Salvador Cordova is trying to explain non-Darwinian evolution to his friends over on Uncommon Descent [Cost of maintenance and construction of design, neutral theory supports ID and/or creation].
Here's the punchline ....
But if most evolution is non-Darwinian, maintenance much less construction of design cannot be explained by Darwinism, then the case for ID is strengthened.It's very, very, difficult for me to believe that Cordova isn't lying through his teeth. He can't be that stupid, can he?
Now if most evolution had been non-Darwinian, one would rightly argue it would have been a random walk, and thus not much better than a tornado going trough a junkyard. Creationist have seized on this and said, "well we’re not a junkyards, therefore some non-random process must have created designs in nature, hence we are designed". In contrast, Larry Moran and friends have said "evolution is a random walk and we are obviously junkyards and you’re an IDiot if you think biological organisms are mostly functional."
70 comments :
Well, Larry... it's your turn to provide finally some evidence....I personally think you can... but If you don't, I will still be your fun... ;)
Shut up already Quest. You're an imbecile and you sound like a donkey whose braying echoes across cyberspace. Go and finish elementary school. Then try your brain on middle school. After you master a bit of literacy maybe you can start and try some understanding of science. In the meantime really, just shut your stupid ignorance up. Please for your own sake. Sure, we don't know who you really are, but you should feel ashamed of yourself. Embarrassed of being such an open book of stupidity. If you have anybody who you would like to feel proud of you, then shut up for their sake. Shut up to honour them. Really.
Coming soon from Silly Sal and His Good Old Fashioned Creationist Fun-Time Band:
"I ain't come from no junkyard!"
"If we came from junkyards, why are there still junkyards?"
Cordova is stupid, and deluded, and a liar, and a hypocrite, and a narcissist. In other words, he's a typical IDiot.
Is it rude of me to say that? LOL
Slimey: One of the best, if not the best computer accounting simulations is Mendel’s Accountant written by the dream team of creationist population genetics.
Dream team of creationist population genetics... Jesus fucking Christ!
I think it's quite possible that he wrote the whole post only to smuggle in an embedded advertisement of his cutting-edge software. See this other post, where he begins by praising Joe Felsenstein to high heaven and thanking him for his PG book, only to segue (shamelessly, in the middle of the thanks) to advertising and promoting Mendel's Accountant. He could at least have paid Joe for starring in his commercial.
But if most evolution is non-Darwinian, maintenance much less construction of design cannot be explained by Darwinism, then the case for ID is strengthened.
Is this English?
It's not clear whether Cordova is lying, stupid, insane, or what. My own pet theory is that Creationists (Cordova included) know for a fact that evolution must be wrong; given this underlying evolution-must-be-wrong presupposition, all the distorted cognitive processes displayed by Creationists pretty much fall under the category "consequence of unshakable, dogmatic adherence to a false concept".
Having been "around" Slimy Sal for too long a time (although, thank Zeus, not physically) he is a typical delusional YEC, or as we say around Sal, YECCCCCHH!
He is perfectly at home at UD with the rest of the inmates.
Sorry, I didn't notice the link was wrong. Here's that other post
"Mendel’s Accountant and Joe Felsenstein’s freely downloadable book on Theoretical Population Genetics" (*headdesk*).
It's very, very, difficult for me to believe that Cordova isn't lying through his teeth. He can't be that stupid, can he?
Those two conditions aren't mutually exclusive.
Sal was not involved in creating Mendel's Accountant. http://www.mendelsaccountant.info/.
Of course there's plenty of material available that shows exactly why it's a horrible model.
And he surely has a history of both.
Thanks for the link. The "User Manual" makes an entertaining read. I know Cordova wasn't directly involved; I just mean he behaves as if he were the project's public relations officer, and is tremendously excited about it.
I encountered Sal on a long-ago defunct discussion forum, probably 10 years ago. The discussion was on phylogenetics, and he presented a "refutation" of phylogenetic methods that went like this - he provided an '8 letter' DNA sequence. He said it had 1 mutation per generation. And he declared, therefore, after 8 generations, the sequence would be completely different, thus not only was evolution false, but molecular phylogenetics methods are 'fraudulent.'
And he was serious.
