Adult Stem Cells vs Embryonic Stem Cells.

[happyjack27]

Whether it meets some one's technical standard or definition, it still serves as a very good analogy for what is occurring. If anything, what is going on with biological decompression is far more advanced than is ordinary data compression techniques. It is a program that runs in matter, as opposed to memory.

i gave this some thought as i did my christmas shopping. if i were to make a computer analogy i'd say the dna is the _output_ of a metaheuristic algorithm. (or more properly a small portion of the solution vector at a given point). however, among other things, the time is not discrete, so you open up an infinitely larger set / group for periodicities and the like. e.g. the different between the set of integers and irrational numbers, or in this computable and uncomputable. but any case, the output of a metahueristic algorithm whose search space gradient is continuously and unpredictably changing.

As for the "Junk" DNA. They are now saying that that "Junk" is not so unimportant as they had long believed.

well that much i guessed when they first called it junk. but still most of it is junk. an entropic complexity argument will tell you that much. (basically that there's nothing really limiting it's length - the energy limiting factor is very weak while the search space preference factor is strong, so mathemetically it's entropically favored to grow well past its minimally encoding length)

I understand this is the case in some species they've discovered. If I recall properly, the barley mold is an example of an enormous DNA with very few actual genes in it.

I would think that higher level creatures would become evolutionarily unfit to survive were this to happen to them, and therein probably lies your limiting factor.

nah, the limiting factor is the energy cost to maintain and replicate the longer strands, and there's no reason for it to be significantly different in more or less complex organisms. it's non-zero of course, but relatively speaking (compared to the overall metabolism and cost of other functions), it happens to be very low. probably in no small part due to its incredibly tiny size.

i believe the longest genome is the indian fern.

[happyjack27]

I believe there is something more going on here beyond a "strange attractor."

oh of course, it's a much higher dimensional phase space.

[happyjack27]

This is an old philosophy question. When do dead atoms make a living thing? While I love to get into metaphysics, at the moment it is irrelevant to the point. It is not debatable that "living" creatures are made of "dead" atoms. Life itself points to a sort of reverse entropy in that a meaningless jumble of random components are spontaneously assembled into a structure of a higher level of order.

negentropy

there's also information entropy and the "free energy" version of entropy. all strongly related. (also see "dissapative structures"). problem which thermo entropy - well there are many problems with it - is it discussing the situation of an adiabatic closed hamiltonian system. such a thing simply does not exist.

[GIThruster]

I've thrown down a soup of a few theories above, but I think it's fair to argue that without the disruptive influences that those theories discuss, Christianity may well have just become another theocracy fused with a worldly imperial government.

I think I can share two reasons that wouldn't/couldn't happen. First is that from its inception, Christianity has been centrifugal, or outward moving. The commission was to take the gospel, not to reform culture (whereas the opposite is true of Judaism, which is centripetal.) So there is no mandate for a theocracy in Christianity, as opposed to both Judaism and Islam. This didn't stop Rome from declairing itself the center of Christendom, and inventing a Pope, but the seeds for theocracy are not in Christianity. They're in Christians who want power. That difference insures secular and religious authority are held separate in Christendom.

Second reason is that there was no intention for Luther to start a bunch of dissenting churches. His intention was internal reform. He had no interest in busting things up, so it's hard to see how the reformation could be considered an orchestrated event. Even though there was no separation between church and state in places like Witenburg, the two were already NOT the same as they were throughout most of the rest of the world. There never was a Christian version of the Islamic Mullah, because Christianity never presented itself as a theocracy. So as Christianity grew and institutionalized, those institutions were always outside and alongside secular authority. fact is, it went the other way 'round--secular authorities like Kings, claimed religious selection--they claimed they were set in place by God. It was really this dynamic, the secular world affecting the religious, that gave us all the religious institutionalization we find by the time of the dark ages.

So just saying, there really isn't any basis for theocracy in Christianity, but certainly there is in Judaism and Islam. Judaism is relatively safe, because the terms of the theocracy require not just adherence to Mosaic law, but also to "live in the land I will give you." The Jewish theocracy found in their earliest history is therefore centripetal and tied to living in the Holy Land--it cannot be transported elsewhere.

