RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 340 341 342 343 344 [345] 346 347 348 349 350 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,21:33   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)
"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.

But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

 
Quote
This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

Thanks!

Now try to trash that.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,21:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,21:33)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)
"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.

But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

   
Quote
This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.

(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).

(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

Thanks!

Now try to trash that.

I don't have to: you haven't addressed the more serious of the problems I mentioned, and the resulting rubbish is literally self-trashing.  You're welcome.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2014,22:44   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,20:59)
Gary, it's your frigging conclusions section: are we supposed to think that your conclusions only pertain to humans???  In the middle of your talking about behavior of matter causing molecular intelligence and "molecular intelligence" causing "cellular intelligence", we are supposed to think that one sentence is magically restricted to pertaining only to humans???  That's downright nuts.  

We've discussed this section endlessly in the past: you've never indicated that it's just about humans: the model that supposedly proves everything is supposedly an insect; you've instead gone on and on about salmon migrating and defending nest full of young and crocodiles being motherly.
Here's one of your earlier versions of your conclusions:  
Quote
Maternal and religious behaviors are emergent from a level of intelligence that stays going through time one offspring to the next.  This is not something we can "think away" it's a powerful influence that guides salmon _upstream to where they were born to spawn in nests for their young that they will defend with their lives_, and humans to marry then have children _to equally cherish_. It's therefore no metaphor to say that for better or for worse, for such intelligence, anywhere in the universe, there will always be the strong _binding_ "love" that helps guide them, forever through generations of time...

That's directed at everything, not just humans.

Also, it's not our fault that you can't write clearly and comprehensibly.

Offspring developing inside a protective egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow.

I'm focusing on humans (with as few as possible other examples) because that makes it easy to sum up what is most important to cover in a theory that pertains to the origin of intelligence and its associated instincts, not "natural selection" which makes it possible to ignore all that difficult to explain detail.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 5430
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,04:29   

The only thing you are focusing on Gary is wasting everyone else's time including your own.
Not a single thing you have done has forwarded science get help.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,06:10   

Quote
Offspring developing inside an egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow.
Of course offspring in protective egg shells are still their young, but fish eggs don't have a shell (go to a bait store and look at salmon eggs, or check out a jar of caviar), and salmon don't "protect their young" in any way whatsoever: nearly all of them die after spawning and in the few types of salmon that don't all immediately die, the few surviving parents leave immediately.  Again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0BfRorA

At one level, this is such an easy fix, as I've pointed out numerous times before: if you want to cite an example of some fish protecting their young, choose one of the fish that actually do that.  There are many great examples: sticklebacks, seahorses, pipefishes, redlip blennies, & some of the cichlids.  However, at another level, fish are the nearly the worst possible example you could choose*, as fish show all imaginable manners of parental care, from none to lots, by both parents, or just by fathers, or just by mothers, or by neither, with some lovely transitions, following nice evolutionary lineages, in degrees that turn out to be perfectly explainable by standard evolutionary theory (specifically, by natural selection).  Needless to say, there is a huge literature on the subject of which you appear entirely clueless, including every textbook on fish and every textbook that has a chapter on reproduction-related behavior in vertebrates.  However, here are some great detailed resources to get you started:

http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross......985.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....1800310
http://www.tfhmagazine.com/details....ids.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content....bstract
http://link.springer.com/article....#page-1
See also all the stuff on redlip blennies by Deloach and Humann.

*along with invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, which likewise all show a full range of parental care from none to lots: e.g. check out megapodes.

Lots of hypotheses have been proposed and tested to explain different degrees and patterns of parental care, such as Fisher's principle, Clutton-Brock's modification, Trivers' theory, and Bateman's principle.  These are all based on quantitative predictions from natural selection, and after all that work biologists have become very good at predicting and explaining oddities in parental care systems, such as why in mammals parental care is primarily maternal with differing amounts of participation from the fathers, and why in fish most parental care is paternal rather than maternal.  

But you don't know any of that, so you just blithely blow in with entirely uninformed blathering about the way you (incorrectly) think things are and how that supposedly supports your not-even-wrong not-a-theory.

Now let's move on to what you don't seem to know regarding crocodiles.  Did you know that parental care varies in crocodilians?  In caimans alone, it varies between local populations.  Guess what controls the variation?  (Answer: local variations in selective pressures.)

Just for the record, you're not going to apologize for your libel about quote-mining, right?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,07:26   

N.Wells is quite correct to point out that there's no need to critique your latest rewrite given that you have not addressed any of the far more serious fundamental and foundational issues he and others have raised.  But just for laughs, here you go:

     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,22:33)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)
"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.

But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

         
Quote
This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence,
still undefined and asserted without evidence.  The ‘behavior of matter’ is more than adequately explained by the standard laws of physics and chemistry.  Examples of emergent behavior from the interactions of molecules have been presented by us and all are explicable in terms of the standard laws.  You have no facts or phenomena to present which suggest or lead to any such notion as ‘molecular intelligence' other than the utterly banal and uninteresting claim that intelligence emerges solely in systems of multiple complex molecules due to their interactions under the laws of physics and chemistry.  You have implied that you reject this demonstration of the banality of your ‘molecular intelligence’ notion, yet you have not advanced your case in any way at all.  You merely keep repeating the phrase as if such repetitions were sufficient.  They aren’t.
   
Quote
   
Quote
whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring.

Genetic ‘information’ is not knowledge in any standard sense of the term.  Genomes do not learn except by tortured analogy, which falls apart at the first criticism.  Genomes change over time — but ‘change over time’ is neither the definition of ‘learn’ nor a paraphrase nor a metaphor for it.  It is a blatant self-serving and entirely dishonest error.  There is no learning or analog of learning in the change over time that is biological evolution.
   
Quote
   
Quote
This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.
What intelligence?  There is no molecular intelligence [nor any cellular intelligence] to exert such control.  You are not just asserting facts not in evidence, you are pulling a fantasy out of your ass.  Metaphorically speaking of course.  It is false to equate, as you do, ‘basic growth and division of our cells’ with ‘instinctual behavior’.  Instincts do not consist of the growth and division of cells, nor do those specific process drive instinctual behavior of any sort.

   
Quote
   
Quote
(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).
And slitheys are the furbled cause of toves.  There is no such thing as ‘molecular intelligence’.  You have neither defined nor demonstrated the existence of such.  You have fantasized a notion out of whole cloth that has no reason for existence except to satisfy your own pathologies and delusions.  As such, it is incorrect to assert that ‘molecular intelligence’ is the ‘intelligent cause’ of ‘cellular intelligence’.  Again, the only possible meaning of ‘cellular intelligence’ is utterly banal — all intelligence emerges from aggregates of cells.  But that is not what you are claiming.  You have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as ‘molecular intelligence’, then demonstrate that there is such a thing as ‘cellular intelligence’, then demonstrate that the latter arises from the behavior of the former.   The probabilities of you doing that are infinitesimal.  The probabilities that you, or anyone, could do so correctly, given the massive confusion of concepts coupled with the absolute absence of factual phenomena to ground those concepts and their interconnections, are firmly frozen at zero.

   
Quote
   
Quote
(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

Utter twaddle, meaningless verbiage in service of your delusions.
Totally unsupportable given your failure to support the key notions you rely on to make these claims.  That there is such a thing as intelligence at the multi-cellular level is unquestionable.  That it arises from ‘lower orders’ of intelligence is, based on your current work, indubitably false.  It is pointless and condescending to qualify ‘paternal’ and ‘maternal’ with ‘(fatherly)’ and ‘(motherly)’, even for K-12 reading levels.  Likewise, ’neural brain’ is redundant.  Similarly, were your fantasies even remotely true, it would be redundant to claim that ’…neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once…’  The connections you have asserted and the directions of causality you have asserted for the ‘three levels’ assures that if you have ‘multicellular intelligence’ you perforce must have operative ‘molecular intelligence’ and ‘cellular intelligence’.
You can’t even keep your own garbage consistent with itself.
And as we see above, it is all garbage, twisted fragments of concepts mangled and abused in service of some delusional notions you inflicted upon yourself at some point in the past.  There is no evidentiary support nor is there any evidentiary need for the burden of the notions you have expressed.  Worse, the real problems of the emergence of intelligence in multi-cellular systems in the face of the strict laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics are left untouched by your efforts.  At the very best, your work is a distraction from real problems that real workers are researching and on which they are making real progress.  There is no need to repeat the references already given on this matter — references have been given.  You have none.  Your notions have no explanatory capability, no foundational phenomena or facts to structure any explanation, nor any hope of leading to any explanations or new insights.

 
Quote
[garbage about parental behavior, as if that behavior were paradigmatic of intelligence, snipped for the sake of the long-suffering electrons that must transport Gary’s garbage onto our screens.]
Now try to trash that.

Done and done.  It was trivial to do, you work is quite literally not even wrong.  It is confused, incoherent, a-logical, a-factual where it is not counter-factual, fictional rather than speculative.
The very best you could do with it would be to delete it and start over again, after first learning quite a great deal of physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology, and ecology/environmental science/population genetics.  Then read and study the references already provided multiple times in this thread.  Then think very very carefully and write if you still have anything to say.
Your fundamental mistake is the assumption that there has to be intelligence at the root of all being, all change, all interactions.  You are wrong, or at least you have failed utterly to demonstrate that such should be considered to be the case.  We’re doing quite well without that superstitious and ultimately self-refuting fantasy.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,08:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,23:44)
...
I'm focusing on humans (with as few as possible other examples) because that makes it easy to sum up what is most important to cover in a theory that pertains to the origin of intelligence and its associated instincts, not "natural selection" which makes it possible to ignore all that difficult to explain detail.

No you're not.
You have not provided a single example of standard human-level intelligence, least of all an example that only occurs in humans.
You really don't get this 'example' business, do you?
Nor do you seem to get it that all science begins with accurate descriptions of phenomena -- you're worse than just awful at that.  You have no descriptions of actually occurring phenomena that are remotely accurate or useful, nor free of your own fantasizing.

But most clearly of all, the final clause in your sentence parades your complete and total ignorance of evolution.  Your obsession with 'natural selection', particularly your obsession with pretending that that is all there is to evolution, is ridiculous.  And appallingly ignorant.
You have yet to point out a single fact or phenomenon that evolution ignores yet ought to cover.  That might be something rather important for you to be able to do.  But we know you won't because you can't.  And we hypothesize, with a high degree of confidence, that you can't because you are an ignorant and uneducated buffoon with delusions of adequacy and a deep need for verbal abuse.  Why else would you still be here, still unpolishing your turd of a 'theory'?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,09:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,06:10)
Quote
Offspring developing inside an egg shell can still be considered their "young" but I'll see what I can do, without ruining a paragraph that I personally like. At the moment I'm overtired and for all I know I'll hate the changes I already made to it, after I read the section again tomorrow.
Of course offspring in protective egg shells are still their young, but fish eggs don't have a shell (go to a bait store and look at salmon eggs, or check out a jar of caviar), and salmon don't "protect their young" in any way whatsoever: nearly all of them die after spawning and in the few types of salmon that don't all immediately die, the few surviving parents leave immediately.  Again, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....0BfRorA

At one level, this is such an easy fix, as I've pointed out numerous times before: if you want to cite an example of some fish protecting their young, choose one of the fish that actually do that.  There are many great examples: sticklebacks, seahorses, pipefishes, redlip blennies, & some of the cichlids.  However, at another level, fish are the nearly the worst possible example you could choose*, as fish show all imaginable manners of parental care, from none to lots, by both parents, or just by fathers, or just by mothers, or by neither, with some lovely transitions, following nice evolutionary lineages, in degrees that turn out to be perfectly explainable by standard evolutionary theory (specifically, by natural selection).  Needless to say, there is a huge literature on the subject of which you appear entirely clueless, including every textbook on fish and every textbook that has a chapter on reproduction-related behavior in vertebrates.  However, here are some great detailed resources to get you started:

http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross......985.pdf
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....1800310
http://www.tfhmagazine.com/details....ids.htm
http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/content....bstract
http://link.springer.com/article....#page-1
See also all the stuff on redlip blennies by Deloach and Humann.

*along with invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds, which likewise all show a full range of parental care from none to lots: e.g. check out megapodes.

Lots of hypotheses have been proposed and tested to explain different degrees and patterns of parental care, such as Fisher's principle, Clutton-Brock's modification, Trivers' theory, and Bateman's principle.  These are all based on quantitative predictions from natural selection, and after all that work biologists have become very good at predicting and explaining oddities in parental care systems, such as why in mammals parental care is primarily maternal with differing amounts of participation from the fathers, and why in fish most parental care is paternal rather than maternal.  

But you don't know any of that, so you just blithely blow in with entirely uninformed blathering about the way you (incorrectly) think things are and how that supposedly supports your not-even-wrong not-a-theory.

Now let's move on to what you don't seem to know regarding crocodiles.  Did you know that parental care varies in crocodilians?  In caimans alone, it varies between local populations.  Guess what controls the variation?  (Answer: local variations in selective pressures.)

Just for the record, you're not going to apologize for your libel about quote-mining, right?

I saw a YouTube video showing salmon protecting their nest. The males were nipping each others fins when they got too close. That would help explain why some stay upstream.

Another fish example is possible. But I would still rather salmon.

I'll apologize if you apologize.

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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,09:31   

Unlike you, I don't have anything to apologize for.  I haven't been dishonest in my accusations, unlike you.  

Did you intend your conclusions to be relevant only to humans, or were they supposed to be more general?

