RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 494 495 496 497 498 [499] 500 501 502 503 504 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,17:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 16 2015,13:47)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 15 2015,18:48)
This is bad for your hypothesis.

The only hypothesis that was being discussed was yours.

Claiming that it's somehow mine was another deception.

I am still curious though as to why you and others keep the hoax going even though it has been made clear that "The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve Does Not Refute Intelligent Design":

http://www.ideacenter.org/content........507

The article that you cite makes a bunch of stupid mistakes and does a poor job of discussing the issues, so I am surprised to see someone cite it in an attempt to support their arguments.

Point 1:
First, you and the article you cite are lying about IDists not primarily being creationists ("Smith also purposefully mislabels ID as a form of creationism").  Although some IDists are not fundamentalist creationist christians and most claim not to be pushing a religious agenda, nonetheless most IDists are indeed creationists (sensu lato and in many cases also sensu stricto) and they are trying (but failing) to disguise their support for faith in the bible and the christian god.  Possibly other than Gary, they essentially all favor an intelligent designer who is responsible for creating all things biological, so they are by the broad meaning of the word, creationists. The main IDist textbook republished a creationist text except for such minor tweaks as a global search and replace of "design proponent" for "creationist", leading to one notorious vestigial remnant of "cdesign proponentsists".  Our judiciary has decided that IDists are mostly creationists trying to fly under the radar: in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, United States District Judge John E. Jones III also ruled that intelligent design is not science and is essentially religious in nature.  The major ID website (UD) can't go more than a few posts without someone letting some christianity out of the bag.  Major IDists are on record as admitting their religious motivations and goals: Philip Johnson one of the founders of ID, has said said,
       
Quote
"This isn't really, and never has been, a debate about science. It's about religion and philosophy."

In the foreword to Creation, Evolution, & Modern Science (2000) Johnson says,        
Quote
"The intelligent design movement starts with the recognition that 'In the beginning was the Word,' and 'In the beginning God created.' Establishing that point isn't enough, but it is absolutely essential to the rest of the gospel message."


       
Quote
If we understand our own times, we will know that we should affirm the reality of God by challenging the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. With the assistance of many friends I have developed a strategy for doing this,...We call our strategy the "wedge".


       
Quote
"So the question is: 'How to win?' That's when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the 'wedge' strategy: 'Stick with the most important thing' —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters.


       
Quote
the next question that occurs to you is, "Well, where might you get truth?" ...I start with John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word." In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right and the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.

and        
Quote
"We are taking an intuition most people have [the belief in God] and making it a scientific and academic enterprise. We are removing the most important cultural roadblock to accepting the role of God as creator."

       
Quote
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit, so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."


William Dembski's clarification,  
Quote
In writing The End of Christianity today, I would also underscore three points: (1) As a biblical inerrantist, I accept the full verbal inspiration of the Bible and the conventional authorship of the books of the Bible. Thus, in particular, I accept Mosaic authorship of Genesis (and of the Pentateuch) and reject the Documentary Hypothesis. (2) Even though I introduce in the book a distinction between kairos (God’s time) and chronos (the world’s time), the two are not mutually exclusive. In particular, I accept that the events described in Genesis 1- 11 happened in ordinary space-time, and thus that these chapters are as historical as the rest of the Pentateuch. (3) I believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that as the initial pair of humans they were the progenitors of the whole human race, that they were specially created by God, and thus that they were not the result of an evolutionary process from primate or hominid ancestors.

...................

Yet, in a brief section on Genesis 4-11, I weigh in on the Flood, raising questions about its universality, without adequate study or reflection on my part. Before I write on this topic again, I have much exegetical, historical, and theological work to do. In any case, not only Genesis 6-9 but also Jesus in Matthew 24 and Peter in Second Peter seem clearly to teach that the Flood was universal. As a biblical inerrantist, I believe that what the Bible teaches is true and bow to the text, including its teaching about the Flood and its universality.


Dembski has also said  
Quote
(2007, Family Home Life) "I believe God created the world for a purpose. The Designer of intelligent design is, ultimately, the Christian God."

and  
Quote
"Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."



Point 2:  You bought up the topic, and suggested that there was a lag in transmission between the right and left recurrent laryngeal nerves and that the giraffe's left recurrent laryngeal nerve did not constitute a poor design.  You ascribed to us the corollary hypothesis in words of your choosing rather than ours, so we are discussing your hypotheses.

Now, you are missing the distinction that NoName makes between "bad design" and "no evidence of design" (contrary to how you always describe the situation, the latter is where many of our arguments lie).  Nonetheless, contrary to NoName above, I do think that there are some anatomical feature that constitute poor designs, when compared to the Paley-school insistence on perfection in nature and the creationist position of creation by an omniscient and omnipotent deity who, they believe, proclaimed of his creation that "it was good.....  it was good........ it was good.......... it was good.......... it was good.......  it was good......... and God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good."  I do argue that there are many undoubted instances of crappy, WTF design that, if actually designed by a creator/designer clearly argue against an omniscient and omnipotent designer and a perfect creator, indeed against even a marginally competent designer. However, my arguments certainly do not prevent someone from using nature as an argument for a crappy, sadistic, malicious, incompetent, twit of a designer.

As evidence for either a malicious and sadistic designer or natural evolution, I would cite cecidoymiidean gall midges, and also prions, mad cow disease, malaria, penises in the cat family:
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static.....3-9.gif
various traumatic insertion mating methods in bedbugs, seed beetles, sea slugs, and cephalopods such as the Dana octopus squid and the greater hooked squid,
Tapeworm (and note the evolutionary intepretations)
http://www.livescience.com/3311-fo....ed.html
Ichneumon wasp larvae (which put Darwin off the idea of a perfect creation)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....LWyNcAs
Cymothoa exigua:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.p....-tongue
Ophiocordyceps (google it as Google images)
https://bioweb.uwlax.edu/bio203.....ion.htm
Botfly larvae
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....YGKtnt4
Filariasis:
http://i.imgur.com/UJhGF.j....hGF.jpg
http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-p....ntiasis
Thelazia
https://eyepathologist.com/disease....=355050
Guinea worm:
http://www.cartercenter.org/resourc....i-3.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....jLgu7wM
Hookworm:
http://www.cdc.gov/parasit....sionals

Someone who could create an ecology could easily design one without parasites (and without the mating systems mentioned above).  If you must have a predator to "cull the herd and keep it healthy", just add a few more lions and wolves.  Parasites are simply unbridled pointless misery of no value to anything or anyone except for the parasite itself.  However, evolution can explain why the following organisms exist, although they are inconsistent with a perfect creation.
The whole idea behind natural selection is that whatever works for each evolutionary lineage during the lifetime of each member gets kept, and everything else is irrelevant.  Natural selection should lead to parasitic lifestyle strategies time and time again.  There's no particular need for predators either: a stable ecology of intelligent plants, or plants and intelligent herbivores if we are willing to ignore cruelty to plants, could be made simply by dropping fertility to replacement rates.

Point 3:
The article that you cite makes several bad ad hoc arguments regarding the recurrent laryngeal nerve.  

First, a quick review.  Human embryos, like fish embryos, fairly early on in development create a series of pharyngeal pouches.  Each pouch develops an artery, a major nerve (a cranial nerve), and some cartilage and muscle. In fish the pouches develop openings and become gill slits, the first arch becomes the oral jaws, and the second becomes the hyoid and jaw support.  The rest simply become gills, each with an arch of bones to flare open the gills, an artery to bring blood to the gills, and a nerve to control the muscles that flare the bony arches.  In humans the pouches never progress to gill slits with openings, but gradually disappear.  However, the arches of bones, the arteries and the nerves get modified and become a variety of important features.  The arches develop in staggered fashion, rely on homebox genes for development, and involve features that do not require neural crest cell involvement, so they are thought to harken back to very early stages in the evolution leading to fish.  
Details for the next part can be found in:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......al_arch
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyng....pharyng
However, the short version is that the first arch becomes the front of the jaws (all the jaws in mammals) and parts of the front of the face, while the second becomes the back of the face including the back of the jaws (but the outer two earbones in mammals). The third arch becomes below the back of the mouth, and the fourth becomes the thyroid and epiglottic cartilages of the larynx.  (Note how we are progressively working our way down into the throat.)  The nerve for the fourth arch becomes the superior laryngeal nerves of the vagus nerve, and the right and left 4th aortic arch arteries become the subclavian and aortic arch arteries respectively.  The fifth arch disappears during development.  The sixth arch becomes the bottom of the larynx, the inferior laryngeal nerves, and the pulmonary artery.  Thus the inferior laryngeal nerve passes posterior to the aortic and subclavian arteries.  At the embryo stage, and in fish, all these nerves and arteries are laid out progressively in a nice tight series.  However, as the heart gets bigger and descends into the chest in later vertebrates, the aortic arch descends with it (functioning best near the heart), and takes the left branch of the inferior laryngeal nerve with it, ending up in a ridiculously long detour in giraffes.  Even without the part of the story involving the giraffe, this is an insanely bizarre way to develop jaws and structures of the throat and upper chest that make sense only in terms of an evolutionary history.

One of the bad arguments in the article you cite is that branches of the inferior (left) recurrent laryngeal nerve go off to the cardiac plexus, and mucus membrane glands in various parts of the esophagus and trachea, so it is necessary for the nerve to be routed past the heart.  This argument fails on multiple levels.  First, even the right inferior nerve is recurrent, so it takes too long a route and must reverse course without needing to detour down to the heart: branching off in a more logical position could have prevented this.  Second, the recurrent laryngeal nerves are branches of the vagus nerve which is primarily responsible for the heart and most of the organs, so having involvement of the left recurrent laryngeal nerve as well is not so strange.  However, the latter connections are filaments only (hence, not major), and the SUPERIOR laryngeal nerve also connects through to heart nerves (the exterior branch to the superior cardiac nerve) and to the inferior nerve as well, so things are less than ideal all around.  The article may mix up chicken-and-egg ordering here: as nerves develop (evolutionarily and embryologically) they tend to branch out and connect to nearby organs and muscles and so forth, so the connections may now be locked in but began deep in the ancestry of tetrapods because the nerve was in the vicinity of the heart.  The main failure of the article lies in assuming that the only alternatives are either a direct connection or the loop around the aorta and that the connections to the heart and lower throat preclude the direct route and require the bizarre and problematic route of the RLN down to the heart and back.  A conceptually easy third alternative would be for the nerve to the larynx to branch off early and go directly to the larynx, and for the filaments reaching to the heart and the esophagus to branch off at some point and head down directly without taking the rest of the nerve with it. In fact, almost any more straightforward development of the bones and cartilage from the jaws through the ears to the larynx would make for a markedly more sensible design and production.  Regardless, the third alternative avoids either branch of the nerve being recurrent, and it avoids the potential problems of creating a time lag between arrival of signals of the different-length superior and inferior nerves with regard to the larynx, and moreover it obviates the need for the jury-rigged fix of differential degrees of myelin sheathing to avoid difficulties in coordinating signals that arrive at different times.  

The article argues that because a small % of people (0.3 to 1%) have the right recurrent laryngeal nerve take a shortcut to the pharynx, such a route is available via mutations and would have happened by now if the longer route was really a bad design rather than a necessary one.  There are a few instances that look like the left nerve is the one taking the short-cut, but as these occur in people with left-side / right side reversals (heart on the right side of the chest and such like), so these are just more instances of short-cuts by the right nerve. The article tries to bolster its point by saying that the shorter route for the right nerve is typically accompanied by difficulties in swallowing and breathing, suggesting that the shorter route is actually the worse alternative.  However, this argument does not follow logically.  Instances of short-cutting are always accompanied by an abnormal growth of the right subclavian artery from the aortic arch on the left side. If the abnormal growth forces the realignment (or even if it is just an inevitably but passively associated feature) then no simple, unproblematic, genetic change is available.  Whether the abnormal artery is is the cause of the displacement or merely an associated condition, it does not follow that the direct route was always the worse alternative, just that alternative routes can no longer be accessed at this stage in evolution by a simple problem-free and genetically-based redirection of the nerve.  The absence of direct left-branch rerouting (contrary to what Chris B. said over at Sandwalk) suggests that that branch can no longer be rerouted either.  Although direct problem-free routes may no longer be accessible, clearly in the fish stage when all the features under discussion were much closer together it would have made no difference whether the nerve lay anterior or posterior to the artery in the fifth arch.  Also, note that an elongated left recurrent nerve is not free of its own problems, such as Recurrent Laryngeal Neuropathy in horses http://www.ed.ac.uk/polopol....rln.pdf

Overall, we see a system that is locked in to constraints that are contingent on inherited ancestral conditions, rather than being well designed from the start.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,19:29   

Just as I thought, you were busy erecting another strawman.

