Joined: June 2006
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,08:12)|
The quick answer is like I was explaining earlier about design inferences and such trying to solve the scientific problem in the reverse direction of my method which begins with the most simplified cognitive model for any intelligence. In a design inference there is no beforehand knowledge of the circuit that must be there for this other level of behavior to be intelligent. My search began at our human level brain that we personally experience, to other levels of intelligence necessary for it/us to work, that then goes on into the behavior of matter from which we are expressed.
|Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 11 2012,05:58)|
|I think it was oldman... who suggested that you present the core parts of your "theory". I'll reiterate that and suggest that you present them a step at a time and focus on things that can be analyzed/tested/compared in such a way as to figure out if those parts have any merit.|
We can easily compare illustrations showing core models. Here is the theory of ID:
And here is a typical EA/GA representative of the Darwinian theory model:
Do you see the very major differences?
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT