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) < ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... >

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,18:14    Isn't it just about time for another flounce, GinGout? What you've got here is the Basic programmer's equivalent of astrology, with zero connection to the real world. "It's not variation, it's cognitive molecular guessing [or some similar gibberish]." = "You got scoliosis? Oh, you must be a Taurus." -------------- "[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

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,18:56    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,17:34)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,17:11)       Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,10:08)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,08:42)           Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,06:23) And, yes, a statement that karyotypes have to do with something other than chromosomes does document that you have trouble with the term. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said that. You have a writing problem. You wrote this:           Quote The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Therefore, you did say that. The ambiguity arises in questions like: "How many human karyotypes are there?"  The answer is there is only one "normal" human karyotype, therefore there is essentially only one. Yet it is still possible to be a "normal" human with a different karyotype. The word chromotype has so far proven to be much less ambiguous where it is normal for the organisms to have a number of different karyotypes. Instead of having to be a specific chromosome arrangement, there can be many (especially when smallest differences are included). Or that's what I read, while spending hours studying the way this terminology is defined and used. Thanks for confirming, again, that you don't understand the term. We knew that already, though. The topic was chromosomal rearrangement and speciation. Blithering about stuff that wasn't topical then and still isn't now does not help you. Complaining about illusory ambiguity doesn't make your prior gibberish any less nonsensical. I would suggest starting here:   Quote The human karyotype http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ryotype The normal human karyotypes contain 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. Normal karyotypes for females contain two X chromosomes and are denoted 46,XX; males have both an X and a Y chromosome denoted 46,XY. Any variation from the standard karyotype may lead to developmental abnormalities. I simply do not want or need to establish the "standard karyotype" of all that is discussed in theory along with other complications that come from using the word! And the topic was the Theory of Intelligent Design and education, until you changed it in order to start another semantics argument! The theory is here and all I really want to see from you is what you consider evidence against what is explained there. -------------- 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.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,19:06    I've looked through your theory and aside from some apparently clever programming I don't see anything new in the way of learning theory. I assume you researched this and can tell us specifically what is new. If you were applying for a patent, what features would claim? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,20:02    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,18:56)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,17:34)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,17:11)         Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,10:08)           Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,08:42)               Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,06:23) And, yes, a statement that karyotypes have to do with something other than chromosomes does document that you have trouble with the term. You have a serious reading comprehension problem. I never said that. You have a writing problem. You wrote this:               Quote The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Therefore, you did say that. The ambiguity arises in questions like: "How many human karyotypes are there?"  The answer is there is only one "normal" human karyotype, therefore there is essentially only one. Yet it is still possible to be a "normal" human with a different karyotype. The word chromotype has so far proven to be much less ambiguous where it is normal for the organisms to have a number of different karyotypes. Instead of having to be a specific chromosome arrangement, there can be many (especially when smallest differences are included). Or that's what I read, while spending hours studying the way this terminology is defined and used. Thanks for confirming, again, that you don't understand the term. We knew that already, though. The topic was chromosomal rearrangement and speciation. Blithering about stuff that wasn't topical then and still isn't now does not help you. Complaining about illusory ambiguity doesn't make your prior gibberish any less nonsensical. I would suggest starting here:       Quote The human karyotype http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ryotype The normal human karyotypes contain 22 pairs of autosomal chromosomes and one pair of sex chromosomes. Normal karyotypes for females contain two X chromosomes and are denoted 46,XX; males have both an X and a Y chromosome denoted 46,XY. Any variation from the standard karyotype may lead to developmental abnormalities. I simply do not want or need to establish the "standard karyotype" of all that is discussed in theory along with other complications that come from using the word! And the topic was the Theory of Intelligent Design and education, until you changed it in order to start another semantics argument! The theory is here and all I really want to see from you is what you consider evidence against what is explained there. Thanks for confirming, again, that you just don't get it. But the topic I was following was one that you yourself broached:   Quote From what I can see, you are attempting to brush off chromosome speciation as though the concept does not even exist in science. I can understand that you don't want to discuss it once everybody points out that things don't work the way you asserted they did, but the fact is: You brought it up. If you only want to discuss one narrow topic, stop weighing in on things that you will feel obliged to abandon as soon as anyone with a clue notices and responds. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,20:26    "you can't teach an old dogma new tricks" rinse lather repeat that's about it -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,20:32    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,20:02) I can understand that you don't want to discuss it once everybody points out that things don't work the way you asserted they did, but the fact is: You brought it up. If you only want to discuss one narrow topic, stop weighing in on things that you will feel obliged to abandon as soon as anyone with a clue notices and responds. I am not here to nitpick another word that is not even used in the theory. I am here to discuss all that is actually in it. At this point I'm best off to let your unwillingness to participate in the scientific process speak for itself. -------------- 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.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,21:44    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,20:32)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,20:02) I can understand that you don't want to discuss it once everybody points out that things don't work the way you asserted they did, but the fact is: You brought it up. If you only want to discuss one narrow topic, stop weighing in on things that you will feel obliged to abandon as soon as anyone with a clue notices and responds. I am not here to nitpick another word that is not even used in the theory. I am here to discuss all that is actually in it. At this point I'm best off to let your unwillingness to participate in the scientific process speak for itself. You've done nothing *but* nitpick at that word (and a poor job you did even of that), when you could have been discussing the topic that you yourself brought up... and then abandoned when you discovered it made you look uninformed. I'm willing to be judged by my record, certainly. The fact that you manufacture abuse to hurl at those who criticize your assertions speaks quite eloquently, too. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 03 2013,22:20    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,21:32) At this point I'm best off to let your unwillingness to participate in the scientific process speak for itself. how delicious this is the fool hath haughtily fluffed his derriere at the scientific process, o'er and again, in the record of this thread he has no desire to publish he is persecuted he has no desire to explain the implications of his theory he has no desire to make empirical predictions testable by the analysis of causal mechanisms he has a culture war hard-on he is persecuted he has some weird word salad shit going on he has some weird trolling thing going on he is persecuted he is secretly lauded a genius in circles of many different madrassas schools he doesn't have to even tell you the name of one he is persecuted someday he will be vindicated fucking hell can't you people get more creative -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,04:40    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,22:31)         Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,12:08)           Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)             Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,06:36) ...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'? All of the rearrangements are a "good guess". But if they don't lead to the speciation you invoke them for, what's good about them? I'm just following the current information on the fusion event, including: Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi, “Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes”,  PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102 http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full Harewood Louise, Schuetz Frederic, Boyle Shelagh, et al., “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression”, Genome Research, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Pages: 554-564, DOI: 10.1101/gr.103622.109, May 2010 http://genome.cshlp.org/content....54.full The 44 Chromosome Man, And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past, The Tech Museum, 2010 http://genetics.thetech.org/origina....news124 Yes, but there are frequent problems with chromosomal rearrangements, and only occasionally does one slip through the filter of negative selection (the 'good guess'). Even more rarely can we say that such an event was involved in speciation. One possible mechanism of spread, incidentally, is that an increase in miscarriage could, in certain circumstances, be beneficial. When resources are scarce, producing few pregnancies can lead to fewer but better-invested offspring. This could drive the change part-way to fixation, but at 50% the advantage dissipates. But if the limit is lifted, the 'old' arrangement is as likely to become the one disfavoured, as it no longer has the numerical advantage. This could lead either to speciation or to elimination of one type within the species.       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) The word "guess" is simply from the scientific terminology use  in cognitive science. Self-learning systems "take a guess" not "take a mutation". DNA does indeed 'learn' about the environments through which it recently passed, and selection filters the generality of 'guesses', good and bad, to leave principally the ones to which we can, post hoc, ascribe the label 'good'. It's not a new idea, though.       