He was also famous for spamming multiple forums when he had been interviewed for a brief blurb in Nature. His spam claimed that ID was recognized as serious science by the "prestigious journal Nature." He didn't bother to tell anyone that the article made him look like a dim-witted zealot.
So, yes, he is an idiot and a liar.
Some creationist somewhere may have once said... "We didn't land on a junkyard... a junkyard landed on us."
IDer Sal Cordova: "If...design cannot be explained by Darwinism, then... ID is strengthened." Just say ID= #GodOfGaps http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014/04/sal-cordova-tries-and-fails-to.html
[Tweeted from DiogenesLamp0]
Larry, I don't know if anyone has posted this already.
Sneery O'Leary, world's worst journalist and employee of the Disco Tute, is hopping mad at you for reading her website, Uncommon Descent, and for accurately describing what the resident IDers say about genetics and evolutionary theory. O'Leary demands that you immediately stop describing what IDiots publish, in a post of hers entitled, I kid you not, "Larry Moran should quit staring at us so intently."
"If you stare at the moon long enough, you see people up there. If you stare at the ID community long enough, you see stuff that isn’t happening. ;)"
You see, Larry, because you have read and deconstructed the stupid shit that IDers say, she can easily find the inaccuracies in what you wrote, as she tells us "you see stuff that isn't happening." Sal Cordova and VJ Torley couldn't-- indeed, both conceded that Larry was right about the mutation rate, about fixation, and about neutral evolution. Thanks from O'Leary? No-- O'Leary announces "you see stuff that isn't happening."
O'Leary will not list or explain any actual inaccuracies in your writing. But they're there, so stop reading what IDiots publish, please.
The most we get from her is this:
"Moran also seems to think Sal Cordova is in some sort of trouble for disagreeing with Torley about neutral evolution (or about something). Nope."
Nope. O'Leary has unleashed her dreaded "Nope" upon you. Oh, how that must burn-- to be "Noped" by Denyse O'Leary! She does not present evidence to back up her terrifying "Nope", but no evidence nor explanation need be presented. We all live in terror of a 63-year-old moronic journalist "Noping" us. The terrifying O'Leary "Nope" is enough to unman you. The "Nope" of Denyse O'Leary has turned you from raging bull to obedient ox, from wild stallion to tame gelding, from fighting cock to cooked capon. I am sure that now, you will stop paying attention to shit IDers write. What choice do you have?
I stopped reading Sal's screed after the third paragraph. Anyone who thinks that natural selection requires the sacrifice of individuals doesn't understand the first thing about the process.
Mendel's Accountant induces more Janus behaviour from the ID crowd, who simultaneously dismiss the whole endeavour of evolutionary modelling and say "look! here's a model that proves evolution doesn't work!".
I'd advise against downloading it, incidentally, as it infected my computer with a browser hijacker.
Quest,
Your lack of self-awareness is astounding. Check your comments with a tiny bit of honesty Quest. Anyone serves as example. Check that one where you moved the goal posts so obviously that even you would have to notice. You most probably did, because you ignored the comments that showed you so, which adds dishonesty to your stupidity.
But you have continued. I should have guessed that you care about nobody, and that nobody cares about you enough that you would want to be a better person at all. I should have guessed that you lacked the slightest of self-respect. You're such a poor little dishonest idiot Quest.
A bit of education, a tiny bit of self-respect and self-awareness would help you a lot Quest. Maybe then even somebody would care about you. Give it a try. You have nothing to loose. From where you stand any tiny bit can't be but an improvement.
I think it's clear that creationists see the endgame as 'keep our tribe suspicious of science, and motivated enough to influence local politics'. They want enough 'doubt' to make teaching evolution in schools problematic, and more trouble than it's worth. And that's it, that's the sole objective. The pseudoscience is basically camouflage for that. It doesn't have to be science, it just has to look like it from ten feet away.
>He can't be that stupid, can he?
It's true I don't know much, so I started a program of self study of organic chemistry a few days ago through the internet. I've only had 2 semester of general chemistry. I think I found the common names of Monday molecule #237, but I don't know how to get the right IUPAC name, so I guessed it from data on a chem website.