All that you quoted of religious nature is freely discussed at BioLogos by Evolutionary Creationists who gather there to talk about God and science. Claiming that such statements make it necessary to throw a scientific theory out of science is just another hoax. What makes this tactic most sinister is how the rules are kept different when it's scientific theory pertaining to the origin of intelligence and how intelligence works. Shame on everyone who is helping to enforce this kind of hypocrisy.

You also failed to address the one sentence that all by itself destroys your illusion that makes it appear as though your hypothesis refutes ID:

 
Quote
Of course ID advocates have never claimed perfect design.


I never claimed perfect design, either. And I made sure to make it clear that I am not interested in arguing for a hypothesis of my own, or have to. Doing so would be going off on my own, in a way that would divide and harm the movement, which would in turn make my work much harder than it already is. Therefore it's in the best interest of science for me to not give you what you need to make it appear that I must prove your hypothesis is false, or that another that states the opposite is true, and will now get back to work on the documentation for the new Intelligence Design Lab.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,19:33   

And there goes another flock of clues, several light years over Gary's head.
Epic fail, you pathetic buffoon.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,21:43   

Clues come in flocks? Do they have feathers?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 16 2015,22:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 16 2015,19:29)
Just as I thought, you were busy erecting another strawman.

All that you quoted of religious nature is freely discussed at BioLogos by Evolutionary Creationists who gather there to talk about God and science. Claiming that such statements make it necessary to throw a scientific theory out of science is just another hoax. What makes this tactic most sinister is how the rules are kept different when it's scientific theory pertaining to the origin of intelligence and how intelligence works. Shame on everyone who is helping to enforce this kind of hypocrisy.

You also failed to address the one sentence that all by itself destroys your illusion that makes it appear as though your hypothesis refutes ID:

           
Quote
Of course ID advocates have never claimed perfect design.


I never claimed perfect design, either. And I made sure to make it clear that I am not interested in arguing for a hypothesis of my own, or have to. Doing so would be going off on my own, in a way that would divide and harm the movement, which would in turn make my work much harder than it already is. Therefore it's in the best interest of science for me to not give you what you need to make it appear that I must prove your hypothesis is false, or that another that states the opposite is true, and will now get back to work on the documentation for the new Intelligence Design Lab.

Yes, the religious goals of the vast majority of IDists are not a hidden secret, and yet the article you cited lies about them.

I haven't claimed that religious motivation disqualifies something as science.  Lots of good early science was done with religious motivations.  Your nonsense fails to be reasonable science because of your complete refusal to follow scientific practices of any sort.  You abuse terms without providing logically valid regular redefinitions.  You don't provide operational definitions.  You don't understand the fundamentals of the areas you are critiquing.  You make assertions without providing any evidence.  You don't fix weaknesses in your arguments.  you don't create alternative hypotheses and propose logically valid, potentially falsifiable tests of them.  You don't ground truth your model, and your model is unrelated to most of your assertions.  The rules are not changed specially for you, but your denying them does not make them go away.  Robert MacArthur: “The only rules of the scientific method are honest observations and accurate logic,”, and you don't do either of those.

Why on earth do you insist on doing things that maximize the chances of your making mistakes, while simultaneously refusing to do the things that minimize the risk and allow you to correct errors?  Errors are not a problem: making some and figuring out how to fix them are part of how science proceeds, and at minimum all but one of your mutually exclusive hypotheses are expected to fail.  Step 1) Either A) come up with a bright idea (a new potential explanation or solution for a problem, or a puzzling observation), or B) failing that, just collect standard data about a topic of interest until an anomaly arises or a neat new idea occurs to you.  Step 2) Once you have a topic of interest, learn as much as you can about it: read all the literature and understand all the fundamentals, and then all the complications and peculiar details, and all the pertinent methods.  (Cite them in your later write-up.)  Step 3) Make sure that you have clear definitions for all the key concepts, because without clear and correct terminology, your thinking cannot be clear and correct.  Step 4) Propose multiple alternative possible explanations.  Step 5) Figure out some feasible and logically valid ways to choose between the various hypotheses (if A is true, then we should see X, but if B is true then we should see Y).  Step 6) Obtain the information necessary to choose between the alternatives.  Step 7)  Analyze the data, check for errors, recheck starting assumptions.  Step 8) Write up the results, as clearly and coherently as possible, and publish them.  You have Step 1 down, even if your ideas are comparatively pathetic and illogical, but all the rest are your personal Terra Incognita.  This has been found pragmatically to work well, so it is not hypocrisy.

       
Quote
Of course ID advocates have never claimed perfect design
The fundamentalist creationists among them certainly insist on belief in the literal truth of the Bible, which insists on a perfect creation, among other Biblical doctrines.  (Ask Bill Dembski for his thoughts on Noah's Flood and biblical geology vis-a-vis his employment at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.)  You may not want to associate with biblical literalism, but if you insist on applying their name for your not-a-theory and keep citing their literature as authoritative sources, you burden yourself with their baggage.

You don't have to worry about doing them any more harm: as hard as it is to believe, they've done themselves so much harm that even your stuff adds comparatively little additional damage.  Likewise you can't split the movement, because they ignore you.  

       
Quote
Therefore it's in the best interest of science for me to not give you what you need to make it appear that I must prove your hypothesis is false, or that another that states the opposite is true, and will now get back to work on the documentation for the new Intelligence Design Lab.
If that were comprehensible, it would probably be delusional.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,00:30   

N.Wells you have to be nuts to believe that I would accept scientific advice from an insulting religious activist such as yourself. You are apparently only interested in stopping my science work, anyway.

At this point in time William Dembski has more credibility than you have. So go brag about that scientific accomplishment to your academic friends. I'm sure it will be worth a few million dollars a year in funding, to try getting your asses out of trouble again.

--------------
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.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,01:27   

Dumbski? Really, Gaulin. The Dumbski who said that ID is the Logos of St. John? Who ran away at Dover, who lied about being an OEC to keep his job? You quote this liar and hypocrite as an authority? You are so deluded by your religion that you would be better off becoming a preacher, think of all those collection plates!

By trying to force your gods into science you are destroying any credibility you have left.

I thought envy was one on the sins you weren't allowed to practice, I may be wrong, it's a long time since I listened to that bullshit.

We add "religion" to the Gaulin Not-a-Dictionary.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,01:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2015,08:30)
N.Wells you have to be nuts to believe that I would accept scientific advice from an insulting religious activist such as yourself. You are apparently only interested in stopping my science work, anyway.

At this point in time William Dembski has more credibility than you have. So go brag about that scientific accomplishment to your academic friends. I'm sure it will be worth a few million dollars a year in funding, to try getting your asses out of trouble again.

