N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 16 2015,23:25) | Although it should go without saying: When I write I differentiate between a "computer model" that is programmed and a theoretical "model" as in the phrase "Darwinian model" by whether the "computer" qualifier is present or not. Charles Darwin did not even have a personal computer to code his selection+mutation based model. Theoretical models only need to have a good chance of working when fully tested that way.
I am not obliged to provide computer software that I cannot even afford to produce. With all considered it's more like an insult to expect a whole model working of everything with two intelligent causation events that are not even technologically possible yet.
There is a whole other set of standards being used for a "model" even though in reality in the "scientific literature" models rarely have any code at all to go with them, they don't have to and by science there is nothing wrong with doing so. None should be expecting that I must follow more rigid demands where all covered in the theory has to be coded in detail scientists have not even discovered yet. That was concocted by quoting what I said out of context while ignoring words here and there that left them nothing to complain about. |
As always, thanks for allowing specialists access to the trackways.
However, for the earlier post, bunkum. You are presenting a computer model for which you make all sorts of grandiose claims and from which you make all sorts of assertions. However, the quality of the computer model is poor and assertions that you claim to base on the model are unjustified, illogical, and without evidence.
Both kinds of models require a strong foundation of precise definitions, useful operational definitions, and full understanding of previous work. You don't do that.
For example, you refer to Darwin's model of "natural selection and mutation". In fact, Darwin didn't know about genes, so he didn't know about mutations. He developed a completely wrong idea about "pangenesis" and it was not until about 50-70 years later that the majority of biologists properly understood the role of genes and mutations and finally got fully on board with natural selection being a major part of speciation. (Darwin fully understood and documented that variation exists, but without a mechanism to produce variability there are serious limits to what natural selection can do - selection of existing variants can turn a wolf into a poodle, but not a fish into an amphibian. http://www.genetics.org/content....df+html ) Beyond that, you keep making howlers like claiming that insects have hippocampi, that salmon exemplify parenting skills, and so on and so forth.
Both types of models need to be ground-truthed and need to be supported by some evidence & logic that things actually work the way the model claims. You don't do that, and your model has many logical failures even before we get to the coding. When we do get to the coding, it is clear that absolutely none of your major assertions have any logical connection to the model whatsoever.
| Quote | | None should be expecting that I must follow more rigid demands where all covered in the theory has to be coded in detail scientists have not even discovered yet. |
Wow, do you have that wrong. Our objection is that you cannot make claims from a model that models something that is not understood. You can certainly try that approach (particularly to constrain what is not yet known), but making any positive claims from that approach means that you need exceptionally good evidence that things might work the way that you are claiming in your model. Otherwise you are modelling plane flight by:
10 Lift = NumberOfAngels:
If Lift < Takeoff then NumberOfAngels = NumberOfAngels + 1: Goto 10
An unconstrained model (like yours) can indeed be far worse than concluding "We do not understand that yet", and then working on improving our basic understanding through traditional scientific methods. Contrary to what you imagine, simply presenting a new hypothesis does not inherently make it a better hypothesis nor does that require anyone to pay attention to it. If you want it to garner attention, YOU have to provide reasons to convince people that the idea is worth paying attention to. (Show that you understand the fundamentals; present your idea clearly and logically; demonstrate how your new definitions provide a better handle on the problem; provide some evidence that you are on the right track; show how your model matches what we know so far; etc., etc., etc.) You've spent years doing exactly the opposite.
You are being delusional.
|