Islam is the reverse, therefore violent, aggressive, dangerous past understanding. Anyone who understands what Islam really teaches, is terrified of it. It's central to the teaching of the Quran, that followers have a religious mandate to subjugate all the world's secular authorities to Islam. This is in fact why devout Muslims hate the West the way they do, and always will. We really do represent the "Great Satan" to them--a thing to be vanquished in any way possible, even terrorism, nuclear war, bio-war. . .anything is up for grabs to the devout Muslim who really understands and agrees with the Quran.

Happily, lots of devout Muslims disagree with the entire notion of Jihad. Fact is they would not say it, but they believe the Quran is fundamentally wrong in its spirit, intentions and teachings.

[happyjack27]

oh, and have you ever heard of solid hydrogen?

nope, and you never will. it is physically impossible. according to quantumn physics, the zero-point energy (i.e. energy at its "ground state") of hydrogen is higher than it's freezing point. so it simply cannot freeze. also on that note notice that the harmonic energy levels of different elements (read: allowable energy states) are incommensurate with each other. in other words, it is absolutely impossible for them to reach the same temperature. so much for "heat death".

my main point is the assumption, implicit in many world views, that all dynamical spaces are either hamiltonion or degenerative, is categorically false. (in fact, they constitute a special case, i.e. an infinitely small subset.)

[GIThruster]

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

I was at John Cole's presentation on making metallic hydrogen as delivered at STAIF '07. Was fascinating stuff. They crunch it with a diamond anvil. . .

[Skipjack]

but the seeds for theocracy are not in Christianity. They're in Christians who want power.

Actually if you talk to some muslims, they will tell you the very same thing. They will also tell you that the violent, dangerous and agressive interpretation of Islam is wrong and that islam in its truest sense is peaceful.
Of course that is bullshit, but so far anyone who was for any religion, or ideology has said the same thing, when I brought examples of brutalities commited in the name of said religion or ideology.
Personally I think that it is a fallacy to separate between religions and ideologies. Of course people like to do that. They have many simillarities though.
Almost every religion and ideology has at its core the need to convert as many people as possible to said ideology.
The members of almost every religion or ideology believe that their religion is the one and the only true one.
The members of almost every religion or ideology take what is written in a book as gospel and dogma. It is unchangeable. If newly discovered facts contradict the dogma, they are disputed, discredited or demonized or simply silenced or their existance denied. Often people that try to make these facts known are facing repercussions, in extreme cases, death.
Example: Both the left and the right hate genetics and genetic engineering. It is demonized, even banned. The left hates it because it contradicts the dialectic materialism ("everyone is the same from birth" and its just nurture and the "fault" of society what people turn out to be) . The right hates it because it allows humans to "play god".
Changing the genetic makeup of humans is very much frowned upon by either side for these reasons.
This is also why cloning of humans is not allowed in most countries in the world and cloning of animals is also highly problematic topic.
Personally I dont see a problem in either and dont understand what all the fuss is about. But then I dont condemn the science just because it dont like the results.
I see the results of science as what they are, results without any moral value to them.
Ideologies, religions and their followers can not do that. After all their religion and ideology is the absolute moral instance, right?
Why? Because its written in the book "..." (insert title here). That could be the bible, the koran, mein Kampf, the capital, the book of Mormon, one of the many "works" of El Ron Hubbard, etc, etc.
I think you get the point.
What is the difference, other than that "your" religion/ideology is the one that is right. As I said, they all think that and they all will bring as many arguments as you do why that is so.

[GIThruster]

So you're saying, that since all people claim to be right, and they all believe different things, they must all be wrong?

What a ridiculous argument.

But FYI, as one who has read the Quran and the Bible, I can tell you, there is nothing in the Bible that tells Christians to subjugate the world's authorities to their theocracy, and there most certainly is, in the Quran.

[hanelyp]

oh, and have you ever heard of solid hydrogen?

nope, and you never will. it is physically impossible. ...

According to my college physics book the melting point of hydrogen is -259.19 Celsius.

[KitemanSA]

Ok, you and I will just have to disagree about this. Slavery was SUPPORTED by religion for more than a millenium and it was the religious mainstream that were amongst the last to give up on it. It was the "cults" that were against slavery.

You're painting with an awfully broad brush but in general I agree. Doesn't matter. Those "cults" (as in small groups, not as in personality cults) got their values from their religion--chiefly through their understanding of the Bible, old and new testaments both. Our values about slavery, egalitarianism and secularism all come from Christ's teachings and how they have affected his followers for 2,000 years. He didn't teach against slavery. He taught what was the basis for us to discover that slavery is wrong.

Again, we'll have to disagree. I believe that "cults" form when someone sees a situation that morally outrages them and the mainstream religions support the situation, so the outraged ones re-read a passage or a number of passages and tweek the meaning to tell themselves that "God" said what they want him to say.

Not being a student of pre-history, I cannot be sure that I am correct in this following statement, but it seems to me that mono-theism in all it's forms has been amongst the most DESTRUCTIVE forces in history. Intellectual suppression, crusades, jihad,... From what I have available to read, the FIRST people to practice genocide were the mono-theistic Jews. Joshua was "credited" (what a word to use!) with eliminating; man, woman, child, cattle, everything; a number of city states. He may not have been on Gengis' level, but he was apparently a soul-mate.

[GIThruster]

Kite, you obviously came to your position before you found your reasons, but FYI, Socialism, Communism and Atheism are hands down the biggest ideological killers on the planet. Stalin murdered 22 million of his own people in the absence of war. Mao Tse-Tung murdered 84 million. There is nothing that comes close to these slaughters. Russia is littered with mass graves where 200,000 people were thrown into the same hole in the ground at one time, all in the name of your atheism.

By contrast, deaths from over 200 years of the Crusades (which were not religious--again you demonstrate ignorance of the history you quote) total about 9 million. That's 200 years of war, not even a smidgeon compared to the "cleansing" of the atheists in Russia and China inside a few years.

BTW, genocide goes back into pre-history and has been practiced all around the world, usually for economic reasons but sometimes for idealogical. You know about the Jews coming out of 400 years slavery in Egypt and taking back their land--though the record is they refused to commit genocide. Do you know the stories of the Irish slaughtering whole tribes for their cattle? The Pictish and Viking raids upon the Irish? The Kenyan Maasai slaughtering indiscriminantly as they drifted nomadically? The Sumi Naga head hunters of India who killed on sight until they were converted by Christian missionaries? The cannibalism in Liberia, and Congo, and Irian Jaya and a dozen other places around the world?

No?

So how is it you use atrocities to discredit religion, when you know so little about them?

But why trouble yourself with facts. As I said, you came to your position without them. Just an unreasoning hostility to religion. . .

[djolds1]

BTW, genocide goes back into pre-history and has been practiced all around the world, usually for economic reasons but sometimes for idealogical. You know about the Jews coming out of 400 years slavery in Egypt and taking back their land--though the record is they refused to commit genocide. Do you know the stories of the Irish slaughtering whole tribes for their cattle? The Pictish and Viking raids upon the Irish? The Kenyan Maasai slaughtering indiscriminantly as they drifted nomadically? The Sumi Naga head hunters of India who killed on sight until they were converted by Christian missionaries? The cannibalism in Liberia, and Congo, and Irian Jaya and a dozen other places around the world?

Actually, genocide in the strict dictionary definition (killing of the gens/cultural unit) is the normal human method of war. The way the West has fought war ever since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 is very constrained, very artificial, and dying.

Traditional method. What I call "Carthaginian Rules." Ever see the Pitt/Bana movie "Troy?" The way Bana's Hector describes the fall of Troy to his wife is spot-on:

City looted and sacked;
Every male of 12 years or older killed;
Infants thrown from the walls;
Women raped;
Women and children enslaved, and scattered to the four winds.

The advantage of Carthaginian Rules? The defeated polity is entirely wiped out as a cultural entity. Individuals will biologically survive, but the defeated culture will never threaten you again. It is gen-ocide, not in terms of killing a cultural group to the last individual (i.e. the Nazi "tainted blood" obsessions), but in terms of cultural continuity. The endless bleeding of a civilian-supported people's war cannot happen, because the enemy people cease to exist.

The one alternative settlement under Carthaginian Rules is that the victor allows the defeated enemy to survive - as a client. Much as Rome defeated and then integrated the Latin League during and after the Social War. But this is an act of supreme mercy and power by the victor - the slave master graciously consenting to free the slave. The defeated party is never again in any sense an equal to the victor. Carthage was granted this mercy after the Second Punic War; and ground into the sands of modern Tunisia after the Third.

