RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 335 336 337 338 339 [340] 341 342 343 344 345 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2014,08:14   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2014,08:36)
...
But the interesting point is that Gary identifies genetic algorithms as simple.  They are indeed impressively simple as well as being astoundingly powerful, which is why I can't see what Gary has against natural selection and why he keeps misunderstanding it.  Especially, I cannot understand why he rejects it in favor of an alternate mechanism whose existence and effects he can't even demonstrate at the levels that he is interested in.

It's because he's self-assembled.  And assembled wrong.
He's reminiscent of the chef on Metalocalypse, 'sewn together wrong'.

He believes in an alternative because he has a desperate need to be the underdog who eventually triumphs, usually by means of a "and then a miracle occurs' step, coupled with an equally desperate need for opposition so he can justify any and all of his shortcomings as due to external oppression, not internal flaws.
That he cannot demonstrate the existence or effects of his preferred approach is part of its glory -- he thinks it allows him to shift the game to one where his opponents must present something better than his never explained, never identified, never clarified "alternative".  He thinks he can make it a game of "heads, he wins, tails we lose."
Like I said before, attempting to win a poker game by shouting 'checkmate'.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2014,08:31   

Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)
Pssst.  Hey Gary.  You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?

How about bird level navigation?

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf

In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.

Can your bug do that?

Yes.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2014,09:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2014,09:31)
Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)
Pssst.  Hey Gary.  You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?

How about bird level navigation?

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf

In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.

Can your bug do that?

Yes.

As poster said not too many pages ago --
An obvious lie.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2014,23:02   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)
Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:


Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart.  There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly.  That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.

You and others were given the opportunity to provide any other flowchart you wanted. I'm not surprised that you're now being a scumbag over it.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2014,23:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 21 2014,07:36)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)
Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:


Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart.  There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly.  That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.

That seems okay for a program that models evolution by artificial selection or for modelling simple evolution in an unchanging environment -  it's how I'd start if I were writing a simple program to show an evolutionary progression, particularly if I wanted to let the person running the program play around with selection pressures by controlling who got to survive and mate.

But the interesting point is that Gary identifies genetic algorithms as simple.  They are indeed impressively simple as well as being astoundingly powerful, which is why I can't see what Gary has against natural selection and why he keeps misunderstanding it.  Especially, I cannot understand why he rejects it in favor of an alternate mechanism whose existence and effects he can't even demonstrate at the levels that he is interested in.

You are just part of a scam to make it appear that evolutionary biologists can't be wrong about "intelligence".

Glorification of a non-cognitive model is just part of the scientific dishonesty.

--------------
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: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2014,23:29   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 21 2014,16:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2014,08:34)
Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me.  But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...

 
Quote
And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.

It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.

Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.

https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811

That's just... wow... much ignorance...

A misunderstanding, even a basic one, wouldn't be so bad if Joe wasn't so arrogant that he thought he'd outsmarted pretty much every scientist ever.  Can he really believe that no one else would have noticed such a devastating mistake?

It looks like (in another thread) Texas Teach just got trolled.

Uranium was formed on this planet? Really?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2014,23:50   

Quote
Glorification of a non-cognitive model is just part of the scientific dishonesty.

BS. Demonstrate that a cognitive model is necessary to explain molecular biochemistry, rather than just making your usual nonsensical and unsupported assertions.  Also, quit projecting your own shortcomings re honesty onto the rest of us.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2014,23:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 22 2014,23:50)
Quote
Glorification of a non-cognitive model is just part of the scientific dishonesty.

BS. Demonstrate that a cognitive model is necessary to explain molecular biochemistry, rather than just making your usual nonsensical and unsupported assertions.  Also, quit projecting your own shortcomings re honesty onto the rest of us.

The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both.

I'm still waiting.

Anyone?

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,00:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:29)
       
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 21 2014,16:54)
         
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2014,08:34)
Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me.  But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...

           
Quote
And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.

It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.

Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.

https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811

That's just... wow... much ignorance...

A misunderstanding, even a basic one, wouldn't be so bad if Joe wasn't so arrogant that he thought he'd outsmarted pretty much every scientist ever.  Can he really believe that no one else would have noticed such a devastating mistake?

It looks like (in another thread) Texas Teach just got trolled.

Uranium was formed on this planet? Really?

