N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Now that is one weird thread. Also, the whole Gary / Dionisio interaction is screamingly funny.
The thread consists of many posts every day or so for six months of Dionisio being sequentially puzzled and amazed by a large chunk of all the leading-edge science that he encounters in new publications in the general fields of cell development, genetics, molecular biochemistry, and the like, and it devolves to the point of him simply posting long author and title lists for scientific conferences.
Mung pops up midway to ask [paraphrased], "But how does life know what works?" ('How would Mung's offspring remember to breathe?' has a similar answer.)
Gary enters late to less than stellar effect.
| Quote |
Dionisio, the “theory of intelligent design” requires explaining how “intelligence” and “intelligent cause” works:
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.
The only thing you posted are dozens of moving goalposts, and I have better things to do than tire myself out chasing red-herrings.
I showed you what I have. It’s now you’re turn to show everyone what YOU have for a minimal code (Occam’s razor) model that is required for you to be taken seriously, in real-science. |
Dionisio responds, | Quote | #686 Gary S. Gaulin
[.........]
When you wrote “you’re turn” did you mean “your turn”?
Is English your first language? My first language is Spanish. I try to learn English grammar and vocabulary when reading books, journals, online commentaries, etc. Still have a long way to go before I can claim that I know this language well enough to communicate correctly.
I thought the expression “you’re” was equivalent to “you are” or “you were” depending on the context.
Did you notice they have here in UD a new editing feature that can be used up to 20 minutes after posting your comments?
BTW, I don’t have any minimal code model to show to anyone.
I’m studying biology. That’s all buddy.
Are you upset? Why? Did I ask you inconvenient questions?
Please, take it easy. You don’t have to answer my questions, specially if you’re so busy and/or don’t know how to answer my questions. I write also for the onlookers/lurkers out there who visit this blog. :)
As far as I’m concerned, our discussion is over. I appreciate the time you took to explain your ideas.
I wish the best to you. |
The thread continues, because Gary has struggled in with multiple shopping carts of baggage from another thread. Note in the next one how Gary has learned a few things from this thread, such as the need to use precise terminology and to have operational definitions, and the possibility of attacking someone who lacks such things:
| Quote | 688
Gary S. Gaulin November 25, 2014 at 8:45 pm
| Quote | News:
Sounds interesting. |
But be careful. The word “evolution” is operationally defined by Darwinian theory, therefore in the best case scenario the only thing you get is another Darwinian theory added to the (way more than 3) clutter of Darwinian variations that already exist. That happening is a reason Biblical creationists gave up on ID. They saw it as a siding with the devil, instead of speaking up for Genesis and explaining our Adam and Eve moment, trinity, how we could be in our creators image/likeness and other (Genesis related but still science) detail.
As science sees it a theory that qualifies as a “A third way of evolution” cannot be ID. To be scientifically in spirit with the premise of ID the phenomenon to explain is “intelligent cause” (that first requires the word “intelligent” to be operationally defined by a simple as possible model to experiment with) and nothing else.
I know that in everyday conversation the word “evolution” is a common generalization, but when wording a scientific theory using the word once requires operationally defining a generalization that then needs the “evo-devo” generalization to make it to the word “development” that ID explains without generalizing. It’s important to be specific as to which level of development is being discussed by saying something like “development of human molecular intelligence (which was estimated to have in all taken some 4 billion years)” or “development of human multicellular intelligence (a brain made of neural components not molecular components)”.
Being as precise as science requires elimination of “evo” generalizations. They only lead to evermore confusion that is best left to the Darwinian camp to on their own deal with, be muddled by.
In at least my case I expect discussion of biological “development” only. Talking about “evolution” changes the subject to a concept that is left up to the imagination of the critics. Before long the buzz-words make it seem like even what was discovered under modern microscopes (as human technology improved) was all made possible thanks to Darwinian theory. |
Gary follows that up by another post whose last paragraph is even meta-funnier:
| Quote | 689
Gary S. GaulinNovember 25, 2014 at 9:30 pm
Dionisio:
| Quote | | Are you upset? Why? Did I ask you inconvenient questions? |
For the sake of science (and myself) I’m not going to play your games.