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) That's what happens when DNA is studied as a self-learning system. Even you are required to use the proper terminology. Ones in this forum who demand cognitive science conform to Darwinian terminology are just making asses out of themselves. If you are arguing about evolution, people who use the biological terminology are hardly the ones making asses of themselves. I think that's your #1 problem: wading into a field you aren't expert in and telling them how to express matters. I sympathise; I once tried to discuss an idea out of my area of expertise and was leapt upon from a great height, in part because of my misuse of terms and misapprehension of my jocular attempts to shake people out of what I saw as an entrenched way of thinking. It did not go down well! But instead of blaming them, I went off and got a better grounding in the subject matter. I still think I'm right, but I'm not going round lecturing people.   -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,06:41    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,21:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,20:32)     Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,20:02) I can understand that you don't want to discuss it once everybody points out that things don't work the way you asserted they did, but the fact is: You brought it up. If you only want to discuss one narrow topic, stop weighing in on things that you will feel obliged to abandon as soon as anyone with a clue notices and responds. I am not here to nitpick another word that is not even used in the theory. I am here to discuss all that is actually in it. At this point I'm best off to let your unwillingness to participate in the scientific process speak for itself. You've done nothing *but* nitpick at that word (and a poor job you did even of that), when you could have been discussing the topic that you yourself brought up... and then abandoned when you discovered it made you look uninformed. I'm willing to be judged by my record, certainly. The fact that you manufacture abuse to hurl at those who criticize your assertions speaks quite eloquently, too. I have very good reasons to not be impressed by that. I can tell you did not study/research David Heiserman, which is not at all surprising since he published how-to books not papers. Instead of operational definitions based upon models of the different kinds/levels of biological intelligence (as would be found in Arnold Trehub’s  work) you’re starting with conclusions about intelligence which came from Darwinian theory and AI, not “cognitive science”. Using Evolutionary Algorithms to support your (out of a dictionary type) operational definitions for “intelligence” is only asking for trouble. You are far from being one of the respected authorities on the topic of intelligence. And (like it or not) how “intelligent cause” works was already explained to programmers and others who also thrive on such out-of-box scientific ideas. Needing to degrade all them too, indicates how scientifically isolated you have become by believing that the science universe has to revolve around you. I would rather you come to your senses, realize that you are up against something you cannot change. But I have the feeling that you are only driven to win your crusade against ID, at any cost, to science and the rest of us. -------------- 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: Jan. 04 2013,07:35    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 04 2013,04:40)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,22:31)           Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,12:08)             Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45)                 Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 03 2013,06:36) ...and hence (to add) helps Gary not one bit. Which rearrangement, if any, is the 'good guess'? All of the rearrangements are a "good guess". But if they don't lead to the speciation you invoke them for, what's good about them? I'm just following the current information on the fusion event, including: Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi, “Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes”,  PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102 http://www.pnas.org/content....35.full Harewood Louise, Schuetz Frederic, Boyle Shelagh, et al., “The effect of translocation-induced nuclear reorganization on gene expression”, Genome Research, Volume: 20, Issue: 5, Pages: 554-564, DOI: 10.1101/gr.103622.109, May 2010 http://genome.cshlp.org/content....54.full The 44 Chromosome Man, And What He Reveals About Our Genetic Past, The Tech Museum, 2010 http://genetics.thetech.org/origina....news124 Yes, but there are frequent problems with chromosomal rearrangements, and only occasionally does one slip through the filter of negative selection (the 'good guess'). Even more rarely can we say that such an event was involved in speciation. One possible mechanism of spread, incidentally, is that an increase in miscarriage could, in certain circumstances, be beneficial. When resources are scarce, producing few pregnancies can lead to fewer but better-invested offspring. This could drive the change part-way to fixation, but at 50% the advantage dissipates. But if the limit is lifted, the 'old' arrangement is as likely to become the one disfavoured, as it no longer has the numerical advantage. This could lead either to speciation or to elimination of one type within the species.         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) The word "guess" is simply from the scientific terminology use  in cognitive science. Self-learning systems "take a guess" not "take a mutation". DNA does indeed 'learn' about the environments through which it recently passed, and selection filters the generality of 'guesses', good and bad, to leave principally the ones to which we can, post hoc, ascribe the label 'good'. It's not a new idea, though.           Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) That's what happens when DNA is studied as a self-learning system. Even you are required to use the proper terminology. Ones in this forum who demand cognitive science conform to Darwinian terminology are just making asses out of themselves. If you are arguing about evolution, people who use the biological terminology are hardly the ones making asses of themselves. I think that's your #1 problem: wading into a field you aren't expert in and telling them how to express matters. I sympathise; I once tried to discuss an idea out of my area of expertise and was leapt upon from a great height, in part because of my misuse of terms and misapprehension of my jocular attempts to shake people out of what I saw as an entrenched way of thinking. It did not go down well! But instead of blaming them, I went off and got a better grounding in the subject matter. I still think I'm right, but I'm not going round lecturing people.   What I'm describing are statements which amount to "We already have Electronics Theory to explain light therefore Relativity Theory is pseudoscience" while telling astronomers and physicists the universe can only follow Ohm's Law, so they must stop using words like "gravity" to describe "gravomagnetic attraction" which they believe they proved to be a fact because of an electromagnet attracting things too. Where you tell them that plastic is not attracted, they verbally attack you until you're discredited out of science for disagreeing with them. This is a matter of another area of expertise (cognitive science) being trashed by ones who only have expertise in evolutionary biology. Ones like me who keep up with "Cellular Intelligence" and other fields now being pioneered, are being hammered by these guys. I saw even Guenter Albrecht-Buehler get dragged through the mud because of not conforming to what the anti-ID movement deemed scientific. The vigilante science from ones with no experience in the sciences they attack, is a scientific disgrace. I find it unbelievable that academia usually sides with that crap. The phrases "random guess" and "good guess" are required in cognitive theory, especially this particular theory. What you would rather use instead from another field, is not open for discussion in a field that already has this established terminology. And since a living genome is in fact a "self-learning" system it is possible to study it within the framework of cognitive science, regardless of what ones outside the field personally believe. -------------- 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.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,07:54    Quote You are far from being one of the respected authorities on the topic of intelligence. And (like it or not) how “intelligent cause” works was already explained to programmers and others who also thrive on such out-of-box scientific ideas. Needing to degrade all them too, indicates how scientifically isolated you have become by believing that the science universe has to revolve around you. I would rather you come to your senses, realize that you are up against something you cannot change. But I have the feeling that you are only driven to win your crusade against ID, at any cost, to science and the rest of us. Project much, you silly muppet?  Dance! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,08:05    Gary, I have some questions for you: Can, or does, 'intelligence' exist that wasn't/isn't designed? If so, give me an example or two of something intelligent that wasn't/isn't designed? Is there anything 'intelligent' about or within a chunk of granite, a star, a gust of wind, a rainbow, Earth's moon, the color red, or a frog? Which of the following are intelligent, if any: slug, dog, gorilla, mold, human, kelp, ant, computer, leather shoe, bear scat, fire, time, gravity, the speed of light? Name five things in the universe that were/are not designed. Were/are humans specially designed? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,08:06    I followed that link to "cellular intelligence" you gave.  I think I understand the problem. You're basing your work on another person who has no idea what's going on.   1) Claiming that 'movement' and 'signalling' are "intelligence" is just redefining intelligence to the point that it is meaningless. 2) This clown's 'research work' has 21 references... all to his own work. 3) The one paper of his that I looked at has had 43 cites since it's publication in 1985.  The paper is "Is cytoplasm intelligent?" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....4039627   4) He is claiming that centrioles have the equivalent light sensing systems of eyes.  In spite of the fact that there are no structures or systems in the centriole that would be capable of absorbing EM waves and emitting an electron. You seem to be familiar with computers.  Have you ever heard of the concept "Garbage in garbage out"? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,08:38    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2013,06:41)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,21:44)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,20:32)         Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 03 2013,20:02) I can understand that you don't want to discuss it once everybody points out that things don't work the way you asserted they did, but the fact is: You brought it up. If you only want to discuss one narrow topic, stop weighing in on things that you will feel obliged to abandon as soon as anyone with a clue notices and responds. I am not here to nitpick another word that is not even used in the theory. I am here to discuss all that is actually in it. At this point I'm best off to let your unwillingness to participate in the scientific process speak for itself. You've done nothing *but* nitpick at that word (and a poor job you did even of that), when you could have been discussing the topic that you yourself brought up... and then abandoned when you discovered it made you look uninformed. I'm willing to be judged by my record, certainly. The fact that you manufacture abuse to hurl at those who criticize your assertions speaks quite eloquently, too. I have very good reasons to not be impressed