RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4928
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2013,18:49   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 24 2013,17:05)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 24 2013,02:09)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 24 2013,01:07)
Wesley, you are only making matters worse on yourself. In the other thread/forum around half of the very small number of hits (in comparison to this forum) it did receive was likely traffic back and forth from this forum. But since you had to make an issue out of it I had to dig-up this sad-comedy:

           
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2012,07:18)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)

You have confused yourself. Let's review your statement:                    
Quote

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



I did not realize I still had one floating around from way back in 2009.  But I think you might have found a special one.  Let me check..

Yes!  It's the ID-free Origin Of Intelligent Life blog, for Christmas! that I made for Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who hate ID.  The title “Origin Of Intelligent Life” was a good clue it is not the “Theory of Intelligent Design”.  

With this illustration there too it's clearly visually showing what I am explaining.  At most missing the symbiosis part about the forward cycle gaining energy by undoing the assembly work of the reverse Krebs that can then assemble more:

                     
Quote
Control Of Krebs Cycle By Molecular Intelligence

In living things molecular intelligence is seen controlling what self-assembles from the powerful Krebs Cycle that has become the core metabolic cycle of cells. It is the power plant and factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein, mineral or other) are drawn to metabolic pathway assembly lines that makes a copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.



At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule of proper fit may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once common planetary chemistry.[11][12]

Where there is no molecular intelligence present the Krebs Cycle would not be able to produce cells and exist regardless of molecular intelligence being present or not to control it. A rudimentary intelligence may actually be challenged to keep up with its production rate but not necessarily be destroyed by periods of overproduction.

Intelligence to exploit this cycle could easily form in its local environment. Once active it would have little problem controlling this existing metabolism. We can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that produces a genome from scratch, instead of a genome first being required to produce this intelligence.


No versions mention citric acid cycle.  I make sure (Jack) Krebs is there, like he should be.  But since you do not believe that it is important to first study the theory you are supposed to be fairly judging it is no wonder I'm stuck in another henpecking semantics argument and this even though there was also a link to view in Google-Viewer at the Theory of ID download address:

                   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 01 2012,21:35)
Oh, yeah, you will also not find me opening up a Word document from some random guy on the Internet. Not going to happen, not without booting a Live CD of a Linux distribution or something of the sort. And I see no reason to go to the trouble of doing that.


I must say, that at least your timing goes perfect with the link to the movie trailer for the new Christmas movie.   Here I am trying to explain Heiserman, Trebub, and others known all over intelligence related sciences.  It’s very basic material, not PhD level stuff.  It’s already a damn shame in the first place that someone promoting themselves as an expert in how intelligence works does not even know modern day basics kids know about too these days because of resources like BEAM (Biology, Electronics, Aesthetics, Mechanics) where David Heiserman and others are found.  And considering you are supposed to know all about what’s going on, not knowing who I am does not score any points in the science arena either.  And resorting to intellectual snobbery was a dumb idea.  But picking the ID-free chewtoy was in my opinion brilliant!

Under your scientific leadership, the kids of the world were at least immediately in danger of being scientifically bored to death.  I do though take the years old topics that linger in the forums as more evidence that the ID controversy actually ended around 2009.  With the theory working out scientifically there was no need for political protest, had science work instead.  Kathy had to make sure teachers in her district knew about the self-assembly demonstration via copy-machine, while kept things interesting at the KCFS forum for more original ideas for science teachers, that came from the wreckage of the hearing that went bad for them.  It’s hard not to be impressed.  And where students soon giggle because you can’t figure out what they already know, it’s a compliment to whoever could have them understanding all that by high school, and the students too of course.

At least (quality over quantity) Jack has no need to envy all the traffic this forum received over the years.  Or worry all that much about ones most ahead right now in understanding the theory include Kansan creationists that he was on a mission to scientifically educate, somehow.   Having the whole “Theory of Intelligent Design” pop out of the incubator is now just indication of unimaginable success.  Not that the ID-free “Origin of Intelligent Life” wasn’t also a great idea and novel Christmas gift, for a science forum that normally gets nothing for Christmas at all.  I'm at least thrilled to see that you had no problem finding it either.

In the statement you're all upset about I left out the above detail, as well as your excuse that did not go well for you either.


Gary remains oblivious to the obvious, that his claim is false. Which claim? The one I have repeatedly quoted:

         
Quote

You were caught red-handed commenting on a theory you did not even look at


I have documented that I was commenting upon text that I did look at, and even quoted. Why Gary thinks the above has any bearing on the issue is a mystery, much less that it demonstrates some fault on my part.

The only reason I did not catch-on right away is because that's one of the few things that are roughly the same in the Theory of Intelligent Design. I divided up all the sections pertaining to the various forms of intelligence into the "four requirements" and added a new computer model, pages more information including schematic diagrams and illustrations to replace the ones shown that are now obsolete.

The Reverse Krebs (Reverse Citric Acid) Cycle is standard textbook chemistry almost any science teacher could go over, which is why I have been focused on other things all around it that matter much more because that's where the original theory is, only I can get just right.

Now that Gary has admitted that his basis for repeatedly calling my behavior unethical over the issue above is entirely his mistake, what will he do to correct the libel that he has repeated here and elsewhere?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
  18524 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (618) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]