The alternative. Westphalian Rules. Developed in the aftermath of Europe's Wars of Religion. What the Israeli scholar Martin van Creveld calls Trinitarian warfare. The state declares war and negotiates victory or surrender. The army fights war, subject to the commands of the state. And the people, the third leg of the trinity, stay out of war. If the people agree to remain aloof from war, they will not engage in partisan attacks once their army is defeated and their state surrenders. In return, the people are given several guarantees:

1) the victor will not overly alter the laws or traditions of the defeated nation;
2) the lives, liberty and personal security of the people of the defeated nation will be guaranteed after the surrender;
3) the defeated people will be allowed to retain most of their personal property after their state surrenders.

Yes, these rules are often violated, but in Western nations, and civilized nations that have adopted Westphalian Rules, the violators are brought to account by the legal processes of their own, victorious armies. I.e. American soldier-rapists in a defeated Germany being hung for their crimes. Compare this to Carthaginian War, where the women are among the foremost prizes desired and the first taken (see the character Briseis in "Troy").

These conditions remove the high risks and rewards of Carthaginian Rules warfare. War is no longer fought for the greatest of rewards (total control of the lives, fates, and wealth of the defeated enemy), and it no longer poses the greatest of risks (not just your own life or the lives of your family, but the existential survival of all you hold dear). This is why Westphalian Rules are traditionally so harsh on partisans. If the people refuse to abide by the surrender of their state, there can be no peace. The conflict can not end in negotiated surrender and victory between the belligerent states.

Westphalian Rules started dying during WW2, when the Allies accepted and encouraged the work of partisans in Europe. Many of the Nazis' acts were horrendous, but their treatment of partisans was (mostly) right in line with Westphalian tradition - i.e. line the partisans up against a wall, and shoot them. Eisenhower's unexecuted "Werewolf" Order in occupied Germany was along the same traditional Westphalian lines; mass reprisals for partisan activity - i.e. strongly encourage the defeated people to suppress the partisans hiding in their midst. When the Soviets started backing irregulars in "wars of national liberation" c.1950 or so, the West had no grounds to object. And recognition of the partisan was made explicit in the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Convention (which the US is not signatory to).

The 1977 Protocols are the death knell of Westphalian Rules. And the only alternative is Carthaginian Rules. Even for all its brutality, in the broad strokes WW2 was fought in a manner far more civilized than the wars of the year 1600 and earlier. The endless bleeding in places like Afghanistan and Iraq today is a result of Westphalian armies fighting Carthaginian adversaries and being unable to figure out how to bring about a peace congruent with the Westphalian expectations of non-genocide and enduring comity between former belligerents. The unfortunate truth of the matter is that no such settlement is possible if even one of the belligerents refuses to follow the demands of Westphalian Rules warfare.

[Skipjack]

So you're saying, that since all people claim to be right, and they all believe different things, they must all be wrong?

No, that is not what I am saying. I was simply showing the simillarities between religions and ideologies.
They are one and the same thing.

But FYI, as one who has read the Quran and the Bible

So you speak arabic?

By contrast, deaths from over 200 years of the Crusades (which were not religious--again you demonstrate ignorance of the history you quote) total about 9 million.

There were a lot less people inhabiting the planet back then. Measured on the total population, this made a much larger percentage of the population that got killed.

not even a smidgeon compared to the "cleansing" of the atheists in Russia and China inside a few years.

I like the quote by pope Innozenz III during the crusades:"Just kill them all, god will later divide the righteous from the evil ones".
Pretty much sums it up for me.

[KitemanSA]

Kite, you obviously came to your position before you found your reasons, but FYI, Socialism, Communism and Atheism are hands down the biggest ideological killers on the planet. Stalin murdered 22 million of his own people in the absence of war. Mao Tse-Tung murdered 84 million. There is nothing that comes close to these slaughters. Russia is littered with mass graves where 200,000 people were thrown into the same hole in the ground at one time, all in the name of your atheism.

I am not sure that these examples contradict my original thesis, mono-theism is the greatest source of destruction in the world. Stalin and Mao were mono-theist but their theism was the communist state.

The point is that folks that get it into their head that THEIR way is the ONLY way tend to be destructive to any who disagree.

Maybe I should alter my statement a bit to be "mono-maniacal" and equate JCI (Judeo-Christ-Islamisism) to mono-maniacism, but I figure folks would REALLY go high order about that!

[Betruger]

Stalin's atheism's was his motivation for genocide? God's and God's divine inspiration's inexistence in Stalin's mind is what guided Stalin's hand?

His "religion" to the state is responsible for Stalin's crimes, not atheism.