by that. I can tell you did not study/research David Heiserman, which is not at all surprising since he published how-to books not papers. Instead of operational definitions based upon models of the different kinds/levels of biological intelligence (as would be found in Arnold Trehub’s  work) you’re starting with conclusions about intelligence which came from Darwinian theory and AI, not “cognitive science”. Using Evolutionary Algorithms to support your (out of a dictionary type) operational definitions for “intelligence” is only asking for trouble. You are far from being one of the respected authorities on the topic of intelligence. And (like it or not) how “intelligent cause” works was already explained to programmers and others who also thrive on such out-of-box scientific ideas. Needing to degrade all them too, indicates how scientifically isolated you have become by believing that the science universe has to revolve around you. I would rather you come to your senses, realize that you are up against something you cannot change. But I have the feeling that you are only driven to win your crusade against ID, at any cost, to science and the rest of us. More manufactured abuse. How unsurprising. Again, your fantasies about my work come nowhere close to being informed by anything but your prejudices. Whether or not you chose to be positively impressed by my record, all of it works against your scurrilous claim of "unwillingness to participate in the scientific process" on my part. I notice the lack of recognition that you had brought up the topic yourself and that you had chosen to obsess over one word that was in no way critical to the discussion. Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 04 2013,08:50 -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,08:48    giggles, your shit is boring.  at least when giltard commits this fallacy we get to talk about throwing computers out of airplanes.   question:  is your computer model a real insect -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,08:50    Quote But instead of blaming them, I went off and got a better grounding in the subject matter. Cheater, you are doing it wrong! Ask any creationist. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,09:57    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 04 2013,08:48) giggles, your shit is boring.  at least when giltard commits this fallacy we get to talk about throwing computers out of airplanes.   question:  is your computer model a real insect You imply an interesting question that I have been trying to ask. To the extent that you model evolution accurately, how are you invalidating it? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,10:28    "to the extent that your modeled system even remotely resembles any real world conditions, so fucking what?" is the way i would put it the science work starts here but this is where giggles has decided to pull over and stop, exposing himself to passersby and throwing beer bottles at science -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,18:23    Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2013,08:06) I followed that link to "cellular intelligence" you gave.  I think I understand the problem. You're basing your work on another person who has no idea what's going on.   1) Claiming that 'movement' and 'signalling' are "intelligence" is just redefining intelligence to the point that it is meaningless. 2) This clown's 'research work' has 21 references... all to his own work. 3) The one paper of his that I looked at has had 43 cites since it's publication in 1985.  The paper is "Is cytoplasm intelligent?" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....4039627   4) He is claiming that centrioles have the equivalent light sensing systems of eyes.  In spite of the fact that there are no structures or systems in the centriole that would be capable of absorbing EM waves and emitting an electron. You seem to be familiar with computers.  Have you ever heard of the concept "Garbage in garbage out"? Nice job of degrading an impressive list of novel papers/research and professional experience (by omitting the rest of the story): Reversible compression of cytoplasm. Does the geometric design of centrioles imply their function? Distribution of multiple centrospheres determines migration of BHK syncitia. Filopodia of spreading 3T3 cells. Do they have a substrate-exploring function? Cellular infrared detector appears to be contained in the centrosome. Distribution of microfilament bundles during rotation of the nucleus in 3T3 cells treated with monensin. The degree of coupling of nuclear rotation in binucleate 3T3 cells. Rigidity of the nucleus during nuclear rotation in 3T3 cells. The ultrastructure of primary cilia in quiescent 3T3 cells. The phagokinetic tracks of 3T3 cells. The orientation of centrioles in migrating 3T3 cells. Mechanical perturbation of webbed edges in 3T3 cells. Microspike-mediated particle transport towards the cell body during early spreading of 3T3 cells. Phagokinetic tracks of 3T3 cells: parallels between the orientation of track segments and of cellular structures which contain actin or tubulin. Changes of cell behavior by near-infrared signals. Long-term observation of cultured cells by interference-reflection microscopy: near-infrared illumination and Y-contrast image processing. Surface extensions of 3T3 cells towards distant infrared light sources. The tracks of moving cells. The iris diaphragm model of centriole and basal body formation. Altered drug resistance of microtubules in cells exposed to infrared light pulses: are microtubules the "nerves" of cells? Rudimentary form of cellular "vision". Daughter 3T3 cells. Are they mirror images of each other? Role of cortical tension in fibroblast shape and movement. Autofluorescence of live purple bacteria in the near infrared. A quantitative description of the extension and retraction of surface protrusions in spreading 3T3 mouse fibroblasts. The reorganization of microtubules and microfilaments in differentiating keratinocytes. Reversible excitation light-induced enhancement