RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (612) < [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: 4922
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 22 2012,00:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 22 2012,00:16)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:43)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:20)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 21 2012,23:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 21 2012,23:04)
I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

David L. Heiserman

Arnold Trehub, especially Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

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

  18339 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (612) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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