merely because you have no idea of what is involved.

BTW: How about responding to some of my questions about how front-loading operates? You could start with telling us if it were one branched tree or many unbranched lines (or something in between). Surely in all of your reading something so basic has been answered?

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,22:49   

By the numbers Behe testified to in court, one can work out that a bacterium strain over 3 billion years would, by point mutation alone, be expected to have mutated each and every nucleotide base in its genome a mere 1e30 times.

There was something mentioned about variation...

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,23:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2009,17:17)
Front-loading requires omniscience in the same way that successful DNA encoding does.

That's your conclusion, which you are assuming.
                         
Quote
Also, (to use your argument), front-loading happened billions of years ago - so how can we know that all the genetic "spit-swapping" that went on back then didn't produce a super-genome from which all others descended?

We have a fair idea of the causes of mutations, and what rate they happen at. Based on that alone, "front loading" fails without massive, unjustifiable special pleading.
             
Quote
I don't care if my argument is scientific or not, I don't care if it contributes anything to the empirical research of methodological naturalists, I especially don't care if those who embrace methodological naturalism reject it, I only care if it's true.

How would such "truth" be more relevant than last Tuesdayism ?
Quote
I guess he feels he's winning our imaginary debate.

Some of us enjoy highlighting choice bits of The Argument Regarding Design in your posts. Your non-response when the obvious absurdity of your position is pointed out is certainly noted, but does not detract from the enterprise! I would be shocked if anyone here (except you) believes you've made rational argument, never mind a compelling one. The "debate" is an attempt corner you into realizing how astoundingly bad your arguments are, or in the alternative, to have a laugh.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8824
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2009,23:11   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Jan. 12 2009,23:22)
Remember, most genomes have not been sequenced, most proteins are not known and most switches are not known. In addition, it is my understanding that determining the 3-D structure of a protein is a computer-heavy process that is still in its infancy, as is determining the function of a protein from its structure. You may think that it is a trivial matter; I suggest that this is merely because you have no idea of what is involved.

It is indeed as you say. Determining merely the tertiary (3-D) shape of a given protein from its amino acid structure takes about a year with a supercomputer. Very few have been solved completely. Determining their possible functions is an order or two of difficulty harder.

Quote
The number of workable variations would be few and should be easily reconstructed.


Is one of the wrongest things ever said on the subject of biology.

   
  19122 replies since Jan. 17 2006,08:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (638) < ... 348 349 350 351 352 [353] 354 355 356 357 358 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]