You should by now know what is scientifically required for you to be considered a credible judge of theory pertaining to things that are “intelligent”. Only thing you accomplished was to show how you dismissed yourself from needing to know what you’re talking about by making yourself look smart by quoting a pile of science papers. |
| Quote |
690
Dionisio November 26, 2014 at 12:25 am
FTR:
here’s a summary of my (D) brief discussion with Gary S. Gaulin (GSG) in another thread moderated by gpuccio (G):
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-530373/....-53....-530373
D: 648
GSG: 668
D: 690
D: 693
G: 706
GSG: 732
G: 733
G: 734
G: 735
G: 736
GSG: 737
D: 738
D: 739
GSG: 740
GSG: 741
D: 742
D: 743
FMM: 744
D: 749
GSG: 772
D: 775
GSG: 776
D: 778
D: 783
D: 785
Then GSG decided to move the discussion to this ‘third way’ thread:
GSG: 686
D: 687
GSG: 688
GSG: 689
Note: FMM stands for fifthmonarchyman who volunteered his comments on the discussion. |
The next post is an instant classic
| Quote |
691
Gary S. Gaulin November 26, 2014 at 12:33 am
Here’s my short summary:
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-532354 |
Bear in mind that this discussion about the earlier discussion on GPuccio's thread is taking place on Dionisio's "Third Way" thread. The reason that it is funny is that Gary's supposedly clarifying summary in GPuccio's thread (which he offers on Dionisio's thread) is first and foremost a link straight back to the entire earlier discussion on Dionisio's thread, which he is currently in. Moral: Don't bother Gary, he's busy tracking heffalumps.
| Quote | I answered that in a few replies to the “A third way” thread:
http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-532256/....-53....-532256
..........
Ignoring all that most matters in real (not pop) science has caused you to without knowing it knock yourself right out of the scientific arena. Nothing to even be a contender with.
I can only use what little time I have to let you know what you’re actually up against. How much more serious damage you do to yourself and those you represent by fighting it is all up to you. |
Anyway, back to Dionisio:
| Quote | 692
Dionisio November 26, 2014 at 12:34 am
690 addendum
The onlookers/lurkers may read the referenced posts in the indicated sequence and arrive at their own conclusions.
:) |
Some of the posts in GPuccio's thread are choice:
Gary to Dionisio
| Quote | | Quote | Dionisio:
BTW, I’m a student, not a scientist. My scientific credibility is none, zero, nada, null. That’s why I ask simple questions in order to learn. |
You are not asking learning questions like “Can an electronic sensor bit be connected to any memory address bit of an electronic RAM or do they have to be in some order?” you’re just asking snotty questions that expect me to dedicate the next four or more years to tutoring you for free, so that you can teach me a punishing lesson about some imaginary error in my ways. |
Gary to Dionisio:
| Quote |
Yes it is very inconvenient for me to have to pamper to your bratty demands. But since that’s what you asked for I’ll first ask the appropriate teacherly question normally used for getting to better know each other: What do you Dionisio want to be when you grow up? |
Also, Gary gets his arse handed to him by Zachriel:
Zachriel to Gary
| Quote | | Quote | | Gary S. Gaulin: I’m recalling contradictions such as Charles Darwin’s predicting the opposite of “punctuated eqilibrium” would be discovered in the fossil evidence. |
Actually, Darwin predicted just the opposite.
"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." — Darwin, “Origin of Species”
|
And then it happens again:
| Quote | | Quote | | Gary S. Gaulin: Instead of the discovery of (what later became known as) the Cambrian Explosion having been predicted by Charles Darwin … |
Darwin was aware of the Cambrian Explosion.
| Quote | | Gary S. Gaulin: Not having beforehand predicted a sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence is one of the very serious weaknesses of Darwinian theory. |
It’s called adaptive radiation. |
It just doesn't matter to Gary that time and time again he makes declarative statements that turn out to be wrong and that he frequently has no clue whatsoever about the stuff he is critiquing. It doesn't slow him down and it doesn't cause him to question his judgement, or to step more cautiously into areas he knows so little about. Without the faintest hint of awareness, he happily applies criticisms to other people's work that he direly needs to apply to his own stuff. It's amazing.
Anyway, after which, Gary shoots for blatant misrepresentation:
| Quote |
890
Gary S. Gaulin November 28, 2014 at 10:44 pm
| Quote | | Quote | | Gary S. Gaulin: And what did you explain by spouting a smart sounding name for something? |
[Zachriel] Adaptive radiation occurs when a new niche becomes available. The Cambrian Explosion is a case of adaptive radiation on a large scale. |
That’s another brush-off.
But good luck arguing that this planet suddenly appeared, at the very start of the Cambrian Explosion. |
Me-think tries to take a look at Gary's ideas: | Quote | I have skimmed through his 51 pages disjointed Theory of Intelligent Design . He touches on Multicellular and Human Multicellular Intelligence briefly on page 33 and 34. There is nothing there about evolution of intelligence. I think he just wants to highlight his VB6 program about what he calls Intelligence Design Lab critter.
Most pages are bizarre. Eg: He runs read write operation and graphs the memory usage, says that is foraging, and claims that somehow represents intelligence evolution through Cambrian explosion!!: |
I think this whole "Gary at UD" thing is going even better than I expected.
|