Why on earth do you prefer salmon as an example of parental care?  They do prepare a redd (nest), but beyond that they exhibit rock-bottom nothingness on the spectrum of parental care, equivalent to corals, oak trees, and for that matter rocks.  You did indeed link to a video of one salmon chasing another, but as I explained at the time you misinterpreted what was going on.  They do that to monopolize choice nesting sites, in order to attract females prior to laying and fertilizing eggs, to herd a female, or to chase another male away from a female who is about to lay her eggs (they are very aggressive during courtship, but courtship is not parental care). They do not do that to protect redds with young: once they've finished spawning and finned some gravel over the fertilized eggs, the vast majority of salmon (all of them in most types of salmon) die very quickly.  In the exceptional types of salmon that don't all die, the few that don't die leave immediately - none of them "remain upstream".  (You are just tripling down on an idiocy here.)  None of them show any further interest in their nests or their fertilized eggs after spawning.  Salmon don't eat at this stage in their lives (their digestive tracts atrophy and their stomachs disintegrate once they enter fresh water, to make room for and provide nutrient for their gonads, and some salmon go sixteen weeks without eating), so they don't pose a threat to the young. So why would the salmon need to protect their young against other adult salmon?

However, step back for a second and look at the larger picture: you are pushing examples of parental care to indicate that that is fundamental biological behavior that your ideas explain. Parental care is not fundamental, and your ideas don't explain it.  In contrast, theory related to natural selection explains it all very nicely.  Epic fail, on your part.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,09:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2014,10:13)
...
Another fish example is possible. But I would still rather salmon.

I'll apologize if you apologize.
...

One would hope that another fish example would be possible.  You don't have a theory if it doesn't generalize to multiple cases.  Of course, you struggle with that given your repeated rejection of standard theories for being 'generalizations'.  All theories are generalizations, from specifics.  Your nonsense doesn't have any specifics on which it is built, so it fails.  Fails spectacularly, as we continue to point out.

Salmon are a ridiculously poor example -- Discus would be far better as they exhibit a much wider range of interesting behaviors your "theory" cannot begin to address.  Or Betta splendens.  Or any of the mouth-brooding cichlids.
Oh, wait, that's why you prefer Salmon -- there is no there there, so there's nothing for any of your critics to get a grip on, there's nothing to explain, so it is one of the cases your "theory" 'explains'.  Got it.
A vacuity inside a nullity inside an idiot.

As to apologies -- who has done anything for which you are owed an apology?  Be specific, with a link and details as to why you should get an apology for the linked item.
Rudeness in the face of your appalling general behavior and your delusional stance on the issues, is hardly apology worthy.  Not after you've spent 345 pages avoiding any and every attempt to get you to grapple with honest and, at least initially, sincere, criticism of your work.

Whereas you, on the other hand, have directly accused multiple posters of explicit dishonesty here within the last 5 pages of the thread.  You've been called on it, what you did is clearly wrong, and yet you assert "You'll apologize if we will."  Another case of your presumption of parallelism where none exists.
We have countered your recent accusations of dishonesty with support for why the responses were honest and accurate.  The least you could do would be provide the actual cases of offense for which you are demanding an apology.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,15:34   

http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....051.htm

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,16:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,16:34)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....051.htm

Cool.
It's very hard to tell from the article, but it appears that this is not a standard von Neumann architecture.  That alone would offer significant potential to researchers, as the vN architecture is demonstrably ill-suited to brain modeling or intelligence research.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,19:45   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Unlike you, I don't have anything to apologize for.  I haven't been dishonest in my accusations, unlike you.


In my honest opinion you were so making a mountain out of a molehill (that only needed one qualifier word to fix it) you were over the line that time.

In your opinion it's just more of the usual yanking my chain.

Legally, if either one of us brought this matter to court they would assume we have to be kidding then start laughing even harder after reading more of this thread.

There is not much of a case here, for either of us. It's best we settle out of court with arbitration where I don't have to apologize to you, if you don't want to apologize to me, then we're even.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Did you intend your conclusions to be relevant only to humans, or were they supposed to be more general?


This Conclusion section follows the Speciation section that ends the theory reaching us, humans, with double period for a very long but not infinite time since then.

 
Quote
Therefore where "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome primate, the result of chromosome fusion speciation, there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us..


The only way to keep the theory flowing properly is to top that, with a Conclusion that goes in the forward direction (future) into triple period infinite time, best conceptualized by the Everything Is Energy video. It thus ends with "forever through generations of time..."

This theory does not try to reinvent the wheel. It leaves what happened during the time in between to archaeology and paleontology, which already studies it. Where Darwinian theory is all you need to keep making progress then that's fine by me. In fact I expect that where what matters is knowing how to read the stratigraphy and talent finding fossils, not what was going on in the brains they once had in their now empty heads or how many systematic levels of intelligence they had, which is a question for intelligence theory with an Occam's Razor minimal code model. You need the right theory, to get the job done right.

The Conclusion section has to connect our systematics based fusion produced Chromosomal Adam and Eve marker for us humans to the next biggest questions that connect from there such as how our consciousness works, to better know where “love” comes from (as per FTK's standards).

You have to try seeing it as connecting scientific points together into a path to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The theory starts with behavior of matter on into self-assembly then origin of very first intelligent life from molecules then levels of intelligence to us where Chromosomal Adam and Eve only had to be able to think like us and likely to go running for clothes too especially when it gets cold. Exact skeletal morphology does not matter the only thing that does is that they for good left the 48 design that over time made all a zoo animal, not the zoo-keeper.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Why on earth do you prefer salmon as an example of parental care?  They do prepare a redd (nest), but beyond that they exhibit rock-bottom nothingness on the spectrum of parental care, equivalent to corals, oak trees, and for that matter rocks.  You did indeed link to a video of one salmon chasing another, but as I explained at the time you misinterpreted what was going on.  They do that to monopolize choice nesting sites, in order to attract females prior to laying and fertilizing eggs, to herd a female, or to chase another male away from a female who is about to lay her eggs (they are very aggressive during courtship, but courtship is not parental care). They do not do that to protect redds with young: once they've finished spawning and finned some gravel over the fertilized eggs, the vast majority of salmon (all of them in most types of salmon) die very quickly.  In the exceptional types of salmon that don't all die, the few that don't die leave immediately - none of them "remain upstream".  (You are just tripling down on an idiocy here.)  None of them show any further interest in their nests or their fertilized eggs after spawning.  Salmon don't eat at this stage in their lives (some salmon go sixteen weeks without eating: their digestive tracts atrophy and their stomachs disintegrate once they enter fresh water, to make room for and provide nutrient for their gonads), so they don't pose a threat to the young, so why would the salmon be protecting them against other adult salmon?