Jesus, Gary, you are just determined to demonstrate that you know crap all about darn near everything, aren't you?  Joe kept scoring one "own-goal" stupidity after another on that thread, and you want to join his side of the argument??? He and you by extension are wrong on so many aspects of this that it is hard to keep count.  Uranium decay is dated by the presence of U versus daughter elements, so when we are counting parent uranium and daughter lead in minerals, we look at minerals that readily incorporate uranium when they form but which don't incorporate lead, so all newly crystallized minerals start at 100% U/(U+ daughter Pb).  (Yes, there are minor exceptions, but they are manageable.)  Furthermore, yes, uranium forms in a supernova (and presumably also in any higher energy events) (no one said it formed on earth), and yes, decays begin immediately on formation of the uranium, but so what?  Some uranium is lost early, but the rest remains, and any early losses are irrelevant to dating of minerals, as each clock starts when those minerals form, not when the uranium forms.  Just for additional confirmation that decays before the formation of the planets themselves are irrelevant, both uranium 235 and uranium 238 decay chains pass through gas phases (Radon 222 and Radon 219), so if that happens out in space then the radon disperses, and when those radon atoms eventually decay the daughter products end up far, far away from what's left of the original uranium.  Thus uranium-decay clocks start long after that process is over. 

However, we can in fact look at ratios of other, much short-lived, isotopes to see which ones "got away" between the supernova and the formation of the planets, and which ones didn't.  If I recall the details, by identifying daughters of very short-lived elements that nonetheless did end up incorporated into the Earth and meteorites as opposed to daughters of even shorter-lived isotopes that did not end up incorporated into them, we can estimate how long it took to go from the supernova to the accretion of the earth and the asteroids (about 100 m.y. for the earth).  This sort of work has people looking at very short-lived isotopes like aluminum-26 and hafnium-182.  (It apparently took considerably longer for the gas giants to form, given the increasing losses of hydrogen in the more distant planets.)  We have radiometric dates on the calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions in carbonaceous chondrites, which are thought to be the oldest material in the solar system, and which predate the earth by 50 to 100 m.y.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,00:29   

Quote
The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both.

I'm still waiting.


And again, no, you are the person making the exceptional claims, so the burden of proof lies on you.  "Intelligent design" is not a legitimate controversy, but a bunch of BS pulled together to try to justify creationist beliefs.  You have not advanced it beyond that stage, nor have you even demonstrated that either intelligence or intelligent causation is necessary until we get to levels of animal intelligence where intelligence is generally recognized to come into play.  It's as if someone had a theory that fairies caused everything and then told the rest of us that we had to come up with a better explanation for fairies and causation by fairies or we had to accept his theory about fairies.  So far, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing.  Get to work, Gary, you haven't done anything meaningful yet.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,06:38   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,00:21)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:29)
         
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 21 2014,16:54)
           
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 21 2014,08:34)
Just visited Joey's little blog. It's pretty funny how much he still stalks me.  But, as I was reading, I came upon this gem...

             
Quote
And decay rates are fine. I am not saying otherwise. But unstable isotopes can start decaying when they are formed and they are not formed on earth. They were decaying for millions or billions of years before the earth formed.

It's as if you are just an ignorant fool who can't think beyond its own ass.

Uranium was formed either by supernovae or via the collision of two neutron stars. So it is decaying/ can decay well before it comes to earth.

https://www.blogger.com/comment....4186811

That's just... wow... much ignorance...

A misunderstanding, even a basic one, wouldn't be so bad if Joe wasn't so arrogant that he thought he'd outsmarted pretty much every scientist ever.  Can he really believe that no one else would have noticed such a devastating mistake?

It looks like (in another thread) Texas Teach just got trolled.

Uranium was formed on this planet? Really?

Jesus, Gary, you are just determined to demonstrate that you know crap all about darn near everything, aren't you?  Joe kept scoring one "own-goal" stupidity after another on that thread, and you want to join his side of the argument??? He and you by extension are wrong on so many aspects of this that it is hard to keep count.  Uranium decay is dated by the presence of U versus daughter elements, so when we are counting parent uranium and daughter lead in minerals, we look at minerals that readily incorporate uranium when they form but which don't incorporate lead, so all newly crystallized minerals start at 100% U/(U+ daughter Pb).  (Yes, there are minor exceptions, but they are manageable.)  Furthermore, yes, uranium forms in a supernova (and presumably also in any higher energy events) (no one said it formed on earth), and yes, decays begin immediately on formation of the uranium, but so what?  Some uranium is lost early, but the rest remains, and any early losses are irrelevant to dating of minerals, as each clock starts when those minerals form, not when the uranium forms.  Just for additional confirmation that decays before the formation of the planets themselves are irrelevant, both uranium 235 and uranium 238 decay chains pass through gas phases (Radon 222 and Radon 219), so if that happens out in space then the radon disperses, and when those radon atoms eventually decay the daughter products end up far, far away from what's left of the original uranium.  Thus uranium-decay clocks start long after that process is over. 

