Why MT doesn't believe in this.

[Hobo]

The "SuperCow" is genetic engineering. There's a difference.

Genetic Engineering: The deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.

Artificial Selection: Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits.

If you look at 1:40 in the video I showed you, you can see that this isn't genetic engineering. Only the cows with the most muscle mass are allowed to mate. At the part where they put the sperm under the microscope, they don't genetically splice a gene into the sperm. All they're doing is analyzing the sperm and picking out the one that they want.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

The "SuperCow" is genetic engineering. There's a difference.

Genetic Engineering: The deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.

Artificial Selection: Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits.

If you look at 1:40 in the video I showed you, you can see that this isn't genetic engineering. Only the cows with the most muscle mass are allowed to mate. At the part where they put the sperm under the microscope, they don't genetically splice a gene into the sperm. All they're doing is analyzing the sperm and picking out the one that they want.

By your own definition it is NOT Artificial Selection and IS Genetic Engineering.

The process of "breeding" does NOT include individual sperm selection. Sperm is by DEFINITION genetic material and what they are doing is DEFINITELY manipulation.

[Flyswamper]

Kinda makes me wonder what is written on pages 2-35 of this thread that lead to this...... I guess it will remain one of lifes unsolved mysteries for me though.....

[Hobo]

The "SuperCow" is genetic engineering. There's a difference.

Genetic Engineering: The deliberate modification of the characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material.

Artificial Selection: Artificial selection (or selective breeding) describes intentional breeding for certain traits, or combination of traits.

If you look at 1:40 in the video I showed you, you can see that this isn't genetic engineering. Only the cows with the most muscle mass are allowed to mate. At the part where they put the semen under the microscope, they don't genetically splice a gene into the sperm. All they're doing is analyzing each sperm and picking out the one that they want.

By your own definition it is NOT Artificial Selection and IS Genetic Engineering.

The process of "breeding" does NOT include individual sperm selection. Sperm is by DEFINITION genetic material and what they are doing is DEFINITELY manipulation.

Oof. I mixed up sperm and semen. lemme edit that real fast. Sorry bout that.

I think I was kind of vague, but I still don't understand how this can be genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a process in which recombinant DNA technology is used to introduce desirable traits into organisms. Recombinant DNA is the general name for taking a piece of one DNA, and combining it with another strand of DNA. When did these scientists/farmers ever combine strands of DNA in this project of theirs?

Heres something cool about genetic engineering I found. GlOw iN tHe DaRk CaTs!

[WD-40]

Kinda makes me wonder what is written on pages 2-35 of this thread that lead to this...... I guess it will remain one of lifes unsolved mysteries for me though.....

+1...I'm too old to take the time to read it all. Good on MT starting a 'viral' thread.

[haasd0gg]

Your face is a super cow

[Darth Crater]

These numbers are the most empirical and don't do statistical fudging. I use this example. If I flip a coin 100 times and it comes up heads 75 times, the odds it will come up heads on the next toss is STILL 50/50. Too many people try and reduce the statistical probability by imposing supposition into the analysis. The height of the toss, the weight of the coin, wind resistance, etc. While all these factors are relevant and COULD affect the outcome the next toss may be different (by its very nature WILL be) and our best probability factor must revert to the empirical 50/50. To many people are afraid of not knowing. They pretend understanding and try to reduce the number in various ways to account for this and that. "This and that" are not objectively quantifiable only statistically supportable. My cited number is based upon the known DNA pairing structures possible. If anything it is the low side (there could be some we don't know). It is the most accurate.

The bit about the coin is true enough (although if you don't know for sure it's a fair coin and toss, you should consider the odds to be somewhere between 50% and 75% heads depending on your other evidence, but this is just a tangent). My problem with your number is that it doesn't take into account any of the chemical and biological processes that would actually be involved in the formation of life, and is thus not a useful model for that situation. Again, this was all covered sometime in the first week or so of the thread.

I've read the article in wikipedia that constantly refers to scientists and studies as "they" without any attempt to hide bias. It attacks the idea of Intelligent Design by saying it isn't proven true. Those who refuse the idea really only rely on this argument alone. The idea of Intelligent Design (BTW it's why it is a theory and not a law) is that it is the most probable explanation for a natural system which inherently encourages chaotic change but has created such incredible, fragile order. It is chaos theory to the next step. It is as mathematically provable as a Higgs Boson and doesn't require imaginary numbers and multi-dimensions to get there. But because it is not definitively proven (and is a much more simple explanation) it is derided and discarded out of hand. They hold this idea up to a much higher standard than the alternative they espouse and claim to be enlightened.

It also attacks the idea of Irreducible Complexity (not overall Intelligent Design, not on that page at least) by pointing out severe flaws in several of its most common arguments. I wasn't really relying on the Wikipedia page anyway (I acknowledged it as "pseudo-research"). Do you have any comment on the link I posted demonstrating that complex systems could arise from undirected evolution?

I don't agree that intelligent design is the most simple explanation - it seems simpler that life could form from circumstances we know existed, using processes we know can happen. In what way is intelligent design mathematically provable without resorting to the numbers you posted earlier? We have somewhat solid evidence of the Higg boson's existence (only 3-sigma so far, so nothing absolutely certain unfortunately).