Seriously? Dembski the failed mathmatician and sunday school teacher is no a scientist. Gary your breathless inanity knows no bounds. Get some exercise your brain is a flabby as your gut.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,02:58   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 17 2015,01:27)
Dumbski? Really, Gaulin. The Dumbski who said that ID is the Logos of St. John? Who ran away at Dover, who lied about being an OEC to keep his job? You quote this liar and hypocrite as an authority?

After the credibility on the other side of the fence reaches a temperature of absolute zero, even reaching the melting point of methane becomes a warm welcome.

Think about it...

--------------
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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,03:11   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 17 2015,01:41)
Seriously? Dembski the failed mathmatician and sunday school teacher is no a scientist. Gary your breathless inanity knows no bounds. Get some exercise your brain is a flabby as your gut.

I still have my 6-pack abs. And so does William.  

--------------
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.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,04:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2015,11:11)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 17 2015,01:41)
Seriously? Dembski the failed mathmatician and sunday school teacher is no a scientist. Gary your breathless inanity knows no bounds. Get some exercise your brain is a flabby as your gut.

I still have my 6-pack abs. And so does William.  

Gary I'm here to tell you that is another lie on your part. I'm willing to bet you never have had a "six pack". Besides has it ever occurred to you that the very reason you have a tennis ball size hernia poking through your "six pack" is because you don't have one? Under-educated High School dropout trolls who spend as much time as you do on a keyboard just don't. Were you ever in the military?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,06:42   

Quote
N.Wells you have to be nuts to believe that I would accept scientific advice from an insulting religious activist such as yourself. You are apparently only interested in stopping my science work, anyway.

You want to do real science?  Be my guest.  
You want to keep doing what you are doing, without calling it science and making false claims in the realm of science?  Fine, that's none of my business.
What I want you to stop is your trying to sell your stuff as a scientific theory, because that is misrepresentation, and your spouting false information about basic facts of biology and about the Theory of Evolution.  

You'd get the same advice about doing science from anywhere.  It's a good recipe for doing the most interesting parts of science.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,08:02   

He's gotten that same advice, everywhere he's turned.  Well, everywhere that has even a minimal amount of insight into science, so not at UD or any of the standard ID sites.

For eight plus years he's been getting this advice.  Clearly, on the basis of his own "theory", he's either getting exactly the results he wants, or he is not intelligent enough to 'guess' a different approach.  rofl

Gary, I repeat -- we are not dismissing your swill on the basis of 'bad design' arguments.  As N.Wells quite correctly notes, there are a host of 'design' arguments that are susceptible to such counters.
Yours is not, simply because your "work" makes no use of any standard, or even lunatic, notion of 'design'.  You waffle over, well, no, you conflate, emergence and self-similarity.  You toss the word 'design' around, but you make zero use of the concept in any of its multiple guises.
Rather like your use of the word 'intelligent'.
Using the word is not what matters.  Making use of the concept, having a concept, that's what matters.  And that's what you lack.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,08:56   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 17 2015,08:02)
He's gotten that same advice, everywhere he's turned.  Well, everywhere that has even a minimal amount of insight into science, so not at UD or any of the standard ID sites.

For eight plus years he's been getting this advice.  Clearly, on the basis of his own "theory", he's either getting exactly the results he wants, or he is not intelligent enough to 'guess' a different approach.  rofl

Gary, I repeat -- we are not dismissing your swill on the basis of 'bad design' arguments.  As N.Wells quite correctly notes, there are a host of 'design' arguments that are susceptible to such counters.
Yours is not, simply because your "work" makes no use of any standard, or even lunatic, notion of 'design'.  You waffle over, well, no, you conflate, emergence and self-similarity.  You toss the word 'design' around, but you make zero use of the concept in any of its multiple guises.
Rather like your use of the word 'intelligent'.
Using the word is not what matters.  Making use of the concept, having a concept, that's what matters.  And that's what you lack.

He's had it from me before, too.

I'd add to your list that he's wasting his time trying to reify inappropriate analogies and metaphors.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,09:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,09:56)
Quote (NoName @ Aug. 17 2015,08:02)
He's gotten that same advice, everywhere he's turned.  Well, everywhere that has even a minimal amount of insight into science, so not at UD or any of the standard ID sites.

For eight plus years he's been getting this advice.  Clearly, on the basis of his own "theory", he's either getting exactly the results he wants, or he is not intelligent enough to 'guess' a different approach.  rofl

Gary, I repeat -- we are not dismissing your swill on the basis of 'bad design' arguments.  As N.Wells quite correctly notes, there are a host of 'design' arguments that are susceptible to such counters.
Yours is not, simply because your "work" makes no use of any standard, or even lunatic, notion of 'design'.  You waffle over, well, no, you conflate, emergence and self-similarity.  You toss the word 'design' around, but you make zero use of the concept in any of its multiple guises.
Rather like your use of the word 'intelligent'.
Using the word is not what matters.  Making use of the concept, having a concept, that's what matters.  And that's what you lack.

He's had it from me before, too.

I'd add to your list that he's wasting his time trying to reify inappropriate analogies and metaphors.

To say nothing about how horribly horribly wrong he goes when he indulges in reductionism to an extent that would make an eliminative reductionist behaviorist cringe.
Intelligence always includes a motor control element?
Please.  Utter nonsense, and wrong on the face of it.
Something he's been running from for years.

At this point, I don't think there's much chance of any new counter to Gary's swill showing up.  His swill remains unchanged, so the counters mostly do as well.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,10:11   

Quote (NoName @ Aug. 17 2015,17:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,09:56)
Quote (NoName @ Aug. 17 2015,08:02)
He's gotten that same advice, everywhere he's turned.  Well, everywhere that has even a minimal amount of insight into science, so not at UD or any of the standard ID sites.

For eight plus years he's been getting this advice.  Clearly, on the basis of his own "theory", he's either getting exactly the results he wants, or he is not intelligent enough to 'guess' a different approach.  rofl

Gary, I repeat -- we are not dismissing your swill on the basis of 'bad design' arguments.  As N.Wells quite correctly notes, there are a host of 'design' arguments that are susceptible to such counters.
Yours is not, simply because your "work" makes no use of any standard, or even lunatic, notion of 'design'.  You waffle over, well, no, you conflate, emergence and self-similarity.  You toss the word 'design' around, but you make zero use of the concept in any of its multiple guises.
Rather like your use of the word 'intelligent'.
Using the word is not what matters.  Making use of the concept, having a concept, that's what matters.  And that's what you lack.

He's had it from me before, too.

