GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 15 2012,07:39) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:51) | | Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2012,23:23) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:04) | | Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45) | | Quote |
Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. |
The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. |
In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina.
PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... |
That's right Gaga. So why are you here with your VB code if we're the metaphorical Dodos of origins? Why do you correct your idiotic 'theory' based on us laughing at it?
Oh, My theory has 100% 5 stars. Yours, does not, so is inferior.
EDITZ |
And that is some of the usual nonsense awaiting those who dare suggest that the ID issue is far more than their simple imaginary evolution/origins issue where one side is in denial of science. In the ID camp that I know (where there are serious people needing sound advice to know things way or another) none I know are even denying evolution or "origins" science the problem has all along been not satisfactorily explaining macroevolution scale changes.
Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. |
Gary, will you please elaborate on why you think that "macroevolution scale changes" has not been explained satisfactorily?
| Quote | | Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. |
I agree that "Searching for a more complete scientific view" is something that should be cherished, as long as the search is scientific. None of the typical ID claims are scientific and I don't see the typical IDiots searching for anything other than the destruction of evolutionary science and total religious dominance of everyone and everything on Earth. Your 'search' may be scientific in some ways but I don't see that it's searching for or finding what you seem to think it is.
It's often difficult or impossible to figure out what you're trying to say about your 'theory' and I find myself 'searching' for clarity and relevant evidence in your claims. I also wonder about the urge that drives you and whether you're really interested in a scientific search or in pushing a religious/political agenda. I've seen signs of both from you and I haven't completely made my mind up about what you're trying to accomplish. I admire your persistence even though I'm not convinced that you have a valid argument for your version of ID. You have a lot more guts than chickenshit bloviators like gordon e mullings (kairosfocus), barry arrington, vj torley, luskin, o'leary, klinghoffer, and many other typical IDiots who spew their dishonest insanity in heavily moderated or closed to comments sanctuaries like UD or ENV. You deserve some credit for being willing to face the fire here even if you ultimately fail to convince anyone of your claims. |
You are also overcomplicating things, keep it scientifically simple. There is an algorithm for standard modeling any behavior (intelligent or not) of any biological system that may exist, as well as "intelligent cause". It is up to you to make sure that it is coded/wired as in the real thing. Not me, or the algorithm that you somehow believe can do that for you too. Even where you found something missing in my insect brain it's then easily added to Addressing, Confidence logic circuit or wherever else that parameter should be listed in. Can keep on going until you have a whole human brain modeled that way. Where you start at the cellular level you get neurons that are constantly changing at the molecular level like this that I recently found with good news from the BBC to help sum up that process:
http://iaincarstairs.wordpress.com/2011.......rturned
The core IA is part of a standard modeling methodology that preserves any underlying multiple emergent levels of self-organization that exist in the real thing, but normally not your models. Object is to sort out the literature for one thing into an IA model of it, for example molecular intelligence of a neuron that is expected to self-organize it's own cellular level intelligence/behavior system needed for migration.
The only question is how well you have the system figured out. That is tested by how well your model behaves like the real thing. In the Intelligence Design Lab I use for testing it's a simple insect navigation, result is common ordinary insect foraging behavior. It does not have to display more than that. It's already obvious it learns how to get from one food source to another like it should, there is no question whether it worked or not. What remains is improving the model by adding more detail, and I am making progress with in the updated version.
I'm thankful that you noticed I'm not a big-tent regular. I try to stay out of the rings when the circus is on. In the camp I'm from both PT and UD is like the same old show kept going for too long.
As a two time graduate of the Holyoke Public Schools Parent Empowerment training program (where they too stressed the importance of empowering others) I have been corresponding with others who I could tell deserved empowerment that goes along with the territory of theory like this. Main connection there is Kathy Martin, who is the result of a public hearing gone bad when the big-tent came to Kansas. Only thing that matters to her and others is what helps turns such a giant mess around, so it at least ultimately results in something of great educational value. And you did not even have to know about NSTA publishing the self-assembly demonstration and Kathy getting that around with credits where her peers (and biggest critics) are, the KCFS forum which had to be credited too.
I focus on what science needs for theory, and who most needs to know about the accomplishments made along the way. It's already said and done, not something paraded around in what is now more like a circus, few care about anymore.
--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
|