BTW - My idea of ID is probably a little different then the main stream. I don't think humans were dropped on Earth fully formed like some creationists do. Mine is the LONG view. If you are familiar with the idea "Life finds a way," my notion is that the Intelligence is "Life" the Design is "finding a way". I believe the universe (multi-verse) exists for life and that life is ultimately connected to the Alpha/Omega. My evidence involves quantum physics (my dad does summer work at CERN, dinner conversations growing up were...complex) and I will share with anyone who cares to message me.

I'm taking a Particle Physics class this quarter, and so would be interested in hearing about this. I should warn you, though, that I'm likely to cite the Anthropic Principle if you begin talking about how small changes in universal constants could make life impossible.

[ProfessorDreadNaught]

The bit about the coin is true enough (although if you don't know for sure it's a fair coin and toss, you should consider the odds to be somewhere between 50% and 75% heads depending on your other evidence, but this is just a tangent). My problem with your number is that it doesn't take into account any of the chemical and biological processes that would actually be involved in the formation of life, and is thus not a useful model for that situation. Again, this was all covered sometime in the first week or so of the thread.

Its funny that you agree with the principle about mathematical empiricals and in the same sentence slide the other way. I don't take into account any of the chemical and biological processes because they are not mathematical concretes. They are only statistically provable. The coin has 2 sides. At the end of the toss one of the two sides will be showing. Are there other factors that make a difference in which side will show up, sure. But you can't quantify those factors without guessing. Therefore 50/50 is the most valid answer. The other factors are not controlled variables. If you can't control the variables, factoring them in is disingenuous. Saying that 99 times out of a hundred my coin flips 32 times in the air (or even 100 times out of a 100) does NOT mean you can accurately say that the next toss will flip 32 times in the air. I understand the statistical game. The true basis of the ID argument is actually grounded in statistics and probability. My insistence on these numbers is simply an exercise to get someone into a correct mindset. If you work at trying to prove my numbers wrong you need to use statistics. Statistics are flexible. It is the belief in the unprovable. If I can get you there my argument is actually already won. Therefore, MY numbers are the MOST accurate.

It also attacks the idea of Irreducible Complexity (not overall Intelligent Design, not on that page at least) by pointing out severe flaws in several of its most common arguments. I wasn't really relying on the Wikipedia page anyway (I acknowledged it as "pseudo-research"). Do you have any comment on the link I posted demonstrating that complex systems could arise from undirected evolution?

I don't agree that intelligent design is the most simple explanation - it seems simpler that life could form from circumstances we know existed, using processes we know can happen. In what way is intelligent design mathematically provable without resorting to the numbers you posted earlier? We have somewhat solid evidence of the Higg boson's existence (only 3-sigma so far, so nothing absolutely certain unfortunately).

I think you do agree on the bias of the wikipedia article and rightfully call it a "pseudo" information source. The article attacks the anecdotes used to explain irreducible complexity by the concepts authors. The concept itself, simply stated, that there are complex systems that could not be arrived at by single progressive evolutionary steps is still in question. ID does not RELY on this concept but points to the idea as compelling evidence. Even if you disprove Irreducible complexity in a system given a case by case example an intuitive leap progression is statistically more probable. Couple this with the extraordinary coincidence of multiple genus experiencing similar evolutionary intuitive leaps and ID becomes an increasingly convincing concept. (sry g2g to work will finish later)

[Yanoda]

BTW - My idea of ID is probably a little different then the main stream. I don't think humans were dropped on Earth fully formed like some creationists do. Mine is the LONG view. If you are familiar with the idea "Life finds a way," my notion is that the Intelligence is "Life" the Design is "finding a way". I believe the universe (multi-verse) exists for life and that life is ultimately connected to the Alpha/Omega.

You're referring to 'Natural Selection' & 'Survival of the Fittest' Dread, what Evolution already mentions. These events cause an inherent order in the Evolutionary process. Mutations can cause negative and/or positive effects that would go under the process of Natural Selection (aka filter process).
The thing about ID is, what ever is not fully understood seems to be labeled as an Intelligent Design. This in the scientific community cannot be done since not enough information/data has been collected to label it such.
Not sure if you read/watched anything about my previous post... since you haven't addressed anything to what I posted.

Statistically speaking, the proteins necessary for life are very complex. The odds of even one simple protein molecule forming by chance are 1 in 10^113 (i.e. 10 to the 113th power), and thousands of different proteins are needed to form life.

Where did you get that number Dread? Other research states that it is only 1 in a billion... and it is still questionable. Amino Acids & Proteins do not form by chance, but through a chemical process that is less than random. What were the conditions in the experiment to calculate the 'chances'? Did it only include a volume of 1 liter or 1 million liters? What were the temperatures and chemical composition of the environment in the test? These factors can affect how a chemical process behaves. The combination of Amino Acids (which have been recreated with similar conditions from early Earth) form proteins and other necessary compounds. The use of 'chances' is just a way to say that nothing could form on its own, so there must have been a 'designer'. There is no possible way to fully calculate the 'chances' of life forming unless we fully understand the processes and variances, which we don't. So your argument is baseless.