I'd add to your list that he's wasting his time trying to reify inappropriate analogies and metaphors.

To say nothing about how horribly horribly wrong he goes when he indulges in reductionism to an extent that would make an eliminative reductionist behaviorist cringe.
Intelligence always includes a motor control element?
Please.  Utter nonsense, and wrong on the face of it.
Something he's been running from for years.

At this point, I don't think there's much chance of any new counter to Gary's swill showing up.  His swill remains unchanged, so the counters mostly do as well.

Hmmm admirable as both your observations are, I suspect you guys are over intellectualizing Gary's swill. Which is probably understandable since to lower ones thought processes to Gary's level is akin to brain oxygen starvation. He did after all type DNA is a molecule on the previous page, even a crystal meth chef knows that's wrong.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,10:19   

It is very difficult to find any output from Gary that is both original (as in, his own work) and correct.
Certainly nothing stands out.  There are proud slogans he trumpets as if they were meaningful, but insofar as they are correct, they are so banal as to be vapid.  They are a also centuries old, nothing anyone could construe as original, creative, or clever.
Gary fails at everything.  It's who he is.  A complete waste of space.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,11:28   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
What I want you to stop is your trying to sell your stuff as a scientific theory, because that is misrepresentation, and your spouting false information about basic facts of biology and about the Theory of Evolution.
 

Oh what a crybaby, over not ruling all of biology anymore. Science will still be fun, for at least the rest of us.

Coding a model that makes it from one intelligence level to the next via (as per normal scientific naming convention too) goes by the name of "intelligent cause" would be the most awesome thing ever programmed. And this is also a self-learning fractal that is expected to keep going and going one level at a time, which makes it the perfect challenge for past students of William's who are able to think in math equations and digital computer type logic.

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
You'd get the same advice about doing science from anywhere.  It's a good recipe for doing the most interesting parts of science.


Sorry that your theory cannot compete with something this scientifically interesting to those who are easily bored by memorizing thousands of long science names just to describe ways of separating populations. In the long run it's less drudgery for us to model an environment this way then not care what you name all that happens on its own, without even needing a name for it.

The episode with the Inner Life video only indicated they were all on the right track. In fact the theory uses his analogy of molecular robots working together to build and maintain, what to humans would be a city that we together built and maintain. All the hoopla over his showing the video in class the way he did had great scientific value, to the Theory of Intelligent Design that I came up with by assimilating all being thrown around like this that was (science wise) actually very good, for the growth and development of what gets us all where we want to go into the most interesting and yet unexplored parts of science then into science history.

His students were in a way lucky to have been where they were, at that time. If they wanted to get in on something happening like this that give them a whole new and more useful perspective of what "science" is actually made of then it was certainly money well spent. Their classroom experience went on and on and on, from where things went after that. And your not liking everything turning out this way is expected.

The only thing left to be said right now that I can think of as a sign for you of things to come is from the video that I long ago dedicated to the occasion, while giving William and his students credit for a job well done providing something I could use in the theory. It's a part of the science fun we already had, which sounds like this:

Starship - We Built This City

I cannot excuse fart noise videos and other trollish behavior. But some of the hoopla's poopla was absolutely brilliant..

--------------
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.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,12:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2015,09:28)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
What I want you to stop is your trying to sell your stuff as a scientific theory, because that is misrepresentation, and your spouting false information about basic facts of biology and about the Theory of Evolution.
 

Oh what a crybaby, over not ruling all of biology anymore. Science will still be fun, for at least the rest of us.

Coding a model that makes it from one intelligence level to the next via (as per normal scientific naming convention too) goes by the name of "intelligent cause" would be the most awesome thing ever programmed. And this is also a self-learning fractal that is expected to keep going and going one level at a time, which makes it the perfect challenge for past students of William's who are able to think in math equations and digital computer type logic.

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
You'd get the same advice about doing science from anywhere.  It's a good recipe for doing the most interesting parts of science.


Sorry that your theory cannot compete with something this scientifically interesting to those who are easily bored by memorizing thousands of long science names just to describe ways of separating populations. In the long run it's less drudgery for us to model an environment this way then not care what you name all that happens on its own, without even needing a name for it.

The episode with the Inner Life video only indicated they were all on the right track. In fact the theory uses his analogy of molecular robots working together to build and maintain, what to humans would be a city that we together built and maintain. All the hoopla over his showing the video in class the way he did had great scientific value, to the Theory of Intelligent Design that I came up with by assimilating all being thrown around like this that was (science wise) actually very good, for the growth and development of what gets us all where we want to go into the most interesting and yet unexplored parts of science then into science history.

His students were in a way lucky to have been where they were, at that time. If they wanted to get in on something happening like this that give them a whole new and more useful perspective of what "science" is actually made of then it was certainly money well spent. Their classroom experience went on and on and on, from where things went after that. And your not liking everything turning out this way is expected.

The only thing left to be said right now that I can think of as a sign for you of things to come is from the video that I long ago dedicated to the occasion, while giving William and his students credit for a job well done providing something I could use in the theory. It's a part of the science fun we already had, which sounds like this:

Starship - We Built This City

I cannot excuse fart noise videos and other trollish behavior. But some of the hoopla's poopla was absolutely brilliant..

Shorter Gary, paragraph by paragraph:

1.  Whining.

2.  Incoherent babbling*.

3.  Ignorance.

4.  Incoherent babbling and ignorance.

5.  See 4.

6.  Shitty, shitty music.

7.  Lack of self-awareness**.


Gary, you're clearly struggling to wrestle all those uncooperative words into something resembling coherence, and we're all getting headaches trying to read the resulting drivel.  Why not just cut and paste the above every few hours?  It will save us all a lot of trouble.






* I especially like "digital computer type logic."

* He "cannot excuse troll-like behavior."  Hahahahahaha!

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,12:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2015,12:28)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
What I want you to stop is your trying to sell your stuff as a scientific theory, because that is misrepresentation, and your spouting false information about basic facts of biology and about the Theory of Evolution.
 

Oh what a crybaby, over not ruling all of biology anymore. Science will still be fun, for at least the rest of us.

Coding a model that makes it from one intelligence level to the next via (as per normal scientific naming convention too) goes by the name of "intelligent cause" would be the most awesome thing ever programmed. And this is also a self-learning fractal that is expected to keep going and going one level at a time, which makes it the perfect challenge for past students of William's who are able to think in math equations and digital computer type logic.

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
You'd get the same advice about doing science from anywhere.  It's a good recipe for doing the most interesting parts of science.


