Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,18:49    Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:40) Gary, I do a lot of hydraulic modeling with a commercially available program (just to say - I am not a scientist). When I do an analysis I always begin with comparing the model to existing reality.  I may need to adjust my model parameters, like perhaps ground temp, to make sure my model better matches actual flow conditions. This is with a simple hydraulic model. Your model, from what I can gather, attempts to model much more than linear single phase flow.  Have you done any comparing to reality?  If so, please show that.  If not, why not and why would you think your model has value? Over the past 40 years (since I was a teenager) I have been studying the cognitive models that became popular, and what was known about how brains of many kinds work. After the advent of the personal computer I took a home study course in AI and later programmed neural networks. The internet later came along which made it possible to study even more, which is here important because of it being vital that the model accurately sums up the main features of any cognitive system. The model that ended up surviving the test of time (since 1980) is that of David Heiserman, which I found in a book on building your own self-learning robot. For an idea of what I have more recently been studying there is a list of some of my favorites here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212275 As you can see from this reply it is a matter of comparing biologically relevant models for insects to humans: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212615 I spent many thousands of hours comparing this model to existing reality. In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.  And even more recently I needing to explain emergent intelligence from intelligence which resulted in my being pelted with insults because of the ID controversy having given that the name of “intelligent cause”. A couple of years after that I realized that I had everything needed to clinch the Theory of Intelligent Design and at the same time have the logical name I needed which is in fact the phrase “intelligent cause” . I knew I was in for years of even more severe bashing for it. But at least that way the biological sciences can progress like they should, and in time the controversy can end with all having learned something valuable from the experience. If I did not compare models and study what is known about how brains and such work then there would be no way I could make it this far. That’s what it’s all about, comparing to reality. And none in any forum ever presenting a better model summing up how any intelligence of any kind works is more evidence that I have the best model in all of science for that and for the phenomenon of “intelligent cause”. -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,18:59    50 points for claiming you have a revolutionary theory but giving no concrete testable predictions. Quote A couple of years after that I realized that I had everything needed to clinch the Theory of Intelligent Design I have no idea why this phrasing is a 50-gallon drum of Awesomesauce, but it is.

Henry J Posts: 5787 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,21:25    Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,21:47    Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25) Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,22:09    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)   Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The way you stated this implies that you think that the individual decides to become resistant to antibiotics or become able to consume nylon residue. Is this the case? Do you think that an individual bacterium decides to become resistant to an antibiotic? Follow up: Does that bacteria then teach other bacteria to be resistant? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,22:43    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,18:49) Quote (The Wayward Hammer @ Nov. 25 2012,11:40) Gary, I do a lot of hydraulic modeling with a commercially available program (just to say - I am not a scientist). When I do an analysis I always begin with comparing the model to existing reality.  I may need to adjust my model parameters, like perhaps ground temp, to make sure my model better matches actual flow conditions. This is with a simple hydraulic model. Your model, from what I can gather, attempts to model much more than linear single phase flow.  Have you done any comparing to reality?  If so, please show that.  If not, why not and why would you think your model has value? Over the past 40 years (since I was a teenager) I have been studying the cognitive models that became popular, and what was known about how brains of many kinds work. After the advent of the personal computer I took a home study course in AI and later programmed neural networks. The internet later came along which made it possible to study even more, which is here important because of it being vital that the model accurately sums up the main features of any cognitive system. The model that ended up surviving the test of time (since 1980) is that of David Heiserman, which I found in a book on building your own self-learning robot. For an idea of what I have more recently been studying there is a list of some of my favorites here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212275 As you can see from this reply it is a matter of comparing biologically relevant models for insects to humans: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212615 I spent many thousands of hours comparing this model to existing reality. In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way.  And even more recently I needing to explain emergent intelligence from intelligence which resulted in my being pelted with insults because of the ID controversy having given that the name of “intelligent cause”. A couple of years after that I realized that I had everything needed to clinch the Theory of Intelligent Design and at the same time have the logical name I needed which is in fact the phrase “intelligent cause” . I knew I was in for years of even more severe bashing for it. But at least that way the biological sciences can progress like they should, and in time the controversy can end with all having learned something valuable from the experience. If I did not compare models and study what is known about how brains and such work then there would be no way I could make it this far. That’s what it’s all about, comparing to reality. And none in any forum ever presenting a better model summing up how any intelligence of any kind works is more evidence that I have the best model in all of science for that and for the phenomenon of “intelligent cause”. Don't you have a day job? -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,22:53    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2012,22:09) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47) Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)   Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The way you stated this implies that you think that the individual decides to become resistant to antibiotics or become able to consume nylon residue. Is this the case? Do you think that an individual bacterium decides to become resistant to an antibiotic? Follow up: Does that bacteria then teach other bacteria to be resistant? Bacteria "learn" how to do such things. After one learns something new this can be taught to others via conjugation. But since there is not all that much known about how the entire process works I'm not yet sure how often new genes are shared with others, I only know that at least sometimes they are. And on a side note to Henry I have to thank them for a question that led to an answer I had to add to the Molecular Intelligence section of the theory: Quote The molecular intelligence “gene pool” relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The page numbers in the index are probably off but I uploaded the latest, which also has more detail for the forward and reverse Krebs Cycle. -------------- 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: Nov. 25 2012,23:19    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 25 2012,22:43) Don't you have a day job? Yes, but due to my science work normally coming first (after that) I don't have much of a social life!  When I was younger I would program all weekend, sometimes two days straight after getting out of work on Friday then fall asleep Sunday night, then arrive Monday morning all worn out. Due to economy having been going down the crapper for years I'm now part time, have no car and other luxuries, but I at least now have even more time for my science work! -------------- 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.

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,23:31    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)   Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)     Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". Did the single bacterium that according to your theory invented nylonase somehow sensed nylon? In other words how did it become aware of the fact that nylon can be digested and how did it then develop the idea that changing the coding sequence of another proteinwould produce a protein degrading nylon? -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2012,23:49    Quote (sparc @ Nov. 25 2012,23:31)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)       Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)         Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". Did the single bacterium that according to your theory invented nylonase somehow sensed nylon? In other words how did it become aware of the fact that nylon can be digested and how did it then develop the idea that changing the coding sequence of another proteinwould produce a protein degrading nylon? That's another largely unknown area of science, and the phrase "random mutation" is misleading since there might be a "good guess" mechanism which caused the coding change (at the molecular/genetic level) by sensing a potential new food source. Something similar (although not bacterial) to what I am describing is Somatic hypermutation (preferably of a newly duplicated gene which are known to relatively quickly change). -------------- 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.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,00:10    The question to be asked is how Gary's IDiocy improves on 'God's really smart and did it all.'  I mean, if you're going to make up a cause, rather than to discover one, why not just stick with God? Neither Gary nor Dembski cares in the slightest that the problem with intelligent design being behind life is that life incorporates really weird adaptations that work causally only with unintelligent evolution doing it all.  All they do is invoke a vague, nameless, and completely unknown "cause"--intelligence or God, or a very intelligent God--and it's all just fine, never mind the many cases that aren't intelligent, like the coccyx (used, hardly ideal for its use), endless numbers of fused bones that would make more design sense just developing as single bones (bird wings being a prime example), but which hark back to earlier times when articulations were the more useful traits, or the evolutionary way in which testes develop, which is ridiculous by any design standard. So you have stupid "intelligence," and all they do is insist that only intelligence could have done what non-teleological evolutionary theory predicts.  Why care about Gary's trite junk?  God, Zeus, Gandalf, pantheism, what-not is as good, and certainly as bad, as Gary's baseless fictions.   One almost feels some pity for Gary, wasting his life on tripe that he seems to be sure is gold, but which fails to be epistemically sound on a very basic level.  Of course he'd be appalled if he were convicted on the bases by which he holds out IDiocy as Grand Truth, but he knows that it's science because it's true (for very odd meanings of "true"), and, like any other idiot, he wants science to say that it's true because science has a reputation for being generally accurate, but of course science would have to abandon all standards to endorse what Gary says.   The Jesus IDiots know that, actually, hence the sinister undercurrent in the Wedge document, however Gary seems just content to hurl insults about Nazis and Commies, never mind that both were, at least at times, opposed to sound evolutionary theory. Same old, we've heard that BS over and over again.  Trouble for Gary is that, although he really seems to have a religious agenda behind it all, his "model" (model of misconceptions in his head, is all) really looks like it could leave religion behind, in fact.  Hence, there is no constituency for it at all.  Science merely notes what it lacks--like any evidence for intelligence behind wild-type life--and to the usual creationist it looks like it really might be irreligious.  Gary can't scam (deliberately, or, seemingly, likely due to vast ignorance of science) science, and doesn't offer enough Bible to religion. So it's just go to forum after forum, never learning anything except that science is a big meanie for not recognizing his evidence-free genius--and charge persecution.  Probably till he dies, much as JAD did. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,00:24    I should just say that earlier I toyed with the idea that Gary was a Poe, who made something as smart and as dumb as Dembski's IDiocy, in order to show what a ridiculous and unscientific notion ID is. But of course the IDiots are too obtuse to get the message, and, unless Gary's a much more determined Poe than one would suspect anyone of being, so is he.   So no, it might be fun to ask a moron like Jerry Don Bauer why his beliefs are better than Gary's "theory," but it would be just as fun and as useless to ask Gary why his beliefs are any better than Bauer's.  Neither is likely even to see the point, when the equality of all such nonsense is one of the clearest indications that it is useless junk. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,01:37    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,22:53) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2012,22:09) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)   Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)     Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The way you stated this implies that you think that the individual decides to become resistant to antibiotics or become able to consume nylon residue. Is this the case? Do you think that an individual bacterium decides to become resistant to an antibiotic? Follow up: Does that bacteria then teach other bacteria to be resistant? Bacteria "learn" how to do such things. After one learns something new this can be taught to others via conjugation. But since there is not all that much known about how the entire process works I'm not yet sure how often new genes are shared with others, I only know that at least sometimes they are. And on a side note to Henry I have to thank them for a question that led to an answer I had to add to the Molecular Intelligence section of the theory: Quote The molecular intelligence “gene pool” relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The page numbers in the index are probably off but I uploaded the latest, which also has more detail for the forward and reverse Krebs Cycle. Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. -------------- But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,08:20    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,08:39    Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,22:53) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 25 2012,22:09)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,21:47)   Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 25 2012,21:25)     Quote In more recent years I discovered that genomes and higher order cellular processes such as chemotaxis work the same way. I wonder if you meant to say gene pool rather than genome. After all, a gene pool does keep a record of sorts of things that worked (while not keeping a record of things to avoid doing again), and it has a way of trying lots of minor variations (although no way of reliably trying large variations to rewrite something that was done badly). Henry The gene pool still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance, differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The way you stated this implies that you think that the individual decides to become resistant to antibiotics or become able to consume nylon residue. Is this the case? Do you think that an individual bacterium decides to become resistant to an antibiotic? Follow up: Does that bacteria then teach other bacteria to be resistant? Bacteria "learn" how to do such things. After one learns something new this can be taught to others via conjugation. But since there is not all that much known about how the entire process works I'm not yet sure how often new genes are shared with others, I only know that at least sometimes they are. And on a side note to Henry I have to thank them for a question that led to an answer I had to add to the Molecular Intelligence section of the theory:   Quote The molecular intelligence “gene pool” relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. At the "molecular intelligence" level the gene pool is a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". The page numbers in the index are probably off but I uploaded the latest, which also has more detail for the forward and reverse Krebs Cycle. Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". As far as not knowing much about things like conjugation, well, YOU may not know much about it, but science does.  You might fire up this thing called "the internet" and type "bacterial conjugation" into the search engine of your choice.  Or, let me help you... here's a link to the Wikipedia page on bacterial conjugation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacterial_conjugation). Contained on that web page are 12 references including such things as "An introduction to genetic analysis" and "Molecular Machinery for DNA Translocation in Bacterial Conjugation". You might try researching the topics that you spout off about before exposing your ignorance. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,08:46    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39) Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence". Anyway, I'm off to my day job! -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,08:59    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,08:46) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39) Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence". Anyway, I'm off to my day job! Bet you can't quote a peer-reviewed research paper as saying that "conjugation" = "learning" or that "intelligence" = "chemical reactions". -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:24    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)   Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?  Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm? * eta If so, Did this deliberate variation happen within an existing bacterium (or subset), or was the variation chosen to happen during division? -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

damitall Posts: 331 Joined: Jan. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:44    Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)   Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?  Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm? * eta If so, Did this deliberate variation happen within an existing bacterium (or subset), or was the variation chosen to happen during division? I'll be very surprised if you get a straight answer to that question, fnxtr.

Tracy P. Hamilton Posts: 1239 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,09:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,08:20)   Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning ... You mean like using the word intelligence? -------------- "Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV "The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen "We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,12:35    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,06:59) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,08:46)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39) Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence". Anyway, I'm off to my day job! Bet you can't quote a peer-reviewed research paper as saying that "conjugation" = "learning" or that "intelligence" = "chemical reactions". That's because of the Marxist-Nazi-Popperist punishment squads patrolling the halls of academe, Ogre.  Haven't you been paying attention? -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,12:36    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 26 2012,01:24) I should just say that earlier I toyed with the idea that Gary was a Poe I wondered the same thing, so I asked Wes and Lou. They both assured me that he was the real deal, he really believes what he's saying. They'd seen his type before.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,12:57    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 26 2012,12:35) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,06:59)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,08:46)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39) Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence". Anyway, I'm off to my day job! Bet you can't quote a peer-reviewed research paper as saying that "conjugation" = "learning" or that "intelligence" = "chemical reactions". That's because of the Marxist-Nazi-Popperist punishment squads patrolling the halls of academe, Ogre.  Haven't you been paying attention? So, he's on to us.  Crap. This could Gary guy could bring us all down.  He seems to know the truth and has the determination to bring us to our knees, unlike the hundreds of other people who also thought they knew the truth before Gary appeared. So far, in the last 150 years, we have successfully rebuffed every attempt by those that actually knew the truth.  It was an amazing display of coordinated effort from tens of thousands of low paid scientists, hundreds of politicians, thousands of businesses ranging from agricultural equipment manufacture to Big Pharma.  Despite all the differences, infighting, funding battles, and other internal squabbles, we have held firm on this one goal. But now that Gary knows the truth, we are doomed.  DOOMED, I tell you {slaps table for emphasis!}.  All that work to filter out the 3 or so pro-ID papers that have been submitted is wasted.  All that money we successfully prevented pro-ID scientists from applying for. (How's that continuing project going Agent Guacamole?)  All those popular books that we forced them to publish in, instead of peer-reviewed journals that we control via the dozens of publishers in dozens of countries (in spite of the fact that a single scoop would elevate the scooper to never before seen heights of fame and recognition). No, we are beaten.  Beaten by one guy on a forum that must have tens of daily readers.  How can we possibly recover from this disaster?   Ladies and gentlemen, as a member of this group that nefariously uses reason, evidence, and other scientific principles to support our grand plan of suppressing the truth of the myth of ID, I can only say one thing... it's over. We tried.  We did our best.  Somehow, we've been found out.  Gary must be the smartest, most dedicated investigator on the planet.  His mountains of evidence of our global, multi-generational conspiracy has undermined all of our efforts.  Every single product developed by evolutionary principles will now, no longer work.  Instead, as the truth is revealed to the world, ID principles will take over the function of those systems. Bacteria!  DAMN YOU BACTERIA!!  We've been keeping them as little more than sacks of cytoplasm for years.  Now, the truth comes out and they will become intelligent, dooming the world of eukaryotes by sheer numbers.  Do you see what you've done Gary?  Do you understand why we had to keep this conspiracy under wraps?   The bacteria HATE us.  Now, with your revelations, they become intelligent and we will be powerless against their ability to rewrite their genetic code into anything they want.  The superbugs of evolution will become super-powered bugs.  Our hidden ID research facility suggest that in less than five years, the bacteria will have developed the ability to shoot megajoule high frequency lasers and grow adamantium claws from their flagella.  They will use our own weapons against us. There is only one option left.  They last step to prevent the revelations of the truth and prevent bacteriagghedon. We'll have to activate plan Omega.   Good-bye my friends.  It has been a pleasure being a member of this grand conspiracy all these years. Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 27 2012,19:31 -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,13:07    Can someone get Ogre's POTW hat to him before the black helicopters arrive? -------------- 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

sparc Posts: 2089 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,13:08    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,12:57) Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 26 2012,12:35) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,06:59)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,08:46)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,08:39) Right, so you are redefining "learning" to mean "DNA exchange".  You are redefining "intelligence" to mean "any activity that's beyond what you think should happen". The truth is that you are redefining terms in order to discredit scientific theory which operationally defines the already in scientific use phrases "cellular intelligence" and "molecular intelligence". Anyway, I'm off to my day job! Bet you can't quote a peer-reviewed research paper as saying that "conjugation" = "learning" or that "intelligence" = "chemical reactions". That's because of the Marxist-Nazi-Popperist punishment squads patrolling the halls of academe, Ogre.  Haven't you been paying attention? So, he's on to us.  Crap. This could Gary guy could bring us all down.  He seems to know the truth and has the determination to bring us to our knees, unlike the hundreds of other people who also thought they knew the truth before Gary appeared. So far, in the last 150 years, we have successfully rebuffed every attempt by those that actually knew the truth.  It was an amazing display of coordinated effort from tens of thousands of low paid scientists, hundreds of politicians, thousands of businesses ranging from agricultural equipment manufacture to Big Pharma.  