1. Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Comment #183066 by steve_kap on May 21, 2008 at 10:24 am

Responding to sent2null,

The development of a human fetus to a human child to a human adult is a very complicated bootstrapping process. One action leads to another, genes create proteins that either promote or inhibit other proteins. A protein can have a direct effect on the cell, or can just be part of this long, complicated chain of events. That much I'm sure we agree on.

The genes that create these proteins, they have the potential of being turned on at any time, given the right combination of other proteins in the cell. Any deleterious activation of a gene in early life, before the normal reproductive age, is selected against. That we can agree on I'm sure, that's natural selection.

But, of course, these genes are still in the cell after they do their good job, and once the human reaches adulthood, this complicated cascade is still going on. And, after the normal reproductive age, deleterious effects are not selected against as severely. And, these effects could be caused by SAME GENES that are causing good things to happen in early stages. Note that with the exception of modern humans and domesticated animals, death by old age is not an evolutionary driver. It just doesn't happen. Almost no individual is lucky enough to escape the dangers of life in the wild year after year.

The above, I believe, is the widely accepted view on the cause of aging. The "build up of junk" theory is not.

2. Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Comment #182401 by steve_kap on May 20, 2008 at 12:33 am

"we just need to figure out the encodings and then determine where they lose efficiency over time ie. "age" "

1) That word "just" covers a lot of ground!!

2) Your idea, that aging is due to some lose of efficiency over time, thats not well accepted in the scientific community. Most believe that aging has to do with development, that is, genes that have positive effects in the early stages of development may have negative effects in later stages. Kind of an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

As to "deciphering our biology", our ability to predict how an amino acid chain will fold is quite poor, never might knowing what the folded shape will mean, what it will do.

Outside of the science, of which others are more expert then me, there is the question of credibility. This movement smacks of viral marketing and sock-puppetry more than science to me. Others can judge for themselves.

3. Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Comment #182383 by steve_kap on May 19, 2008 at 10:30 pm

Hey RDF, be very careful before you become part of is guy's echo chamber! Several of this group have been trying to push him and the "Methuselah Foundation" on You Tube. They also have been trying to associate his name with Dawkins'.

For some background, search "how De Grey Fooled the world" on You Tube, and other videos that they put out. Their big pitch seems to be "don't let ethical concerns keep us from ending aging". That's a debate that anyone could win, but there real question should be, I think "are these guys credible".

Also note on their vids that they have nothing but praise in their comments. I wonder what happened to the negative comments?

4. Anti-gay Okla. lawmaker attracts 1,000 backers

Comment #155653 by steve_kap on April 5, 2008 at 6:38 am

"Studies show no society that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted more than a few decades," Kern said in the recorded comments. "It is not a lifestyle that is good for this nation."

I wonder if the Spartans new about this?

5. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116045 by steve_kap on January 25, 2008 at 11:41 am

So, who do the Christians think set up this supernatural world, ie heaven, hell, the book of life God himself? If God, then God! isn't God a shit! If not God, then is there some superGod?

6. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64445 by steve_kap on August 20, 2007 at 5:23 am

I think the parents have found the solution. Whats a bit of "holy water" and mumbling a few prayers vs. getting the best education under less than ideal circumstances.

7. Is God poison?

Comment #30853 by steve_kap on April 10, 2007 at 4:37 am

It always strikes me how long these rants tend to be. They all tend to start out with 2 paragraphs of "look how fare we've come down this wrong road", and then many many paragraphs of "see how indignant I am". Throw in a bunch of arguing against a misunderstanding (being kind) of their opponents position, and it all adds up to a real bore.

8. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30467 by steve_kap on April 8, 2007 at 6:10 am

"Unfortunately, Dawkins does not grapple with the latest arguments for intelligent design as formulated by their chief proponents. Harris is similarly preoccupied by ID..."

In what way is 'not grappleing with' similar to 'preoccupied'?

9. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #29167 by steve_kap on April 2, 2007 at 1:15 am

When such text is published, I believe two lies are being perpetrated:

Lie 1: That something meaningful has been written
Lie 2: That something meaningful has been comprehended

Sokal has implemented an experiment that exposed lie #2 (by writing something meaningless, and having it be taken as meaningful). Can anybody imagine an experiment that would expose lie #1?

10. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #28996 by steve_kap on April 1, 2007 at 5:35 am

http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/academy/carolynguertin/

If this is a joke, someone went way out of there way to create a fake internet presents. I'm afraid that this word soup passes for deep thought in some quarters.

11. Artificial Intelligence, With Help From the Humans

Comment #27512 by steve_kap on March 25, 2007 at 5:09 am

Not quite true about the ANN (ref above). There is such a thing as unsupervised learned in an ANN. The network itself creates the catagories in which things are mapped, based on the history of previous input. It is thought that the mapping between indivdual eye nerons (cones, rods) are mapped to the brain in this way. Clearly such a mapping it too complicated to be hard wired in the DNA, but rather a procedure is so hard wired, and it is thought by some that this prodecure is similair to unsupervised learning in ANNs.

12. Does Richard Dawkins exist?

Comment #21389 by steve_kap on February 9, 2007 at 2:36 am

This is using reasoning that its making fun of to make fun of the reasoing that its making fun of. Ironic, but not in the direction intented.

13. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21111 by steve_kap on February 7, 2007 at 3:19 pm

Why don't the folks at CNN just put on the swastika arm bands, adopt the Nazi salute, and be done with it.

14. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20038 by steve_kap on January 31, 2007 at 6:08 am

Notice how the interviewer asked "if there is one chance in a million of there being a hell..." But, when asking about challaging faith, he asked if the RRS was 100% certain.

So, believe in anything if there is a 1 in 10^6 chance of it being true (if threatened with hell), but don't speak against it unless you are 100% sure. I wonder where those rules came from?

15. Intelligent design is a science, not a faith

Comment #17011 by steve_kap on January 10, 2007 at 4:41 am

"Science has turned lots of corners since Darwin, and many of them have thrown up data quite unpredicted by his theory."

True, also Darwin failed to predict the winner of the 1982 World Series.

Notice that everything in the list following this rather unenlightening sentence falls well within the Darwin theory. This guy's a real punter.

16. Secular fundamentalists are the new totalitarians

Comment #16328 by steve_kap on January 6, 2007 at 5:24 am

"
They pretended to be protecting religious sensibilities "

I think this is the 1st time RD has been accused of this!!