Sorry that your theory cannot compete with something this scientifically interesting to those who are easily bored by memorizing thousands of long science names just to describe ways of separating populations. In the long run it's less drudgery for us to model an environment this way then not care what you name all that happens on its own, without even needing a name for it.

The episode with the Inner Life video only indicated they were all on the right track. In fact the theory uses his analogy of molecular robots working together to build and maintain, what to humans would be a city that we together built and maintain. All the hoopla over his showing the video in class the way he did had great scientific value, to the Theory of Intelligent Design that I came up with by assimilating all being thrown around like this that was (science wise) actually very good, for the growth and development of what gets us all where we want to go into the most interesting and yet unexplored parts of science then into science history.

His students were in a way lucky to have been where they were, at that time. If they wanted to get in on something happening like this that give them a whole new and more useful perspective of what "science" is actually made of then it was certainly money well spent. Their classroom experience went on and on and on, from where things went after that. And your not liking everything turning out this way is expected.

The only thing left to be said right now that I can think of as a sign for you of things to come is from the video that I long ago dedicated to the occasion, while giving William and his students credit for a job well done providing something I could use in the theory. It's a part of the science fun we already had, which sounds like this:

Starship - We Built This City

I cannot excuse fart noise videos and other trollish behavior. But some of the hoopla's poopla was absolutely brilliant..

Categorically insane.

You are not part of science.
You are not contributing to science.
No one is 'ruling over' biology, least of all with any intent to keep you and your "ideas" out.
No one here is a crybaby except you.  We're close to 500 pages on this site alone that stand witness to your massive crybaby complex.
You've never coded anything impressive in your life.  You are highly unlikely ever to code anything that is both meaningful and useful.  Your 'ID Lab' is neither.
What you have is not 'scientifically interesting' -- except, perhaps, to psychologists studying delusional behavior, which you exhibit constantly.  Especially in absurd screeds like this one.

You remain a pathetic buffoon who has no material impact on any of the fields of human knowledge.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,14:07   

"Self-learning fractal"

Hahahahahahaha.

Learning implies a gain in knowledge.  Fractals are recursive patterns that necessarily repeat identically at all scales, so they cannot gain or lose or change, or even store & release information.

Here's Gary doing fractal learning:
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/wp-cont....gmi.png  

(Unlike "self-taught" and "self-educated" and despite its becoming popular jargon in some circles, "self-learning" is a redundant term.  If other people could learn for you, you wouldn't be in such a mess.)

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2015,19:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 17 2015,19:28)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
What I want you to stop is your trying to sell your stuff as a scientific theory, because that is misrepresentation, and your spouting false information about basic facts of biology and about the Theory of Evolution.
 

Oh what a crybaby, over not ruling all of biology anymore. Science will still be fun, for at least the rest of us.

Coding a model that makes it from one intelligence level to the next via (as per normal scientific naming convention too) goes by the name of "intelligent cause" would be the most awesome thing ever programmed. And this is also a self-learning fractal that is expected to keep going and going one level at a time, which makes it the perfect challenge for past students of William's who are able to think in math equations and digital computer type logic.

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,06:42)
You'd get the same advice about doing science from anywhere.  It's a good recipe for doing the most interesting parts of science.


Sorry that your theory cannot compete with something this scientifically interesting to those who are easily bored by memorizing thousands of long science names just to describe ways of separating populations. In the long run it's less drudgery for us to model an environment this way then not care what you name all that happens on its own, without even needing a name for it.

The episode with the Inner Life video only indicated they were all on the right track. In fact the theory uses his analogy of molecular robots working together to build and maintain, what to humans would be a city that we together built and maintain. All the hoopla over his showing the video in class the way he did had great scientific value, to the Theory of Intelligent Design that I came up with by assimilating all being thrown around like this that was (science wise) actually very good, for the growth and development of what gets us all where we want to go into the most interesting and yet unexplored parts of science then into science history.

His students were in a way lucky to have been where they were, at that time. If they wanted to get in on something happening like this that give them a whole new and more useful perspective of what "science" is actually made of then it was certainly money well spent. Their classroom experience went on and on and on, from where things went after that. And your not liking everything turning out this way is expected.

The only thing left to be said right now that I can think of as a sign for you of things to come is from the video that I long ago dedicated to the occasion, while giving William and his students credit for a job well done providing something I could use in the theory. It's a part of the science fun we already had, which sounds like this:

Starship - We Built This City

I cannot excuse fart noise videos and other trollish behavior. But some of the hoopla's poopla was absolutely brilliant..

My colleagues are way too generous here Gary.

What you have there is full blown psychosis. Get help.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,00:12   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,14:07)
"Self-learning fractal"

Hahahahahahaha.

Learning implies a gain in knowledge.  Fractals are recursive patterns that necessarily repeat identically at all scales, so they cannot gain or lose or change, or even store & release information.

Code Sample

Order of emergence of each self-learning level. Where given enough time to thrive each is expected to eventually learn how to achieve the next.
             ...      
              3      
              2      
              1      
...(3(2(1(0)1)2)3)...
              1      
              2      
              3      
             ...      


The sinister cult of the Singularity awaits the intelligent causation event that humans are by theory expected to cause. What such a thing will actually look like after happening will only be known for sure when "we get there". But where theory is used to predict what is expected to most change from having an additional layer of intelligence above ours that makes all human minds in the world part of its self-learning process is an understanding of each other that makes starting war for religious or cultural reasons more like purposely hurting your best friends. The We Built This City would then apply to the entire planet, with cities (towns, villages, etc.) members of the larger collective working together to sustain ourselves and the planetary ecosystem. Any idea that gets publicly posted anywhere online that helps peacefully solve the problems we all share would end up in its wisdom. It then becomes a small world after all. Everywhere.

The Tianjin blast and elsewhere nuclear accidents needing to as soon as possible somehow be cleaned up are a part of what has become new battlegrounds so large military scale resources to battle, at home. And none know for sure where global temperature will go. That could too in time become another battle keeping everyone busy against a common enemy, instead of war with each other.

An additional level of intelligence to get feedback from to help figure out how to keep the Gaia going would be like a cell that keeps itself well sustained by all that builds and maintains it knowing what to do for that to happen. We should know it's real because it actually did improve our lives and has an accurate track record of predicting changes ahead of time and without its help cities would have never have been able to get through major crisis so easily. It's not data-mining for advertising AI type thing, that's something else. The theory requires feedback from the level of intelligence that in turn as in the Code above encircles the Earth, which also has to start from scratch how to code/create another level of intelligence to in turn help them out someday. There has to be feedback that positively influences what from day to day happens in the lives of those at the biological level, not do the best it can to keep humans broke or make an even bigger mess of things. What I would await for a sign that an Intelligence caused Singularity has happened is cities and countries making war with each other turns to cleaning up the messes from all the last ones with all thankful that's finally gone, with the whole planet including human caused level of intelligence that would get blown up too in a Mutually Assured Destruction scenario would have to wonder what the hell people were thinking back then, and have to let us know what it was so we don't have to repeat that history by doing it all over again.

As you can see the theory does in fact have a recursive gain in knowledge by a slowly going from level to next (not all at once) while increasing in size scale around itself. After making it to the next level it's suddenly back at the start, of something new to emerge. And with even the cult of the Singularity into what the theory suggests is possible a good reason to look forward to something like that happening (as opposed to often wondering how fast they will be replaced by such a thing then have no job or money) there is no doubt this has staying power in even the best of high-tech science places, also with a weird story behind them but as you know science expects that.

The Theory of Intelligent Design that I long saw possible is destined to survive the test of time. It adds to what the dreamers have been dreaming, without science suffering none. So you and others can laugh at all I sometimes encourage who you call irresponsible, are written off the page. But when something like this is happening because of something actually already there in reality/science just waiting to be discovered then programmed the tables are easily turned, by just explaining the basics of how it works. And in this case there is an intelligent causation event that should by theory be possible is on scale of a whole new kind of intelligent living thing being first created, by being in-silico born. A magic moment where you can tell it was meant to be by how much science fun it is bringing it to life. And it's not a military killing machine sort of thing it's something that would essentially sense that getting loose in a confidence lowering way that without having to be conscious to respond as we would to consciously feeling the pain of our body attacking itself, as in arthritis. Expecting a superintelligence more like that can make the future less scary for all who will need to live with whatever we put into the incubator, right now. It's not religion but the science has faith friendly implications that knows no religion, in an inclusive way that makes people of faith part of the science action instead of being excluded by science knowing none. A refreshing change in the way science is going, to get us out of the dark days of when easily made religion unfriendly Darwinian theory was all there was around. There is now a collective of thoughts that all together made for faith friendly scientific theory that by reason of something being there is a meant to be thing that is religiously sacred. In this case signs and miracles are from the way all other paths scientifically lead into thorn thickets. The path to what's real has a way to make miraculous things happen along the way towards for real discovering our Creator, without religion minding the science fun from winning for a change that proves something is real to not to mess with that's more than talk it's the right action causing others to on their own happen that gets you to the next step real fast, which causes another unexpected thing to surprisingly happen in its favor right after that to get it even further along in science along the path religion itself wants to go. Not myself or other human, it's in the way things are when making real progress towards something that lets you know it's there helping along but not in a superstitious way it's a process with a destiny that is fractal like thus in our own image too, so at least that much is scientifically possible. Muddling your Atheist thinking with it is divine. Much like this:
 
The Smashing Pumpkins - Cherub Rock

You have a way of making some things shine in such a meant to be way, even though you believe Atheism serves no religious purpose. Are part of it. Though you like to try excluding yourself from being from there too.

--------------
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.

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,01:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 18 2015,00:12)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,14:07)
"Self-learning fractal"

Hahahahahahaha.

Learning implies a gain in knowledge.  Fractals are recursive patterns that necessarily repeat identically at all scales, so they cannot gain or lose or change, or even store & release information.

Code Sample

Order of emergence of each self-learning level. Where given enough time to thrive each is expected to eventually learn how to achieve the next.
             ...      
              3      
              2      
              1      
...(3(2(1(0)1)2)3)...
              1      
              2      
              3      
             ...      




What do you mean by 'levels'? "levels" of what?

Please explain, are the levels emergent or a product of Intelligent Design? Emergence is at the antipode of Intelligent Design. Just make up your mind.

Emergence is a word you should not use. Emergence is what you don't want to see. Emergence is what we see where you scream Intelligent Design.

Can't have it both ways.

ETA Straight from the horses mouth.

ETA:
BTW, the subject of Emergence is very prominent in the book by Robert B. Laughlin that i recommended to you. But true to form, you reject science whenever (i.e. all the time) it steps on your Gout.

You express enthusiasm for science but only have ridicule to offer the guys doing the hard work at the frontier.

Edited by Quack on Aug. 18 2015,08:13

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,01:36   

Assuming you wanted to convince people that you had right and reason on your side, that wasn't the way to do it.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,02:08   

Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design that I long saw possible is destined to survive the test of time. It adds to what the dreamers have been dreaming, without science suffering none.


This is why your "theory" (more a delusion) is and never will be accepted as anything other than the ramblings of a deranged mind. It makes no sense, is execrable grammar and has more meanings than any double entendre ever uttered.

You need help, seek it before you sink deeper into delusion.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,02:10   

Quote
This is why your "theory" (more a delusion) is...


Garydamnit! missed a "not".

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,18:44   

Quote (Quack @ Aug. 18 2015,01:19)
Please explain, are the levels emergent or a product of Intelligent Design? Emergence is at the antipode of Intelligent Design. Just make up your mind.

Emergence is a word you should not use. Emergence is what you don't want to see. Emergence is what we see where you scream Intelligent Design.

Can't have it both ways.

ETA Straight from the horses mouth.


You noticed my deliberate use of the word! I was kinda hoping someone would.

What is first important to notice is that Barry fully qualified his statement, which I fully agree with:

   
Quote
Briefly, I argued that unless materialists can provide some sort of an explanation of the process by which the physical electro-chemical properties of the brain result in the mental properties of the mind, then merely invoking “emergence” has exactly the same explanatory power as invoking “magic.”  I quoted atheists Thomas Nagel and Elizabeth Liddle, who concur.


The second thing to notice is that I did not use the word until almost the the very end. I had already explained how it's possible for recursive self-learning systems to exist and the process is like a common math fractal which does the same thing but without the self-learning stage that is here required in between each emergent design level. As Barry explained I must "provide some sort of an explanation of the process" or else all of that is left to the readers imagination, could just as well be from magic. I made sure to ahead of time provide enough information for the emergence to be computer modeled, before using the word.

   
Quote
......

As you can see the theory does in fact have a recursive gain in knowledge by a slowly going from level to next (not all at once) while increasing in size scale around itself. After making it to the next level it's suddenly back at the start, of something new to emerge.


By that time the word was not even needed. The entire sentence is somewhat redundant anyway, can delete the whole thing.

As I earlier explained there is something very real to beware in some of the things that the ID movement comes up with. In this case Barry did an excellent job forming a sentence that was very specific as to what the problem is. In those cases the word is used as the explanation for how something works or happened. Can't remove it with creating a gaping hole where the readers wonders why you started off by saying you are going to explain something then never finished what you were writing.

I see the same being done using the word "evolved" in sentences that go like "Brains evolved, no intelligence required."  They are supposed to be a good enough of an explanation or else there's supposed to be something wrong with the person who is then bashed for asking questions. To a person who needs to computer model the origin of intelligence it's a worthless answer being used as a smart-ass brush-off. It might look great on paper to the writer, but after getting into the detail I need to explain a sentence like that can look more like a poorly composed oxymoron.

Staying on the same page with each other makes it possible empower each other in a way that the ID movement together makes progress, without stepping on each other's toes as we go. I made sure to take Barry's advice then find an appropriate place for the word to be used. And for more information see:

Emergence:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html
Outside US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ATB5Z7c

Fractals:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......on.html
Outside US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Sz78jW4

Science and math is on our side, while the Theory of Intelligent Design now helps better operationally define and explain emergence in biology. Emergence can have an intelligent cause, or unintelligent cause. Which it is is tested by modeling the system then counting up how many of the four required subsystems were needed. For example the Navigational Network system that was added to the earlier ID Lab critter loads the 256 byte Behavior RAM with Address/Action data numbers I found work well, loaded at program startup then never change. The NavNet system never needs to take a guess or learn anything new, it's not on its own intelligent. But it would be where the system figures out the right numbers to use for spacial reasoning behavior that would then on its own emerge in the network from the action potential interaction between the many parts/places the network is made of. Same thing as in the emergence video where schooling behavior emerges from intelligent (fish) cause, not "magic".

Barry is welcomed to critique my way of seeing things. I would have to take his opinion seriously. Chances are it would only add to detail, not a bad thing that has us at odds with each other. I add science and technology related information that agrees that next has you up against the theory that challenges you to come up with a better computer model and theory to explain how emergence works at all size scale levels of biology. One thing led to another and now the Theory of Intelligent Design itself is taking care of the rest so what annoys him too is soon enough made a thing of the past. I hope he's impressed.

--------------
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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,21:18   

Still delusional.  You are throwing buzzwords around with little understanding and a whole lot of nonsense.  Yes, if someone waves their hand over something complex and says, "the explanation for it is that it evolved" (or emerged), you have every right to respond that that's not much of an explanation, and you'd like more details before you buy into the explanation.  However, unlike "magic", emergence and evolution are both known processes with some well documented and well understood examples.  Thus, first, it is possible to find evidence that allows the conclusion that something has evolved or emerged without knowing the details of how it happened, so a claim that something has evolved or emerged can be legitimate, without constituting a complete explanation.  Second, as long as something comparatively straightforward is being claimed as having evolved or emerged this shouldn't be a problem, again because the processes are understood:  we know how schooling and flocking patterns emerge from "follow your neighbor" rules, how organized hurricanes can emerge from irregular smaller weather systems, and how symmetrical volcanoes can emerge from irregular fractures, magma chambers, and eruption histories.

Emergence is quite clearly the creation of a new organization or pattern or feature out of a system that does not possess or demonstrate that property.  Wetness from combining two hydrogens and an oxygen; a massively ordered rotating wind system out of irregular smaller weather systems; wine from adding yeast to grape juice.  Nearly everything resulting from an evolving system is emergent. A key feature is that the emergent feature or property is not predictable or deducible (at least the first time) from pre-existing properties of the system.

Separately, we know that fractals are both common and important in many natural systems.  Fractals are shapes or sets of points that create patterns that are self-similar (or quasi-self-similar) across multiple orders of magnitude (ideally, all orders, but several will do), and they posses specific mathematic properties ( http://paulbourke.net/fractal....acintro , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rot_set ).  However, fractals differ from emergence in that although not everything in a fractal can be seen at once, the hidden aspects are present, are made visible, and can be predicted from a mathematical description of the system, rather than being absent and developing unpredictably.

Simple involvement of recursion does not make a system either fractal or emergent.

It's probably safe to say that everyone in this forum expects intelligence to be an emergent phenomena, even though none of us (other than you) claim to know the precise details of how it happened.  Available evidence (a general correspondence between increasingly complex thinking in animals with increasingly large and complex brains relative to their body size) suggests that intelligence gradually emerged with increasing numbers of neurons and increasing connectivity between them, with additional complications from glial cells and neurotransmitters, but we are still learning how the brain works.  However, your illogical and unsupported assertions reduce your arguments to the level of claiming magic.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2015,23:53   

Get your free Royal Society teething biscuits here!
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content....0151019
 
Quote
Reciprocal causation (organisms shape, and are shaped by, selective and developmental environments). Developmental processes, operating
through developmental bias and niche construction, share with natural
selection some responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution and
contribute to organism–environment complementarity


And circles around circles, in a most peculiar way. Oh my!



Their having to make the “mutation” and “selection” thinking fit into the logical structure of their theory caused the expected mess everywhere else. But it's at least a good start towards the Theory of Intelligent Design that the ID movement already has working for it. With all said: to the ID movement it's the same thing as the Royal Society in our favor using the tactic of going slow enough none panic during the transition, to a computer model backed view sorting that out better another way and without “natural selection” variables mucking things up either.

This also goes with what I earlier said about “evolutionary theory” not being the private domain of Darwinian theory. ID theory can just as well in time dominate that teaching area, without “ID” ever being mentioned in the classroom. ID entering science from the top science journals on down should look like that. In this case what makes it in part Darwinian and what is not was well enough stated by saying “with the integration of Darwinian natural selection, population-level thinking and Mendelian inheritance,” so I have no complaints there.

No protest or arguing anything is even necessary. UD News was not impressed in a short but sweet “come back when you have something better” sort of way then left it at that. They're on the same wavelength. I must from here say “Thanks!” for bringing that one to my attention. That message served the ID community. It's certainly something I needed to know about.

All signals are that the ID is fine with whatever the Darwinian camp settles on. Only thing for sure it will not be long till there are calls for another rethink then it becomes something else anyway. Why even bother keeping track of them all. So with none overly caring what comes next I might as well recommend what the Royal Society saw fit to print. It honestly is better than anything else I have yet seen. And has this like slippery slope in a few areas where watching all who may later slide-by into the proverbial abyss has entertainment value in the ID camp. The perfect song to go along with that type of action is AC/DC - Who Made Who cranked up loud.

--------------
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.

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 494 495 496 497 498 [499] 500 501 502 503 504 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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