(http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm) Seems this organisation originated from a creationist organisation. Did you do some background search on the founders of ARN? Half of them are Creationists, (Paul nelson being young Earth Creationist). None of them have any scientific degree in Biology or such sciences, most are philosophers and Dennis Wagner is an Electrical Engineer, nothing about biology or anything the like. This arises questions whether the site is truly legit in scientific terms and whether it just wants to cloud Creationism with ID.

The true basis of the ID argument is actually grounded in statistics and probability. My insistence on these numbers is simply an exercise to get someone into a correct mindset. If you work at trying to prove my numbers wrong you need to use statistics. Statistics are flexible. It is the belief in the unprovable. If I can get you there my argument is actually already won. Therefore, MY numbers are the MOST accurate.

That is very reason why the Scientific community does not hold much about ID. One cannot base an entire concept on just statistical improbability, it has to be tested and researched. Which ID fails to properly due, Intelligent Design just questions the data/research done on Evolution of Life.

The concept itself, simply stated, that there are complex systems that could not be arrived at by single progressive evolutionary steps is still in question. ID does not RELY on this concept but points to the idea as compelling evidence. Even if you disprove Irreducible complexity in a system given a case by case example an intuitive leap progression is statistically more probable. Couple this with the extraordinary coincidence of multiple genus experiencing similar evolutionary intuitive leaps and ID becomes an increasingly convincing concept.

Again, just because we do not fully understand something does not mean we can label it as Intelligent Design. This has been done in the past many times and science has been able to disprove the notion of ID in the end. Using just the concept as evidence is pseudo science at best, proper research/data needs to be collected to verify that Intelligent Design is occurring. Until then, the Scientific Community will not take Intelligent Design seriously.

I have given several articles/sites that give examples of genetic mutation, natural selection, heck even populations (Chinook Salmon) that started to evolve (change in physical and genetic characteristics) naturally without outside influence (apart from being imported and finally left them to colonize the environment).

Cheers

Yanoda

[Darth Crater]

Its funny that you agree with the principle about mathematical empiricals and in the same sentence slide the other way. I don't take into account any of the chemical and biological processes because they are not mathematical concretes. They are only statistically provable. The coin has 2 sides. At the end of the toss one of the two sides will be showing. Are there other factors that make a difference in which side will show up, sure. But you can't quantify those factors without guessing. Therefore 50/50 is the most valid answer. The other factors are not controlled variables. If you can't control the variables, factoring them in is disingenuous. Saying that 99 times out of a hundred my coin flips 32 times in the air (or even 100 times out of a 100) does NOT mean you can accurately say that the next toss will flip 32 times in the air. I understand the statistical game. The true basis of the ID argument is actually grounded in statistics and probability. My insistence on these numbers is simply an exercise to get someone into a correct mindset. If you work at trying to prove my numbers wrong you need to use statistics. Statistics are flexible. It is the belief in the unprovable. If I can get you there my argument is actually already won. Therefore, MY numbers are the MOST accurate.

Let me clarify what was meant by that tangent. If we haven't flipped the coin yet, then the only evidence we have is our prior knowledge that flipping coins generally leads to around 50% heads. This is not simply because there are 2 sides, and 1 must be showing (else I could say there's a 50% chance the world will end tomorrow, because it either will or won't), but because people in the past have flipped coins and found them to be approximately fair. The question is whether we know anything about that specific coin. When we flip it 100 times and get 75 heads, we have some evidence (admittedly not very strong) for 75% heads. If we wanted we could then do some calculations relating this evidence with the body of other evidence that is available. If we've got fairly certain evidence that the coin and tossing method were fair, our original belief (50%) isn't going to change much. If we don't have any other evidence about the tossing (an extreme case, since the "coins are 50-50" would normally count as at least weak evidence for this coin being 50-50), we'd use the only data we had and assign a 75% probability of Heads to the coin (though with such a low confidence that it'd be easily altered by future evidence). If, as when a person is actually tossing a coin, we believe the coin is fair but are not certain, we'd place our expectations somewhere in between based on the strength of our evidence.

Back on the main topic, I don't think I've even seen your evidence for the number you posted, while I have seen (some) evidence that the number is vastly lower, so I cannot share your belief without more data.

I think you do agree on the bias of the wikipedia article and rightfully call it a "pseudo" information source. The article attacks the anecdotes used to explain irreducible complexity by the concepts authors. The concept itself, simply stated, that there are complex systems that could not be arrived at by single progressive evolutionary steps is still in question. ID does not RELY on this concept but points to the idea as compelling evidence. Even if you disprove Irreducible complexity in a system given a case by case example an intuitive leap progression is statistically more probable. Couple this with the extraordinary coincidence of multiple genus experiencing similar evolutionary intuitive leaps and ID becomes an increasingly convincing concept. (sry g2g to work will finish later)

You're still talking about the Wikipedia page - what about the article I posted? To me, the article (HERE in case you missed it) adequately disproves the main argument behind your objections. Do you disagree, and if so, why?