Despite all the differences, infighting, funding battles, and other internal squabbles, we have held firm on this one goal. But now that Gary knows the truth, we are doomed.  DOOMED, I tell you {slaps table for emphasis!}.  All that work to filter out the 3 or so pro-ID papers that have been submitted is wasted.  All that money we successfully prevented pro-ID scientists from applying for. (How's that continuing project going Agent Guacamole?)  All those popular books that we forced them to publish in, instead of peer-reviewed journals that we control via the dozens of publishers in dozens of countries (in spite of the fact that a single scoop would elevate the scooper to never before seen heights of fame and recognition). No, we are beaten.  Beaten by one guy on a forum that must have tens of daily readers.  How can we possibly recover from this disaster?   Ladies and gentlemen, as a member of this group that nefariously uses reason, evidence, and other scientific principles to support our grand plan of suppressing the truth of the myth of ID, I can only say one thing... it's over. We tried.  We did our best.  Somehow, we've been found out.  Gary must be the smartest, most dedicated investigator on the planet.  His mountains of evidence of our global, multi-generational conspiracy has undermined all of our efforts.  Every single product developed by evolutionary principles will now, no longer work.  Instead, as the truth is revealed to the world, ID principles will take over the function of those systems. Bacteria!  DAMN YOU BACTERIA!!  We've been keeping them as little more than sacks of cytoplasm for years.  Now, the truth comes out and they will become intelligent, dooming the world of eukaryotes by sheer numbers.  Do you see what you've done Gary?  Do you understand why we had to keep this conspiracy under wraps?   The bacteria HATE us.  Now, with your revelations, they become intelligent and we will be powerless against their ability to rewrite their genetic code into anything they want.  The superbugs of evolution will become super-powered bugs.  Our hidden ID research facility suggest that in less than five years, the bacteria will have developed the ability to shoot megajoule high frequency lasers and grow adamantium claws from their flagella.  They will use our own weapons against us. There is only one option left.  They last step to prevent the revelations of the truth and prevent bacteriagghedon. We'll have to activate plan Omega.   Good-bye my friends.  It has been a pleasure being a member of this grand conspiracy all these years. POTW -------------- "[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God." - William Dembski -

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,17:13    Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)       Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens. At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation. Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success? Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that. Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm? The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why. -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,19:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,17:13) Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)         Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens. At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation. Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success? Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that. Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm? The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why. 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? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,20:08    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2012,19:48)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,17:13)     Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)             Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37) Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links. As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true. So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* The cellular intelligence of a bacterium no more chooses to modify their genes than you choose to digest your food after eating. It just happens. At the molecular intelligence level of a bacterium (a genome) it is the same as saying that a somatic cell can choose to modify their genes through somatic hypermutation.     Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success? Since "deliberated" can be used as a loaded word indicating "God did it" you will have to rephrase the question before I can answer that.     Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24) Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm? The phrase "random variation" does not apply to this cognitive theory, therefore it is never used. It is a generalization which encourages sloppy science whereby you still feel intellectually fulfilled even though you did not explain a damn thing about how said "variation" occurred or why. 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? Here is revision 340 uploaded Nov 14, 2012 3:12 AM: https://sites.google.com/site.......ion=340 Show where it specifically states that "bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome." Here is the current revision 341 uploaded 21 hours ago. I am posting here in case you next try to accuse me of giving you a bogus file: https://sites.google.com/site.......ion=341 At this point you are straight-out talking trash, and I have seriously had it with your demeaning scam. Now show me where you found "bacteria and embryos choose to change their genome." -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,20:52    I posted about your notion that embryos control their own genome changes here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212294 and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212310 and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y212232 and here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;st=390 The one immediately above is where you specifically defend your notion. So, all of those times you could have said "I never said that", you instead defend it... until now. And you just happen to have posted a version of your paper up that may or may not contain (I don't know because I've been denied access). Whatever. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2012,20:54    Although, the search through the thread did remind me of all the things you HAVEN'T done yet Gary. Do you need a list or do you fully intend to keep ignoring all of those things forever? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (622) < ... 27 28 29 30 31 [32] 33 34 35 36 37 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard