GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012
|
How did I know you would be another creep who quote-mines the thread in order to make it appear that is what I claimed in the theory/paper?
You said:
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,19:48) | This is not what you claim in your "paper". You specifically state that bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome.
Interesting, you appear to have changed your document and it no longer contains that phrase. Have you changed your mind then? |
Instead of quoting from a "paper" the best you could do is quote yourself making the same accusation, and link to things I said that have nothing at all to do with what you are talking about.
The first url says:
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2012,21:41) | Here's a funny story Gary.
Shockingly, I don't have a Ph.D. in anything. I'm a 'self-learner', but the difference between you and I is that I actually learn something about what I choose to talk about on the internet where everyone can read what I write.
Did you know that 'self-learners' can publish in peer-reviewed journals? I'm still deciding if it's worth the effort it would take for me to write up the article I want to do. You see, unlike you, I'd have to look up several hundred references and include them with the article. You know, all those references that provide support to the things I would say in my article... oh wait, no, you must not know that.
BTW: Are you ever going to answer any of the questions I specifically asked about your specific article.
1) Do you understand that you are fundamentally mistaken about natural selection? 2) Do you have any support for an embryo modifying its genome after fertilization? 3) Do you have any support for any organism consciously choosing to modify its genome at any point in time? 4) Do you know how to develop a graph that meets the minimum requirements of 3rd grade school children? 5) There was some more, but that's all I remember and it's not worth the effort to look up, because we both know you won't acknowledge these questions... much less answer them. |
The second quotes me as saying:
"I’ll soon be back with more to address newest questions, to hopefully help make this an even brighter Sunday reply for you as well, to start off another interesting new science week with."
Third quotes me as saying:
"It’s also an insult to try making it seem that I do not already know that the Traveling Salesman Problem is one of many thousands of ways to test for intelligence. But it’s no surprise to me that the tests that are already in the theory and the model which chart foraging success and other parameters needed to show that it is in fact successfully intelligently thinking for itself are not good enough for the ones who demand I beat their models which cannot even intelligently/cognitively forage for food, or even have to. They only care about tests which will at the same time prove that a pocket calculator or simple math algorithm is more intelligent than a human. In science like this, such tests are simply unacceptable. And I am not going to play games with ones who demand that they be allowed to cheat."
The fifth url links to the top of page 14.
At least you did a fine job of proving that you are just another one of the parasites on a feeding-frenzy to bleed science to death.
-------------- 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.
|