However, we can in fact look at ratios of other, much short-lived, isotopes to see which ones "got away" between the supernova and the formation of the planets, and which ones didn't.  If I recall the details, by identifying daughters of very short-lived elements that nonetheless did end up incorporated into the Earth and meteorites as opposed to daughters of even shorter-lived isotopes that did not end up incorporated into them, we can estimate how long it took to go from the supernova to the accretion of the earth and the asteroids (about 100 m.y. for the earth).  This sort of work has people looking at very short-lived isotopes like aluminum-26 and hafnium-182.  (It apparently took considerably longer for the gas giants to form, given the increasing losses of hydrogen in the more distant planets.)  We have radiometric dates on the calcium-aluminum-rich inclusions in carbonaceous chondrites, which are thought to be the oldest material in the solar system, and which predate the earth by 50 to 100 m.y.

Very good. Now all you need to do is put that in Joe's thread, where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth.

--------------
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: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,06:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,00:29)
Quote
The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both.

I'm still waiting.


And again, no, you are the person making the exceptional claims, so the burden of proof lies on you.  "Intelligent design" is not a legitimate controversy, but a bunch of BS pulled together to try to justify creationist beliefs.  You have not advanced it beyond that stage, nor have you even demonstrated that either intelligence or intelligent causation is necessary until we get to levels of animal intelligence where intelligence is generally recognized to come into play.  It's as if someone had a theory that fairies caused everything and then told the rest of us that we had to come up with a better explanation for fairies and causation by fairies or we had to accept his theory about fairies.  So far, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing.  Get to work, Gary, you haven't done anything meaningful yet.

It is not an exceptional claim to expect the proper type of model be used for what is being investigated. I have that, you don't.

And I have to get to work, at 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,06:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,00:58)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 22 2014,23:50)
Quote
Glorification of a non-cognitive model is just part of the scientific dishonesty.

BS. Demonstrate that a cognitive model is necessary to explain molecular biochemistry, rather than just making your usual nonsensical and unsupported assertions.  Also, quit projecting your own shortcomings re honesty onto the rest of us.

The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both.

I'm still waiting.

Anyone?

No you idiot.  Not even remotely true.

The "Intelligent Design" controversy [there is no controversy, any more than there is between truth and dishonesty] is not about 'intelligence' and/or 'intelligent cause'.  It is about whether those items, both admitted to exist, are factors in evolution, in the nature of biology and its structures over time.  Particularly, it is an attempt to generate a controversy over whether biology can 'get started' without intelligent input, whether it can generate the proliferation of life-forms we encounter in nature without intelligent input, whether intelligence is a cause or a result of the history of biological organisms over considerable periods of time.
The answer to that 'controversy' does not lie in a discussion of, a model of, or an 'explanation' of "intelligence" or "intelligent cause".  It is entirely a 'controversy' over whether the transition of chemistry to biology requires magic or follows natural laws.

The 'controversy' is not over what explains 'intelligence' or 'intelligent cause'.  That you think it is is yet one more piece of evidence that you are an ignorant buffoon mired in massive confusion at even the lowest levels of abstraction reached by reasoning beings.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,06:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,07:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,00:29)
Quote
The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both.

I'm still waiting.


And again, no, you are the person making the exceptional claims, so the burden of proof lies on you.  "Intelligent design" is not a legitimate controversy, but a bunch of BS pulled together to try to justify creationist beliefs.  You have not advanced it beyond that stage, nor have you even demonstrated that either intelligence or intelligent causation is necessary until we get to levels of animal intelligence where intelligence is generally recognized to come into play.  It's as if someone had a theory that fairies caused everything and then told the rest of us that we had to come up with a better explanation for fairies and causation by fairies or we had to accept his theory about fairies.  So far, you've demonstrated absolutely nothing.  Get to work, Gary, you haven't done anything meaningful yet.

It is not an exceptional claim to expect the proper type of model be used for what is being investigated. I have that, you don't.

And I have to get to work, at my day job..

Again, an obvious lie.
You do not have a model at all, let alone a model that explains intelligence and intelligent cause.

We keep pointing this out, you keep evading the challenges, often quite specific challenges, to the claim, staying away for a few days, and then repeating the lie.

I hope you perform your day job better than you do your "science" or your 'modeling'.  But I'm hard pressed to imagine what, other than mindless physical labor, you could possibly be qualified for based on the last 335+ pages.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,07:19   

Quote
.....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth.
 No it doesn't.  Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either).  He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position.  When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays.  After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,07:27   

10 quatloos that Gary will misinterpret 'fabric' and go off on yet another tangent.
If there's a fact that can be misconstrued, Gary will misconstrue it.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4907
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,08:04   

Even mindless physical labor in general requires the worker to be capable of taking direction.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,08:22   

Quote
It is not an exceptional claim to expect the proper type of model be used for what is being investigated.
Very true.  Your failure in that regard has been at the heart of our criticisms from the beginning of this thread.