of fluorescence of live mammalian mitochondria. The angular distribution of directional changes of guided 3T3 cells. What structures, besides adhesions, prevent spread cells from rounding up? Possible mechanisms of indirect gravity sensing by cells. In defense of "nonmolecular" cell biology. Group locomotion of PtK1 cells. The simulation of microgravity conditions on the ground. Autonomous movements of cytoplasmic fragments. A long-range attraction between aggregating 3T3 cells mediated by near-infrared light scattering. Asymptotically increasing compliance of genomes with Chargaff's second parity rules through inversions and inverted transpositions. The spectra of point mutations in vertebrate genomes. Control of tissue cell movement. Does blebbing reveal the convulsive flow of liquid and solutes through the cytoplasmic meshwork? Fractal genome sequences. Water structuring centers of mammalian cell surfaces. Properties and distribution of pure GA-sequences of mammalian genomes. The three classes of triplet profiles of natural genomes. Inversions and inverted transpositions as the basis for an almost universal "format" of genome sequences. Outline of a genome navigation system based on the properties of GA-sequences and their flanks. The motile behavior of virus-transformed 3T3 cells. Local inhibition of centripetal particle transport where LETS protein patterns appear on 3T3 cells. Light conductance in the ocular lens. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?....4039627 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. Professor Emeritus, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Univ., Chicago April 2012- present Robert Laughlin Rae Professor of Cell Biology & Anatomy, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern Univ., Chicago, Sept. 1985-April 2012 Associate Professor, Cell Biology & Anatomy, Northwestern Univ. medical School,Chicago, April 1982-1985 Senior Staff Investigator and Head of the Cell Biology Section, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Animal Cell Motility), 1974-April, 1982 Research Associate, Department of Biochemistry, University of Florida at Gainesville, December 1973 - June 1974 Postdoctoral Fellow, Friedrich Miescher Institute, Basel, Switzerland (Particle movement in the surface of normal and transformed mammalian cells; light microscopy), 1970-1974 Investigator at the Institute for Biology, Gesellschaft f. Strahlenforschung, Munich, Germany (electrophysiology on single myelinated nerve fibers; irreversible thermodynamics), 1967 - 1970 http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....hl....m I would much rather study the work of a respected professor who actually studied and documented complex cellular behaviors, than believe the garbage I read in an AntiEvolution forum from political activists with no experience at all in the field. -------------- 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.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,19:32    how much of that did you do?  oh, nothing?  why bother then -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,19:43    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 04 2013,19:32) how much of that did you do?  oh, nothing?  why bother then In the pseudoscientific mindset, it's all about authority. It seems to be a holdover from the theological practice of proof-texting. They get a bit testy when it is pointed out that that doesn't work in science. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,20:10    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2013,00:23) I would much rather study the work of a respected professor who actually studied and documented complex cellular behaviors, than believe the garbage I read in an AntiEvolution forum from political activists with no experience at all in the field. Oh, I know...!

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,20:49    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 04 2013,10:28) "to the extent that your modeled system even remotely resembles any real world conditions, so fucking what?" is the way i would put it the science work starts here but this is where giggles has decided to pull over and stop, exposing himself to passersby and throwing beer bottles at science That's a good way to describe this forum rest-stop! Never know what will get thrown at you. -------------- 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: Jan. 04 2013,21:59    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 04 2013,04:40)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 03 2013,14:45) The word "guess" is simply from the scientific terminology use  in cognitive science. Self-learning systems "take a guess" not "take a mutation". DNA does indeed 'learn' about the environments through which it recently passed, and selection filters the generality of 'guesses', good and bad, to leave principally the ones to which we can, post hoc, ascribe the label 'good'. It's not a new idea, though. On that point I have to agree. There is even an anti-ID (and creationism) video for the The Origin of Intelligence where they use a dictionary definition for "intelligence" to conclude that bacteria learn and are intelligent. Even though it was highly controversial the Theory of Intelligent Design was properly premised for a cognitive science explanation which begins with the most basic features of any intelligence system.  Where you draw out how one behavior causes another there is a computer model possible that produces logically named (intelligence from intelligence) "intelligent cause/causation" events. Having to deny that the Theory of Intelligent Design makes sense in that context, leads to a self-defeating domino effect where soon the words "cause" and "causation" are best stricken from the scientific vocabulary. For the sake of science, it's best to accept where the evidence led, be thankful for the new perspective. -------------- 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.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,22:40    Your perspective is not new. The idea that evolution is a kind of learning is perhaps a hundred years old. I know of at least one explicit reference from 1928. The problem is that it is a metaphor and an analogy, and learning simulations don't really say anything specific about the way chemistry works. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 04 2013,23:15    Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2013,22:40) Your perspective is not new. The idea that evolution is a kind of learning is perhaps a hundred years old. I know of at least one explicit reference from 1928. The problem is that it is a metaphor and an analogy, and learning simulations don't really say anything specific about the way chemistry works. This cognitive model provides way more insight into the chemistry of living things than the mutation/variation+selection model is capable of. There is no way to compare a model of the actual molecular mechanism, to outside observations which did not even require Charles Darwin explain anything at all about the chemistry. -------------- 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.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,00:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2013,00:15) Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2013,22:40) Your perspective is not new. The idea that evolution is a kind of learning is perhaps a hundred years old. I know of at least one explicit reference from 1928. The problem is that it is a metaphor and an analogy, and learning simulations don't really say anything specific about the way chemistry works. This cognitive model provides way more insight into the chemistry of living things than the mutation/variation+selection model is capable of. There is no way to compare a model of the actual molecular mechanism, to outside observations which did not even require Charles Darwin explain anything at all about the chemistry. your model, which has zero fucking chemistry whatsoever, provides more insight into the chemistry of living things than a model which has 1 unit of chemistry good christ you are one silly bastard -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,00:33    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 04 2013,20:43) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 04 2013,19:32) how much of that did you do?  oh, nothing?  why bother then In the pseudoscientific mindset, it's all about authority. It seems to be a holdover from the theological practice of proof-texting. They get a bit testy when it is pointed out that that doesn't work in science. but but but but but you science stopper! -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 05 2013,04:58    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 05 2013,00:32)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2013,00:15)       Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 04 2013,22:40) Your perspective is not new. The idea that evolution is a kind of learning is perhaps a hundred years old. I know of at least one explicit reference from 1928. The problem is that it is a metaphor and an analogy, and learning simulations don't really say anything specific about the way chemistry works. This cognitive model provides way more insight into the chemistry of living things than the mutation/variation+selection model is capable of. There is no way to compare a model of the actual molecular mechanism, to outside observations which did not even require Charles Darwin explain anything at all about the chemistry. your model, which has zero fucking chemistry whatsoever, provides more insight into the chemistry of living things than a model which has 1 unit of chemistry good christ you are one silly bastard This theory is so chemistry intensive the Behavior of Matter level of the causation model calls for a Molecular Dynamics system that produces all the known chemical behaviors, then later (when enough is known to model it) subatomic behavior produces all the virtual chemistry: The "Molecular Intelligence" level is where the virtual atoms become the complex macromolecules of a virtual cell. All of the chemistry in all of biology is here represented, programmatically. Don't let the relative simplicity of the upper level (Multicellular Intelligence) model at Planet Source Code (for getting started) fool you into believing it doesn't get heavy into chemistry after that. Since it's something programmed it's not necessary to know all the names of all the reactions taking place. But the programmer still needs a good understanding of chemical behavior, to train the virtual particles to behave like real matter. Need to convert behavior produced by slow to calculate number-crunching equations (including Schrodinger's) to as shown above with very fast and simple two step memory fetching of proper response to chemical environment. This is very serious theory, for very serious models, which go way beyond what is possible with EA/GA models. It's a part of pioneering a new area of science, where how the "intelligence" works is not allowed to be left out of the model. The premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design just happened to perfectly describe (intelligence from intelligence) causation events that had to be explained anyway, and in science one is supposed to develop theory that already exists for a phenomenon, regardless of it being controversial. Actually being able to help answer big-questions at the same time delivers a faith-friendly theory the ID movement was hoping for, where the science looks more like this version of the causation illustration with more artistic pointer: https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF It's "just science" but the soul-searching mystery many find important is very much in the model too. Is why it works so well with the Everything Is Energy video, even Goth. This theory is well set for the scientific future of chemistry itself. -------------- 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.

Pages: (622) < ... 42 43 44 45 46 [47] 48 49 50 51 52 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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