Sal
Sal,
Thanks for stopping by. We have difficulty understanding your logic, to say the least. This argument, you recall, began with conclusive evidence for common descent of humans & chimps invoking only the (testable & confirmed) assumption that most evolution is neutral, and otherwise employing ONLY experimentally observed, modern-day, rates of neutral mutation, to make predictions which could be compared against counts of genetic differences between human and chimp.
Yet you, Sal, vociferously and repeatedly accused Larry of starting with mutation rates computed FROM the count of genetic differences. You wrote, to paraphrase: "circular... circular... circular... circular... circular... circular etc." Didn't you totally misrepresent mutation rates computed from experimentally observed processes as rates computed from counts of genetic differences? Wasn't your accusation of circularity total slander?
Is there any evidence for evolution which could EVER be presented, which creationists would not and could not falsely assert is based on circular logic? How should we phrase our evidence so as to neutralize creationist FACIL (false accusation of circular logic) arguments?
When it comes to global warming or evolutionary/genetic algorithms, every single one of the IDiots says computer modelling can't prove squat.
Computer modelling... which is the foundation of the capitalist system that the rightwing IDiots worship as the god above God.
Yet not one, not one, of the IDiots will ever tell his stockbroker or financial adviser, "Don't invest in mutual funds that use computer modelling-- they can't prove squat!"
When it comes to the real creationist rightwing god, $$$, they know the value of mathematical modelling.
Sal Cordova: "evolution is a random walk and we are obviously junkyards and you’re an IDiot if you think biological organisms are mostly functional."
Sal, seriously. Do you really think that just because a large fraction of the genome is junk this means we think the entire organism as a whole is mostly junk? How did you get this ignorant of genetics?
Where's old "Numerous Patents" when you need him to raise the level of discussion?
I think I found the common names of Monday molecule #237...
And so you decided to ba a spoilsport and give the game away for fear that someone might beat you to it? Still, I don't think you've been sufficiently careful with the stereoisomers.
Hey Sal,
a linguist knows more biochemistry than you...
...and sometimes me.
sez jem: "I think it's clear that creationists see the endgame as 'keep our tribe suspicious of science, and motivated enough to influence local politics'."
That's correct as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. "influence local politics" for what purpose? Creationists' real endgame is to establish a Xtian theocracy. In the US, this means destroying the current more-or-less democratic political system, and building their desired Xtian dominion upon the wreckage thereby produced.
"Creationists' real endgame is to establish a Xtian theocracy."
I'm not sure it's that ambitious. I don't think they ever want to reach that endgame. Last year, according to the IRS, Americans donated $101Bn to religious institutions. The creationists want a slice of that. They want people to keep sending them money to fight those evil liberal scientist gay abortionists etc. They are far more interested in being an underdog who needs constant top ups than being installed as High King of the United States of Narnia. There are sincere creationists, I'm sure, but I'm equally sure that a lot of the big names know it's a hustle.
(The Federal R&D budget across the entire university system? $40Bn).
From Sal's post where he tries to dazzle his minions with his biochemical expertise:
I didn’t understand why there are so many IUPAC names, so I just chose one.
I don't think Larry will be buying Sal lunch.....
It is hard to tell sometimes. If the grifters and charlatans out there really are just grifters and charlatans, then it is criminal. If they do really believe what they say they believe (and it always seems they would be happy with a theocracy), then it is absurdity of the highest order. I guess its a continuum within which is a whole lot of incoherence.
It reminds me of astrologers or tarot readers. I'm sure some are conmen, some are sincere, but there is a middle ground, the type that's sublimated or justified the con, on the grounds that it serves a greater good, or serves a need, or is just a way to make a living. They know deep down it's silly, but they're able to keep it deep down.
But this debate just shows: the first time someone says something silly, it's a mistake. We all make mistakes and say silly things. But after they've had it explained to them, the *second* time they say it, it's a lie. And the third time, it's policy to lie. And what are some of these creationists up to, now? The thousandth time?
Yes, it is frustrating. In a debate a creationist might concede that an objection to evolution is not valid (e.g evolution contradicts the second law of thermodynamics). But it doesn't matter, because in the very next speaking engagement they will repeat the objection. They count on the ignorance of their audience as a renewable resource.
sez me: "Creationists' real endgame is to establish a Xtian theocracy."
sez jem: "I'm not sure it's that ambitious. I don't think they ever want to reach that endgame. Last year, according to the IRS, Americans donated $101Bn to religious institutions. The creationists want a slice of that. … They are far more interested in being an underdog who needs constant top ups than being installed as High King of the United States of Narnia. There are sincere creationists, I'm sure, but I'm equally sure that a lot of the big names know it's a hustle."
Well, the average 'Creationist in the street'—the movement's footsoldiers and useful idiots—may or may not think Creationism is really about establishing a theocracy. But it's a damn good bet that most Creationists would not object if that happened, and it's clear that the Creationist movement's movers and shakers, the people who provide its funding and work up its strategies, are exactly and precisely trying to establish a Xtian theocracy. Long-time anti-Creationist Lenny Flank has done a good job of bringing all the evidence together here:
www.dailykos.com/story/2014/01/07/1266887/-Creationism-A-Legal-History-Part-One
He's also as gullible as a guppy if he really means what he says in this post.
There be fractal dragons, musical scores, magic checksums, Fibonacci numbers, π and φ, and other wonders of design in "junk DNA". A notorious numerologist says so.
"But it's a damn good bet that most Creationists would not object if that happened, and it's clear that the Creationist movement's movers and shakers, the people who provide its funding and work up its strategies, are exactly and precisely trying to establish a Xtian theocracy."
... or it's a scam to sell pseudotextbooks and school science trips to museums displaying dinosaur saddles.
It's a tricky one, because we're talking about belief, stated aims, weasel words and so on. I'm sure a lot of creationists have wet dreams about being the Taliban, lots of theists seem to. And there are various 'turn back the clock' styles of conservatism which are fellow travelers - there's a tranche of Catholic convert who insist the women's place is in the home and so on. So there's a loose agenda and alliance that basically dreams about making America the 1950s again.
I think we need to be on the lookout, we need to expose theocrats - and there were a bunch of them in the Republican primaries last time. But I think creationism's actions just make a lot more sense if you see them as a moneymaking scheme than as a political movement. When they rail against 'science', they're actually looking at the education budget and the tax breaks.
The US has a quirky system that creates a unique Lagrange point between tax exemption/federal funding and 'separation of church and state', and the ID movement has, ironically, evolved to fit that niche and prospers there. The conservative movement as a whole is basically an ATM for some rather cynical people (look at, for example, Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly, who used to be rather moderate until they realized there was gold in being right wing jackasses).
The Jean-Claude Perez numerology is very suspicious. For example, the explanation of Perez's result does not say what DNA is being analyzed. I found Perez's paper online in a Springer journal Interdisciplinary Science which is behind a firewall (my university library does not have a subscription -- probably wisely considering that journal overpriced and junky). I can see the abstract, which claims that the analysis is on "single-stranded whole human genome DNA".
The explanation at the link Cordova provides shows very suspicious numbers. For example, the number of A's in the genome matches the number of T's exactly. Now real single-stranded base compositions don't do that. What is going on? It seems that they have counted, not single-stranded composition, but composition on both strands. DNA pairing rules then generate the exact agreement, for opposite each A is a T, and so on.
So the first thing to say is that Perez isn't doing what the title of his article claims he did, and if so that's pretty damning.
I was going to look for more sources of the patterns -- but at UD pro-evolution commenter Gordon Davisson has beat me to it, and done it very well. In comments #12 and #15 at the Cordova "Vodka" thread he shows that by counting in all three possible reading frames and adding the numbers up, one guarantees various patterns that Perez has found. At the end of the thread Cordova seems to be slowly (and quietly) backing away. Good job, Gordon Davisson!
I'd just add that there are many possible patterns one could look for patterns. If you find close fit to the Golden Ratio φ you should ask how close you ought to get when there are this many possible chances to find it. In fact, in the Perez results they don't get the Golden Ratio itself but various linear combinations such as (3-φ)/2. There are a lot of possible such linear combinations, so the number of possibilities is increased by doing that.
There are similar issues with the notorious Bible Code (a mathematician here in Seattle, Ralph Greenberg has a nice web page linking to refutations of that).
It reminds me of an incident years ago when a numerologist came to see me and talked about how the magic number 3 was showing up in DNA (in the length of codons). I protested that DNA also has 2 strands and 4 bases. He didn't want to hear that.
Gordon always does very fine work. I posted the discussion because I am trying to find out what levels of non-randomness exists in the genome. This all began with the 3-base periodicity pattern such as discussed in:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22100873
If anyone can help me understand the 3-base periodicity pattern and whether I'm going about detecting it correctly, I welcome the feedback.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/junk-dna/request-for-help-verifying-non-random-3mer-pattern-in-human-chromosome-1/
I thought perhaps Perez was finding something related to the 3-base periodicity. I'm thankful you and Gordon have highlighted reasons to reject Perez work. Thank you for the criticism.
If my computer code is giving me bad calculations, if my method is wrong, if my data files are bad, I would be appreciative if anyone can point me in the right direction.
If you have opinions on the 3-base periodicity, if it is a real pattern, I would be deeply appreciative to know. Thank you in advance.
Sal
PS
FWIW, I don't accept the so-called Bible codes. They are an after-the-fact pattern.
I will not spend time checking your computer code. Someone else must have looked into autocorrelation patterns in sequenced genomes. You could find that and see what they got.
There is reason to expect at least a weak signal of 3-base autocorrelation. Genomes have large numbers of tandem repeat families, and many of those are 3-base repeats such as CGACGACGA ,,, CGA. Also, in exons in coding sequences, differences of base composition among the three codon positions would be expected to create a weak signal of correlation of bases 3 apart.
@liarsfordawin: I hope it's obvious to you now that Perez's calculations are insane. Most of the proportions he comes up with are artifacts of his own method of counting and tabulating the results (as demonstrated by Gordon), while any closeness of the GC/AT ratio to (3-φ)/2 is purely accidental (and more approximate than he makes it look like). It so happens that the ratio is about 2/3 in the human genome, but the corresponding figures for different species vary quite wildly (roughly within the range 0.5-1) and have zilch to do with the Golden Ratio or any other magic number. The GC content is higly variable not only across species, but also from one human chromosome to another, and varies quite chaotically between different regions of the same chromosome.
As for "DNA music", it's about as plausible as the claim that the human genome contains the text of The Rime of the Ancient Mariner encrypted in Morse code.
I hope it's obvious to you now that Perez's calculations are insane.
I'll vote for "Not obvious to him." Sal was at one time, and perhaps still is, a proponent of "DNA steganography," i.e., that God has encoded a message within our DNA if we can only find it.
He has learnt to respect Joe Felsenstein's opinions, which would be a salutary symptom if he were able to learn some actual stuff from Joe as well. Anyway, it seems some UD fans get upset whenever Sal decides to concede a point.
My amateur analysis at a distance is that Sal lives in hope of confirmation of his belief that higher forces/intelligence put the human genome together, and that one day he or someone else will come up with something Joe can't easily dismiss. (Granted it's nice he feels what Joe thinks matters.) But Sal can speak to this for himself if he wishes.
_”If anyone can help me understand the 3-base periodicity pattern and whether I'm going about detecting it correctly, I welcome the feedback.”_
Try asking at Biology-Online Bioinformatics:
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/forum-5.html
It worked for me:
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/post-146133.html#p146133
Jem: "So there's a loose agenda and alliance that basically dreams about making America the 1950s again. "
NO. What they want is not the real 1950's. The real 1950's had Jack Kerouac and the Beats and Audrey Hepburn dancing in "Funny Face." The real 1950's had Ike saying opposing the military-industrial complex and promoting a progressive tax structure, using terminology that today would cause the GOP to call him a radical socialist.
The Xian Reconstructionists/Dominionists want a fascist totalitarian state in which they kill people who "blaspheme" or are gay, etc., as they themselves readily admit. The non-Reconstructionists (mostly pre-mil dispensationalists) want a "Christian Nation" which has not direct analog to anything in US or World history, although they often point to the slave-based Confederacy as a Christian society that took Christian morality seriously. The creationists dream of a Victorian or pre-Victorian, Confederate me-topia of corporate selfishness where the rich are free to pollute and the poor eat their free Bibles.
I should probably note that my analysis wasn't actually of Perez's work, it was based on Jordi Solà-Soler's description... which turned out to not be entirely accurate. Solà-Soler was counting the base sequence in all conceivable ways: both strands, in both directions (yes, 3′-to-5′ too, don't ask me), at all 3 possible reading frames. Perez has now posted links to some of his papers, and according to table 1 in this one, he looked at just one strand and just one direction, but all three reading frames. This is... slightly less silly.
Dear sirs,
all these results could be reproduced using public Human genome project data: http://genome.ucsc.edu/
a complete view of my 25 years research on numbers in DNA (not numerology!!!!) here:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/57828784/jcperezBeijing032011
and
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/70982611/presentacion-completaMonteVIDEOvideoCONFERENCIAjcperezOctubre2011
and
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Codex-Biogenesis-harmonies-g%C3%A9nome-latome/dp/2874340448
erratum:
JOE FELKEINSTEIN,
here the full peer reviewed articles:
the 2010 article:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/95641538/Codon-Populations-in-Single-stranded-Whole-Human-Genome-DNA-Are-Fractal-and-Fine-tuned-by-the-Golden-Ratio-1-618
the 2013 article:
http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-7401586_37457.htm
more details in:
Welcome...
http://golden-ratio-in-dna.blogspot.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/codexbiogenesis/
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/57828784/jcperezBeijing032011
http://www.scribd.com/jean_claude_perez/documents
http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-7401586_37457.htm
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95641538/Codon-Populations-in-Single-stranded-Whole-Human-Genome-DNA-Are-Fractal-and-Fine-tuned-by-the-Golden-Ratio-1-618
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+jeanclaudePerez/about
lol
Jean-Claude Perez: Thanks for the link. One can find all kinds of ratios when there are multiple numbers to play with. A good test of whether these are meaningful is to look at another genome and see whether the same relationships are there too. Fortunately many species have had their genomes sequenced.
So: are these exact same results found in the mouse? In Drosophila? In yeast. More specifically are they also found in all three of these? Or do we have to compute different quantities to find φ in those species? If we do not find them there, does that mean that these numbers apply only to the human genome? If so, what is special about humans?
more data in: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-498347
Thanks Joe,
This perfect balance is verified in whole human genome but some ratios have been observed too in other species
see figure 5
in my last article 2013 in APPLIED MATHEMATICS (BIOMATHEMATICS issue):
http://file.scirp.org/Html/4-7401586_37457.htm
elements of response:
then in the same time human and chimp whole genomes are >99% correlated at codon population: see:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/20016.....-close-pdf
and book codex biogenesis:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Codex-.....2874340448
then
But that is not close, to resume:
1/ in my 2nd post, I show that distance between chimp and human is lower that generally considered: 99.99%
2/ but in my first post, I show great differenciation between human and monkeys…
3/ in https://plus.google.com/103572438711329205534/posts/26WczM9aQbS
we show that Human chromosome4 has a typical property absent in all other species and particularly monkeys!
Joe,
during these 25 years where whole genomes were progressively available, I have been analysing by my discovery of MASTER CODE (see book codex biogenesis chapter 20 and annexe1), so, I have analysed ALL ("ALL") whole genomes of archaea viruses bacterias ans major euchariotes ... including whole human and chimp...
in the attached link you couldf appreciate the pending breakthough:
1/ annexe1 in french:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/220515506/CodexBiogenesisANNEXE1jcPerezCopyright2009-pdf
2/ Beijing conference resume this research
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/57828784/jcperezBeijing032011
3/ example of universality of MASTER CODE in genomics but also analysing GENES: here prions and amyloid
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/216580505/annex1jcPerezAMYLOIDprions-pdf
Best regards, but sorry:
1/ there is not numerology but experimental Science
2/ I a not a creationist, but a researcher in SELF-ORGANIZATION... started on a IBM pioneering in artificial neural networks (Artificial Intelligence) ... then schitching in a kind of ... Numerical (!) Biologist... !
Dears Pietr, Joe or Gordon, I'm sorry for your unapropried comments on SANDWALK of the Sal Cordova entry entitled Vodka! Jean Claude Perez, the golden ratio, dragon curve fractals and musical design in “junk DNA”...
The reason is that all (ALL) their comments were done without reading the basic original article:
I suggest you reading the original basic peer review article of 2010 published in Interdisciplinary Science:
http://fr.scribd.com/doc/95641538/Codon-Populations-in-Single-stranded-Whole-Human-Genome-DNA-Are-Fractal-and-Fine-tuned-by-the-Golden-Ratio-1-618
and my 2013 peer review article: http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=37457#.U2Mwlfl_trA
Is that a real journal or a junk journal? I've never heard of any of the journals that publisher puts out.
Dear John,
your argument is heavy and not scientific.
Both articles are peer reviewed and the first was published in a magazine from shangai headed by a medicine nobel laureate: Pr Luc Montagnier:
http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/systems+biology+and+bioinformatics/journal/12539
sorry!
That explains why the journal is so sympathetic to homeopathy:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12539-009-0036-7
Montagnier has moved to China to escape what the "intellectual terror" of European science. Now he has his own journal where he can bloody well publish what he wants to publish.
Correction:
escape what... -> escape what he calls...
Springer at least publishes some real journals. Not so sure about the other publisher.
If you mean Applied Mathematics, its China-based publisher (Scientific Research) can be found on most alert lists of predatory publishers.
According to Beall,
This publisher exists for two reasons. First, it exists to exploit the author-pays Open Access model to generate revenue, and second, it serves as an easy place for foreign (chiefly Chinese) authors to publish overseas and increase their academic status.
and
Scientific Research Publishing is among the sneakiest and most clever predatory Open Access publishers I have seen.
That's what I suspected. The proliferation of junk journal publishers is one of the big problems in science today.
>I suggest you reading the original basic peer review article of 2010 published in Interdisciplinary Science:
>http://fr.scribd.com/doc/95641538/Codon-Populations-in-Single-stranded-Whole-Human-Genome-DNA-Are-Fractal-and-Fine-tuned-by-the-Golden-Ratio-1-618
I right away noticed that you were describing a system that builds upon angles/folds as in the neuroscience "HMAX" model for object recognition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUzhAq04PzU&feature=youtu.be&t=41m7s
I would not be surprised by the same systematics working at the molecular level. If that's what you're more or less searching for in a brain that stores data using RNA and DNA then I have to say you might be onto something.
You are right for SPRINGER... my Editor too:
http://www.junkdna.com/pellionisz_unification/Pellionisz_unification_abstract_and_references_2011.pdf
and
http://www.springer.com/life+sciences/systems+biology+and+bioinformatics/journal/12539
Ah Ah... !
but to remain serious, have you read my 2 suggested articles now? No! I suppose...
"science it is easier to criticize the form to have the courage to criticize the background substance"
Effectively in this paper I use running within whole human genome codon population screening unicersal genetic map codons by successive steps/divisions of the "dragon curve"! 2 4 8 16 32 etc...
Jean, yes, I see. I could not help but notice how the "dragon curve” was shown forming a network-like geometry. It just happens to be one of the things I look for, in my work related to how intelligence works that has attractors too:
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts/ShowCode.asp?txtCodeId=75307&lngWId=1
For cellular networks hexagonal was found to be the most symmetric geometry and is in part the result of how equally sized units close pack together, but same idea, forms networks with directionality that can be disturbed.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/gridbarrier-cell-attractor-network-demonstration-program#post-630019
The illustration shown in your paper reminded me of a non-hexagonal network storing directional vector information. Anything systematically fractal you discover that works with what I have would at least for some be a winner, no matter where you publish it open access. That made me wonder what you were searching for, that might pertain to intelligence. The ultimate most fascinating thing cognitive science could lead to (that I know of) is a living genome being a billions year old self-replicating brain (that is every bit as complex as our brain inside our skull) that has been learning over time to become where we're at right now (human). A works real slow but has plenty of time to get there type intelligence.
I know that your paper was not intended to go upward in fractal scale through molecular, cellular then multicellular levels of organization. With so few like you looking for something fractalish with attractors in our genome it seemed like something I needed to explain to you so you'll know what I'm looking for, worth your making sure to mention in a next paper in case you spot something while searching for Golden Ratio related things.
Post a Comment