Quote
I have that, you don't.
That is totally untrue.  You have not demonstrated that your model has any relevance at all to your claims about evolution, "molecular intelligence", fractal qualities, systematics, natural selection, the Cambrian explosion, or any of the myriad of other things you make unjustified claims about.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,15:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19)
Quote
.....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth.
 No it doesn't.  Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either).  He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position.  When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays.  After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.

The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.

From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.

And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.

I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1508
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,19:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,15:56)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19)
 
Quote
.....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth.
 No it doesn't.  Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either).  He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position.  When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays.  After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.

The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.

From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.

And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.

I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.

Translation from the Gaulinese:  I totally made myself look stupid, falling into the same mistake as Joe.  Now my only hope to save face is to complain that other people should have given a long explanation of why Joe is a moron who thinks all scientists are bigger morons to deflect attention from my own idiocy.  Perhaps inventing a bunch of uneducated lurkers that are confused by this remote corner of the Internet.

P.s.  Gary doesn't seem to know what "trolled" means.  Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,19:16   

And the plot thickens.

Stuff They Don't Want You to Know - Plant 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,19:56   

The plot is the same as it ever was -- as long as you conflate an explanation of intelligence with an explanation of evolution, specifically the evolution of species and higher-order classifications of living things, you are assuming your conclusion.
Which is a hardly the first logical fallacy you've committed, but it lies at the foundation of your efforts.
No further refutation of your effluent is required than to point this out, regardless of the adequacy, or alleged lack thereof, of any other explanation that does not base itself on a fallacy.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,22:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:02)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)
Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:


Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart.  There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly.  That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.

You and others were given the opportunity to provide any other flowchart you wanted. I'm not surprised that you're now being a scumbag over it.

I found the thread where this typical flowchart was recommended to me, and discussed:

Does Illustration Sum Up Genetic Algorithms & Synthesis?

--------------
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: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2014,22:55   

Use this link for reading the entire thread:

http://talkrational.org/showthr....1800592

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,06:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,23:55)
Use this link for reading the entire thread:

http://talkrational.org/showthr....1800592

Yup -- it shows the madness and irremediable stupidity of your alleged understanding of evolution quite clearly.
There is no desired fitness.
There is no 'desirer' who personally decides which living things shall pass on their genes and which shall not, no 'master mucker-about' who personally decides which genetic material will differ by varying degrees from that of the parent organism.
You keep assuming your conclusion and acting as if you've achieved some special unique insight.
Instead, you go wrong as you always do, at the very start.  And you do so in such a way that everything that proceeds from that point is invalidated.
Study some basic logic Gary -- false validly implies all possible conclusions, both true and false.  So starting from false premises, as you so clearly do, means that while occasionally your logic may be valid it can never be relied upon to be true.

You pathetic buffoon.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,09:28   

I just looked up “genetic algorithm desired fitness” and found a good amount of academic information, including at Google Scholar where the phrase “Desired Properties” was also found.

Maybe I should just agree this GA step that goes by several names is not “in nature” then wait to see where the discussion goes from here. In my opinion the generalization (within limits) has some usefulness, even though it is can also be used as a misleading oversimplification.

I also need to add:
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,10:09   

I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm.  It's usable for modelling artificial selection.  It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.  

However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing both the context in which evolution is occurring and the levels of performance in meeting life's challenges that permit success in reproduction: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth.  Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness".  Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations).  However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale".  There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1199
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,12:57   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.

This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.  I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,13:43   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 24 2014,13:57)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.

This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever.  I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.

Insofar as sense can be extracted from it, it blows two of Gary's claims out of the water.
First, that intelligence "emerges".  This bit of Dadaist prose asserts that it's intelligence all the way down and all the way up.
Second, it reinforces the view that Gary's effluent is circular and ultimately question begging.  Gary "explains" intelligence by insisting that it is somehow 'already there', at every level from 'the behavior of matter' to the level of organisms.

Gary never tires of repeatedly shooting himself in the foot with these sorts of absurd and self-refuting claims.
'Sewn together wrong.'

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2014,13:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2014,09:31)
Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)
Pssst.  Hey Gary.  You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?

How about bird level navigation?

http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf

In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.

Can your bug do that?

Yes.

Also known as the Sheldon Cooper defense -- it can but it chooses not to.

Pity Gary is neither as talented nor as funny as Sheldon, or the actor that portrays him.

  
  18219 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 335 336 337 338 339 [340] 341 342 343 344 345 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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