However, step back for a second and look at the larger picture: you are pushing examples of parental care to indicate that that is fundamental biological behavior that your ideas explain. Parental care is not fundamental, and your ideas don't explain it.  In contrast, theory related to natural selection explains it all very nicely.  Epic fail, on your part.


Like it or not the theory needs to know what is going on in the minds of salmon, and this is where teachers are already heading:

Quote

Sound Salmon Background Information for teachers

When salmon reach their spawning grounds males and females pair off. Females look for rippling waters and clean streambed gravel that can be swept aside with broad tail strokes. The scooped-out gravel forms a depression about the shape of the female's body but twice as long. Males compete to spawn with the female. Sometimes smaller males called jacks are also present. Jack salmon are small because they migrate after only a year in the ocean but can spawn nevertheless. The female deposits some of her eggs in the redd and the male fertilizes them with a milky cloud of sperm called milt. Eggs are laid in batches deposited within the redd. Spawners guard the nest to protect it from intruders. Most Pacific salmon die within one to two weeks after spawning.



--------------
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: April 29 2014,20:19   

And!

YouTube - Male Salmon guarding its nest

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2014,20:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2014,19:45)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Unlike you, I don't have anything to apologize for.  I haven't been dishonest in my accusations, unlike you.


In my honest opinion you were so making a mountain out of a molehill (that only needed one qualifier word to fix it) you were over the line that time.

In your opinion it's just more of the usual yanking my chain.

Legally, if either one of us brought this matter to court they would assume we have to be kidding then start laughing even harder after reading more of this thread.

There is not much of a case here, for either of us. It's best we settle out of court with arbitration where I don't have to apologize to you, if you don't want to apologize to me, then we're even.

         
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Did you intend your conclusions to be relevant only to humans, or were they supposed to be more general?


This Conclusion section follows the Speciation section that ends the theory reaching us, humans, with double period for a very long but not infinite time since then.

         
Quote
Therefore where "human" is operationally defined as a 46 chromosome primate, the result of chromosome fusion speciation, there is the genetic signature of a man and a woman progenitor couple expressing the new human design who deserve the colloquial name of Chromosomal Adam and Eve, whose descendants preferred to be with their own kind, through time, all the way from them to us..


The only way to keep the theory flowing properly is to top that, with a Conclusion that goes in the forward direction (future) into triple period infinite time, best conceptualized by the Everything Is Energy video. It thus ends with "forever through generations of time..."

This theory does not try to reinvent the wheel. It leaves what happened during the time in between to archaeology and paleontology, which already studies it. Where Darwinian theory is all you need to keep making progress then that's fine by me. In fact I expect that where what matters is knowing how to read the stratigraphy and talent finding fossils, not what was going on in the brains they once had in their now empty heads or how many systematic levels of intelligence they had, which is a question for intelligence theory with an Occam's Razor minimal code model. You need the right theory, to get the job done right.

The Conclusion section has to connect our systematics based fusion produced Chromosomal Adam and Eve marker for us humans to the next biggest questions that connect from there such as how our consciousness works, to better know where “love” comes from (as per FTK's standards).

You have to try seeing it as connecting scientific points together into a path to follow the evidence wherever it leads. The theory starts with behavior of matter on into self-assembly then origin of very first intelligent life from molecules then levels of intelligence to us where Chromosomal Adam and Eve only had to be able to think like us and likely to go running for clothes too especially when it gets cold. Exact skeletal morphology does not matter the only thing that does is that they for good left the 48 design that over time made all a zoo animal, not the zoo-keeper.

         
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,09:31)
Why on earth do you prefer salmon as an example of parental care?  They do prepare a redd (nest), but beyond that they exhibit rock-bottom nothingness on the spectrum of parental care, equivalent to corals, oak trees, and for that matter rocks.  You did indeed link to a video of one salmon chasing another, but as I explained at the time you misinterpreted what was going on.  They do that to monopolize choice nesting sites, in order to attract females prior to laying and fertilizing eggs, to herd a female, or to chase another male away from a female who is about to lay her eggs (they are very aggressive during courtship, but courtship is not parental care). They do not do that to protect redds with young: once they've finished spawning and finned some gravel over the fertilized eggs, the vast majority of salmon (all of them in most types of salmon) die very quickly.  In the exceptional types of salmon that don't all die, the few that don't die leave immediately - none of them "remain upstream".  (You are just tripling down on an idiocy here.)  None of them show any further interest in their nests or their fertilized eggs after spawning.  Salmon don't eat at this stage in their lives (some salmon go sixteen weeks without eating: their digestive tracts atrophy and their stomachs disintegrate once they enter fresh water, to make room for and provide nutrient for their gonads), so they don't pose a threat to the young, so why would the salmon be protecting them against other adult salmon?

However, step back for a second and look at the larger picture: you are pushing examples of parental care to indicate that that is fundamental biological behavior that your ideas explain. Parental care is not fundamental, and your ideas don't explain it.  In contrast, theory related to natural selection explains it all very nicely.  Epic fail, on your part.


Like it or not the theory needs to know what is going on in the minds of salmon, and this is where teachers are already heading:

       
Quote

Sound Salmon Background Information for teachers

When salmon reach their spawning grounds males and females pair off. Females look for rippling waters and clean streambed gravel that can be swept aside with broad tail strokes. The scooped-out gravel forms a depression about the shape of the female's body but twice as long. Males compete to spawn with the female. Sometimes smaller males called jacks are also present. Jack salmon are small because they migrate after only a year in the ocean but can spawn nevertheless. The female deposits some of her eggs in the redd and the male fertilizes them with a milky cloud of sperm called milt. Eggs are laid in batches deposited within the redd. Spawners guard the nest to protect it from intruders. Most Pacific salmon die within one to two weeks after spawning.


Some lesser stuff first.  You still haven't addressed the problem of your definition of humans including silky marmosets: that will indeed get you laughed at.  Thank you for providing a quote that confirms your earlier errors about salmon.  The males are aggressive toward each other during courtship/nesting, they spawn, and then they quickly die without ever defending their young, so you really should go with something other than salmon to exemplify parental devotion.  As I said, they guard their nest site and access to spawning females prior to fertilization.  They are very aggressive, because other males will attempt to take over the attention of a female, or horn in on prime nesting real estate, or will dash in and try to squirt out some sperm while the female is laying eggs: that's what all the "defending the nest" and "protecting the nest against intruders" is about.  However, after spawning, they bugger off and (with some exceptions in a few species of salmon) die.  They are dead and/or gone before they'd ever get to defend their young.

So you are using nonexistent parental care by salmon as a major argument for equally nonexistent molecular and cellular intelligence!!!  ****Not even wrong.****  

Now for the more serious stuff.  No, I'm not making a mountain out of a molehill.  You invented a charge of dishonesty in the form of quote-mining by claiming that your conclusions section supposedly only talks about humans, when it actually talks about the origins of cellular and molecular intelligence and discusses salmon, crocodiles, and sexual reproduction, and specifically talks about cellular intelligence being responsible for migration behavior, which is most specifically not a human trait.  Moreover, this is the conclusion section to your whole document, which seems to cover just about everything under the sun.

Worse, you did this to avoid admitting that you made numerous mistakes about sexual reproduction.

None of that is fixable with a one-word qualifier.

Your statement about sexual reproduction made a number of "must" and "required" statements, which are about as close as you come anywhere to make some statements that offer the potential for falsifiability.  Since they are wrong, your whole edifice can be said to collapse on these issues alone, so no, it's not making a mountain out of a molehill.

So, first, we are not even, and second, for the legal record, are you refusing to apologize for accusing me of quote-mining?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,01:40   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,20:39)
So, first, we are not even, and second, for the legal record, are you refusing to apologize for accusing me of quote-mining?

For the legal record: Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful.

You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about while NoName spammed the thread with accompanying discredit in a way that was over the line right after my arriving. That just happened to be the point where I had to say enough is enough, misrepresenting what I say as evidence of something else that it is not.

To show the difference between name calling and real-science is this comment from me to a “Sal” who is now apparently into bioinformatics similar to what I used to electronically band chromosome 2 and others for comparison. After noticing their question I spent a day thinking about whether I should link them to Biology-Online or not, but since they are so unusually slow any activity to liven that forum back up again can be welcomed where kept on-topic and civil by his critics. Common sense in regards to the right thing to do by science made it necessary for me to be genuinely helpful to Sal in comments of a bruising blog article written about him by professor Larry Moran:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......2915170

A court only has to look at that to see which of the two of us are being the most socially responsible and honest in regards to the real scientific issues that exist. My ideas are clearly not nonsense, like you represent them to be, by dwelling on sentence details to discredit all that too, at the same time.

I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of, as though a court would actually help you punish me even more for being scientifically useful.

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,05:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,02:40)
For the legal record: Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful.

The scientific credibility your statement presupposes is non-existent, for the legal record.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,06:44   

So that's a "No".

 
Quote
My ideas are clearly not nonsense, like you represent them to be
You cite non-existent parental care in salmon as a prime example of nonexistent levels of intelligence.  (At least, levels that you have yet to document.) You link the emergence of "cellular intelligence" to a bunch of misstatements about what is required in sexual reproduction.  You claim that a computer model of an insect that lacks a pair of legs and somehow gained a pair of hippocampi and which isn't a reproducing population and doesn't have genes somehow manages to disprove natural selection and to demonstrate evolution and the emergence of intelligence.  Everyone (except you) can draw logical conclusions from that.

 
Quote
You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about
A good editor can only fix that sentence by erasing the whole section.  Your mistakes are evident (e.g., I pointed out what you got wrong about what's required in sexual reproduction, and months ago I suggested fish that actually show parental care), but the underlying concepts and logic also fail.  What one qualifying word supposedly fixed the mess you are in?

 
Quote
I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of
That's a fine Wikipedia article and you don't have to apologize for linking to it.  You need to apologize for your false accusation of quote-mining.   NoName, Sal, and the reason for this forum have nothing to do with it.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,07:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,02:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 29 2014,20:39)
So, first, we are not even, and second, for the legal record, are you refusing to apologize for accusing me of quote-mining?

For the legal record:

Pompous much?  Entries posted to a web form are rather far from what is usually considered 'the legal record'.  Not as far as your usage of 'learning', but it does speak to your lack of skills with English and with concepts in general.
 
Quote
Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful.

What scientific credibility?  Seriously, Gary.  Scientific credibility is not the ground state, it is not the starting line, it is not the default.  Your 'Theory of Intelligent Design' has no scientific credibility because it has established none.  Those folks you fantasize about who find it 'scientifically useful' are a delusion of your own making.  You are unable to identify a single individual who finds your "theory" scientifically useful.  That 3 programmers found your software of some interest or value does not speak to any 'scientific value' -- Flappy Birds acquired quite a bit more interest with no scientific value whatsoever.  You should do so well.

 
Quote
You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about while NoName spammed the thread with accompanying discredit in a way that was over the line right after my arriving.

Multiply false to fact.  Although we will take note that you deny claims to being a 'good editor' -- not that this is new news.  N.Wells quoted a sentence, yes.  That is is evidence that you do not know what you are talking about is also true, despite your claims to the contrary.  Particularly in the context of posts from the last week or so, the truth of your lack of knowledge of what you are talking about has been so well established that it takes Gaulinian levels of delusion to pretend otherwise.  We also note that you finally figured out that it is usually wise to provide some support for your claims -- but surely even you know that "I saw a video on YouTube" is hardly compelling.  Nor is it adequate as a reference, for there is no way for anyone to find that specific video you are claiming supports your views.
The claim that I "spammed" the thread is unsupportable merely on the meaning of 'spammed'.  That it happened immediately after your arrival is risible in the extreme.  You arrived at this site roughly 18 months ago.  I did not begin to dig into your effluent for several months -- hardly 'right after you appeared'.  If you mean 'right after I logged back in', well, that's what incompetent English leads to -- confusion in your reader's of just what you are, in fact, claiming.  Worse, that internet interactions are impacted by the individual timing cycles of who is on when is neither new news nor grounds for feeling ill-done-by.
Note, too, that the incidence I believe your are referring to was in direct response to a challenge by you to us to 'now trash this' about a rewrite of material we objected to and which you corrected -- corrected with a massive rewrite.  I took up the challenge and in very little time reduced the new, improved verbiage you thought was bullet proof to a fine pink mist dispersing in the breeze.
I have, as have others, rather thoroughly documented the errors, confusions, contradictions and general lack of sense in your "theory".  That you consider this 'spam' is merely your latest attempt to do anything, anything at all, rather than grapple with the content of the objections raised against your laughable "theory".
The proper response to my and others' objections to your work is to defend your work -- not to whine about it, not to complain that the site is not set up to glorify you and your work, that instead it exists largely to defend evolution against the fools, morons, and malicious intelligent malingerers who attack it, and to have a bit of fun with the more pompous pretentious preening fools who go over the top with their behavior. You chose to be here.  You made such a PITA of yourself that a thread was created to confine your effluent.  You chose to continue in this thread -- for some 345 pages now.  It's rather hard to take your complaints about how badly you are treated seriously when you continue to appear and ponce about with pronouncements, whines, and continuous efforts to do anything except engage with the valid criticism raised against your 'theory'.
The remedy is very simple -- just walk away.  Or acknowledge and grapple with the challenges raised against your work.
Heck, Gary, even on the grounds of your own 'theory', your behavior is not intelligent.  Unless what is happening here is what you want, what you intend to have happen, your "theory" would say an intelligent action would be to change what you are doing.  And continue to do so until you get the  desired result.  If we were to take your "theory" seriously, we would have to think that either you are not 'intelligent' or you have accomplished your goal.
 
Quote
That just happened to be the point where I had to say enough is enough, misrepresenting what I say as evidence of something else that it is not.

You mean like you misrepresent molecular behavior as 'learning', even after having been repeatedly corrected on what the term means?  No one is misrepresenting you, your acts speak for themselves.  It is not necessary to misrepresent what you say to find it false, dishonest, error-laden, lacking in any factual basis, self-contradictory, a lumbering monument to incompetence, dishonesty and conceptual confusion on a grand scale [hat tip to Scott Adams and Dilbert for the phrasing].
If our efforts have so seriously misrepresented you and your work, why have they so often resulted in re-wording, often massively, sections of your document?
And, of course, why are you still here?

 
Quote
To show the difference between name calling and real-science

Pompous condescension ill-becomes you Gary -- you're not qualified to be condescending to anyone.  And as has been noted repeatedly before now -- "real-science" is an anti-semantic construct of no validity and less value.  The hyphen is ridiculous, unnecessary, and undermines your attempt to make sense -- assuming that 'making sense' is ever part of your attempts.

[paean to Slimy Sal deleted]
Quote
I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of, as though a court would actually help you punish me even more for being scientifically useful.

You certainly have a perverse fascination for 'the courts'.  The notion of you bringing suit for anything that has been said in this thread is laughably insane.
It is particularly risible to see you relying on a quote from Wikipedia as what you are being asked to apologize for.  It is especially so in light of your constant refusal to even acknowledge Wikipedia's quotation of the standard meaning of 'learning' which has been repeatedly posted to show how very wrong your usage of the term is.
Your offenses include incorrect accusations of dishonesty on the part of other posters here, incorrect accusations of specific motives on the part of individuals here, and high crimes and misdemeanors committed against the English language and her speakers.  The first two certainly require apology from moral, ethical, or merely civilized individuals.  Your failure to behave in ways you demand of others is yet another of the character flaws you parade around here while whining about how badly you are treated.
Get over yourself.  Act like a responsible adult (take an acting class if necessary).  Respond to the criticisms raised against your "theory" and your evaluations of it and your software.  Seek medical help if necessary to help you establish greater contact with reality.
Or go away.  As ye have sown, so ye have reaped.  Even your "theory", which is, by and  large, not even wrong, gets this part right -- it is intelligent behavior to try things out and abandon the ones that don't work.  You haven't abandoned this thread, which means either you are not intelligent or you consider this to be 'working'.  Or, you're a desperate attention-whore who has nowhere else to go to get the attention you crave, regardless of whether the attention is positive or negative.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,08:22   

Quote
For the legal record: Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful.

For the legal record, hahaha.

You have never been able to identify a single person, let alone a group you describe as "all of those," who finds your "theory" scientifically useful.  This is because there are no such persons.
 
Quote
You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about while NoName spammed the thread with accompanying discredit in a way that was over the line right after my arriving. That just happened to be the point where I had to say enough is enough, misrepresenting what I say as evidence of something else that it is not.
Your whole "theory" is so poorly written and wrong that it's impossible to actually quote mine any of it to any signifcant effect.  We can't dishonestly make it seem like you hold a position that you don't hold if your position is completely incomprehensible.  The proper thing for you to have done, after it was explained that the problem is on your end, would have been to make corrections such that your premises are clear and unequivocal.  When problems with your prose are pointed out to you, you either ignore the criticism, make excuses, or otherwise act as if the entire world is at fault for not understanding Gaulinese.  
 
Quote
To show the difference between name calling and real-science is this comment from me to a “Sal” who is now apparently into bioinformatics similar to what I used to electronically band chromosome 2 and others for comparison. After noticing their question I spent a day thinking about whether I should link them to Biology-Online or not, but since they are so unusually slow any activity to liven that forum back up again can be welcomed where kept on-topic and civil by his critics. Common sense in regards to the right thing to do by science made it necessary for me to be genuinely helpful to Sal in comments of a bruising blog article written about him by professor Larry Moran:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......2915170

This makes no sense whatsoever.  It's a mess of incomprehensible word salad, and your failure to make yourself clear is at fault.  Why waste the time communicating if no one is going to understand you?
 
Quote
A court only has to look at that to see which of the two of us are being the most socially responsible and honest in regards to the real scientific issues that exist. My ideas are clearly not nonsense, like you represent them to be, by dwelling on sentence details to discredit all that too, at the same time.

Crackpot Index, #36
Your ideas clearly ARE nonsense, and you've done nothing of merit (such as providing evidence, defining key terms, etc.) to indicate that they are anything other than nonsense.  "Dwelling on sentence details" is us trying to make you understand that your writing is abysmal and incoherent, and your continuing impotent deflection of those criticisms makes it clear that you don't take yourself seriously.  Why should anyone else?
 
Quote
I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of, as though a court would actually help you punish me even more for being scientifically useful.
If you've been disgraced, you've done it to yourself.  The Wikipedia article is completely irrelevant because we all understand what quote mining is--it's one of the favorite tactics of creationists.  Finally, once again, you've provided no evidence whatsoever that your "theory" and program are scientifically useful.  This is your own personal delusion.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,08:44   

Just for laughs, here's  the Wikipedia definition of electronic spam/spamming.
Does Gary think his accusation against me stands?
Quote
Electronic spamming is the use of electronic messaging systems to send unsolicited bulk messages (spam), especially advertising, indiscriminately. While the most widely recognized form of spam is e-mail spam, the term is applied to similar abuses in other media: instant messaging spam, Usenet newsgroup spam, Web search engine spam, spam in blogs, wiki spam, online classified ads spam, mobile phone messaging spam, Internet forum spam, junk fax transmissions, social spam, television advertising and file sharing spam. It is named after Spam, a luncheon meat, by way of a Monty Python sketch in which Spam is included in every dish.[1]

Spamming remains economically viable because advertisers have no operating costs beyond the management of their mailing lists, and it is difficult to hold senders accountable for their mass mailings. Because the barrier to entry is so low, spammers are numerous, and the volume of unsolicited mail has become very high. In the year 2011, the estimated figure for spam messages is around seven trillion. The costs, such as lost productivity and fraud, are borne by the public and by Internet service providers, which have been forced to add extra capacity to cope with the deluge. Spamming has been the subject of legislation in many jurisdictions.[2]


Quite clearly, my responses to Gary's posts do not count as spam -- they are not advertising, the are not unwanted (save only by Gary), often they are not unsolicited("Now trash this...").
Poor Gary -- so many words, so few meanings.  Anti-semantic appears to be his basic mode of operation.
ROFLMAO

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,15:43   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,06:44)
So that's a "No".

     
Quote
My ideas are clearly not nonsense, like you represent them to be
You cite non-existent parental care in salmon as a prime example of nonexistent levels of intelligence.  (At least, levels that you have yet to document.) You link the emergence of "cellular intelligence" to a bunch of misstatements about what is required in sexual reproduction.  You claim that a computer model of an insect that lacks a pair of legs and somehow gained a pair of hippocampi and which isn't a reproducing population and doesn't have genes somehow manages to disprove natural selection and to demonstrate evolution and the emergence of intelligence.  Everyone (except you) can draw logical conclusions from that.

     
Quote
You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about
A good editor can only fix that sentence by erasing the whole section.  Your mistakes are evident (e.g., I pointed out what you got wrong about what's required in sexual reproduction, and months ago I suggested fish that actually show parental care), but the underlying concepts and logic also fail.  What one qualifying word supposedly fixed the mess you are in?

     
Quote
I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of
That's a fine Wikipedia article and you don't have to apologize for linking to it.  You need to apologize for your false accusation of quote-mining.   NoName, Sal, and the reason for this forum have nothing to do with it.

After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.

It's actually legally very fair, and right after this came to my mind the thought of where that can lead from there led to loud laughter that woke up my wife. I right away knew that giving you the opportunity to correct my labeling was the right thing to do.

What do you have to bargain with? Be realistic or it has to be assumed you willfully chose to refuse this reasonable offer.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,15:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,16:43)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,06:44)
So that's a "No".

     
Quote
My ideas are clearly not nonsense, like you represent them to be
You cite non-existent parental care in salmon as a prime example of nonexistent levels of intelligence.  (At least, levels that you have yet to document.) You link the emergence of "cellular intelligence" to a bunch of misstatements about what is required in sexual reproduction.  You claim that a computer model of an insect that lacks a pair of legs and somehow gained a pair of hippocampi and which isn't a reproducing population and doesn't have genes somehow manages to disprove natural selection and to demonstrate evolution and the emergence of intelligence.  Everyone (except you) can draw logical conclusions from that.

     
Quote
You quoted a sentence that any good editor would know how to fix or suggest removing the unnecessary detail as evidence that I do not know what I am talking about
A good editor can only fix that sentence by erasing the whole section.  Your mistakes are evident (e.g., I pointed out what you got wrong about what's required in sexual reproduction, and months ago I suggested fish that actually show parental care), but the underlying concepts and logic also fail.  What one qualifying word supposedly fixed the mess you are in?

     
Quote
I would only be further unfairly disgraced by having to apologize for linking to a Wikipedia article for "Fallacy of quoting out of context" that you are now making a big issue out of
That's a fine Wikipedia article and you don't have to apologize for linking to it.  You need to apologize for your false accusation of quote-mining.   NoName, Sal, and the reason for this forum have nothing to do with it.

After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.

It's actually legally very fair, and right after this came to my mind the thought of where that can lead from there led to loud laughter that woke up my wife. I right away knew that giving you the opportunity to correct my labeling was the right thing to do.

What do you have to bargain with? Be realistic or it has to be assumed you willfully chose to refuse this reasonable offer.

ROFLMAO.
Gary, you are even less qualified to talk about 'legally very fair' than you are to talk about the modern evolutionary synthesis.
You're a buffoon.

The offer is not reasonable, for N.Wells no more quote mined you nor treated you unfairly than I lied about your claims vis a vis 'molecular intelligence'.  You  let that rejoinder slide by, perhaps because it quoted your own claims back at you to substantiate the correctness of my point.  You owe me an apology, too, but I'm not bothering to press the claim because you have already established yourself has having zero moral consciousness, zero conscience, and, well, no more familiarity with proper behavior than with intelligence -- you've heard about it but you've never experienced it first hand.

You're the only one here who thinks you don't owe N. Wells an apology -- and it's doubtful that even you seriously believe that.  You are a delusional buffoon and a complete waste of space, but I have to assume you are at least sufficiently in touch with reality to tie your shoes (or fasten the velcro flaps), and that's all that's required to see that you screwed the pooch on this one.

But, of course, it serves your purposes, which are clearly to spend any amount of effort to avoid having to come to grips with the many flaws, errors, and contradictions in that lumbering heap of gibberish you persist in calling a 'theory'.  It isn't.  Your work is not brilliant, nor cutting edge, nor enlightening to science or scientists (other than psychology researchers studying delusional behavior and other such matters, perhaps).

Your ideas are clearly nonsense, not least because they are not clear in any other sense of the term.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,16:12   

Quote
After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.
BS.  Neither of those is a serious offer. Again, I'm not asking you to apologize for linking to Wikipedia: that is a fine link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Rather, you accused me of quote-mining, which is a form of dishonesty.  I complained on the basis of an accurate reading of a bunch of uninformed mistakes that you made, none of which was quoted out of context.  You have tried to justify the charge by saying that you were referring only to people, but that is clearly a bogus defense as the quoted material sits in a broadly written section that bounces from the origins of different supposed "levels of intelligence" through salmon and crocodiles to humans and which constitutes the conclusions to your whole document.  Therefore, you are wrong in your charge and you owe me an apology.  No bargaining on my part is required.  What is required is a straight-forward apology from you for incorrectly impugning my honesty.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,18:49   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,16:12)
Quote
After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.
BS.  Neither of those is a serious offer. Again, I'm not asking you to apologize for linking to Wikipedia: that is a fine link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Rather, you accused me of quote-mining, which is a form of dishonesty.  I complained on the basis of an accurate reading of a bunch of uninformed mistakes that you made, none of which was quoted out of context.  You have tried to justify the charge by saying that you were referring only to people, but that is clearly a bogus defense as the quoted material sits in a broadly written section that bounces from the origins of different supposed "levels of intelligence" through salmon and crocodiles to humans and which constitutes the conclusions to your whole document.  Therefore, you are wrong in your charge and you owe me an apology.  No bargaining on my part is required.  What is required is a straight-forward apology from you for incorrectly impugning my honesty.

This serious offer to make an apology deal has me expecting Gary to demand you buy him a camera, Kwok-style.

--------------
"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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3502
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,20:19   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 30 2014,16:49)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,16:12)
 
Quote
After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.
BS.  Neither of those is a serious offer. Again, I'm not asking you to apologize for linking to Wikipedia: that is a fine link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Rather, you accused me of quote-mining, which is a form of dishonesty.  I complained on the basis of an accurate reading of a bunch of uninformed mistakes that you made, none of which was quoted out of context.  You have tried to justify the charge by saying that you were referring only to people, but that is clearly a bogus defense as the quoted material sits in a broadly written section that bounces from the origins of different supposed "levels of intelligence" through salmon and crocodiles to humans and which constitutes the conclusions to your whole document.  Therefore, you are wrong in your charge and you owe me an apology.  No bargaining on my part is required.  What is required is a straight-forward apology from you for incorrectly impugning my honesty.

This serious offer to make an apology deal has me expecting Gary to demand you buy him a camera, Kwok-style.

Kwok is a bastion of rationality compared to this loon.

--------------
"[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: April 30 2014,21:55   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 30 2014,05:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,02:40)
For the legal record: Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful.

The scientific credibility your statement presupposes is non-existent, for the legal record.


You are digging up an ID past that Dover and other communities already happily left behind, in part through a Theory of Intelligent Design that was in a sense conceived by them and they have no reason to be ashamed of what developed, which for the sake of science is now entertaining your merciless forum.

Dover and other places will not go off on much of a news frenzy after finding out what you're all stirred up about. In fact some of the best ideas in the theory came from their community forum, where in time things gelled and they helped tease something new to life for all to look back at and be proud of. Several choice topics are:

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....sion-35

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-mokris

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-design

http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-online

I spent my time where the action was, angry people were. At this point a theory that even ID haters helped tease along is way old news in Dover and Kansas where Kathy Martin is now legendary in a good way while public education ended up ahead of others in self-assembly and other things that were before their time back then, that are now in a school near you almost everywhere.

You are scientifically powerless against a theory that connects to novel minimal code computer models scientists still in K-12 need for ideas for novel class projects of their own intelligent design, while Sal is into some kind of bioinformatics that has the scientists he mentioned now posting very useful comments to them, in Larry's thread to ridicule his strange sounding IDeas.

You can't fight a seether that like a Living Dead Girl 24/7 dances away into culture using many voices, born from not caring what you think about these things. The Discovery Institute did not have anything that makes such a concept come to life, where things like NOT being a robot helps focus a science revolution where theory pertaining to what we feel allows peer review that suddenly appears on YouTube, that I sure could not create, or even expected. It might have been coincidence, maybe not. In either case it's there, and all I have to do is give credit where due and make sure the mad-scientists in the home robot labs know about not all being as thrilled as they are by seeing a robot take their first steps and other things where it's expected that they take great pride in making happen, but which to others can get like new parents boring guests with hours of baby pictures of their children. Admirable, but that can easily be overdone. Then the dreaded unintended consequences happen, like none wanting to visit them anymore. The theory accepts not being a robot type thinking, so that the other way of seeing things that has its own cute in a maternal way place, without conflict with biology that goes into consciousness and beyond that is another area of science anyway.

Everything scientifically fits together in a way that clears the path ahead for this Theory of Intelligent Design off in a direction scientists who want to go another are happy seeing Sal and others go off towards, away from them. Now there is something going on in the information that he and others are working from that makes the literature sort of erroneous but where ID is heading not all may be lost by leading to something from it that is even more interesting, after Sal gets done with it.

As I keep reminding everyone the key is in learning how to lighten up and just get used to some having to see the Theory of Intelligent Design seriously attempted or not doing so forever festers in a way that leads to social conflict that has you saber rattling in court over something that could have been settled in a scientific arena, not a legal one. My so easily finding comedy in thoughts of bringing it there is from even the NCSE being completely powerless against an article Larry wrote against Sal that is working out for both of them. It's another unbelievable sounding but true moment in science brought to you by a Theory of Intelligent Design that did NOT even exist in the old days and is NOT controlled by the Discovery Institute it's something already there on Google blogs and in forums that provide starting points the ID movement can work from. A couple of links from me to scientifically noncontroversial bioinformatics at Biology-Online in turn makes all sorts of scientifically interesting things happen that otherwise could not.

There is nothing illegal about being scientifically empowering to those who did ask a good question. Or my coding Intelligence Design Labs. Or this for Sal maybe being like Sandwalk has finally been conquered. A court would find all this good clean science fun, and be thankful something like this was 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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2014,23:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,16:12)
Quote
After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.
BS.  Neither of those is a serious offer. Again, I'm not asking you to apologize for linking to Wikipedia: that is a fine link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Rather, you accused me of quote-mining, which is a form of dishonesty.  I complained on the basis of an accurate reading of a bunch of uninformed mistakes that you made, none of which was quoted out of context.  You have tried to justify the charge by saying that you were referring only to people, but that is clearly a bogus defense as the quoted material sits in a broadly written section that bounces from the origins of different supposed "levels of intelligence" through salmon and crocodiles to humans and which constitutes the conclusions to your whole document.  Therefore, you are wrong in your charge and you owe me an apology.  No bargaining on my part is required.  What is required is a straight-forward apology from you for incorrectly impugning my honesty.

Just leave it at my having made it clear that you like yanking my chain, which has nothing to do with your honesty, it's the result of my having been yanked!

That was the best I could up with to describe what it felt like. And I then went into more detail about how with NoName and others prodding it becomes absurd to ridiculous in a way it's just part of the routine in this thread, where we now know that salmon do in fact stay to defend a nest they put much energy into making and simply do not want to leave. They are choosing to defend their progeny, till death, from a couple weeks or so in that water. It's impossible to be any more maternally devoted than that. Something for us to be humbled by, not belittle.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,07:05   

Quote
where we now know that salmon do in fact stay to defend a nest they put much energy into making and simply do not want to leave. They are choosing to defend their progeny, till death, from a couple weeks or so in that water. It's impossible to be any more maternally devoted than that. Something for us to be humbled by, not belittle.
 And now you add in another error.  In Pacific salmon, the females find a nice gravel bar, use their tail to make a small depression, deposit some eggs, and males try to chase each other off so that they are the ones that get to fertilize the eggs.  The female uses her tail to brush a little gravel over the eggs, and moves upstream to repeat the process until she runs out of eggs.  They make up to seven depressions.  Moving upstream means that the gravel brushed out of each depression helps cover the previous nest site.  The process of making the nest cannot be said to use much energy: the river is doing most of the work of moving the gravel.  Offhand, I can't think of a creature that can be said to make a nest that puts less energy into nest-making.

Bear in mind that you are citing parental care as something that is an innate result of all your "intelligence levels".  Life is geared to reproducing genes, but there are lots of wrinkles that evolutionary theory explains very well, but which are not explained by your ideas: sterile workers in social insects, species that have no parental care, species that die after reproduction (adult mayflies don't eat: just hatch, mate, and die), and so on.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2014,07:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 01 2014,00:02)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 30 2014,16:12)
 
Quote
After thinking about it it seemed fair to make you a serious offer.

If you can find an even better fancy sounding name to link to at Wikipedia that I could have used (maybe containing the Latin "absurdum" word somewhere) then I can apologize for not calling it that instead.
BS.  Neither of those is a serious offer. Again, I'm not asking you to apologize for linking to Wikipedia: that is a fine link and has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Rather, you accused me of quote-mining, which is a form of dishonesty.  I complained on the basis of an accurate reading of a bunch of uninformed mistakes that you made, none of which was quoted out of context.  You have tried to justify the charge by saying that you were referring only to people, but that is clearly a bogus defense as the quoted material sits in a broadly written section that bounces from the origins of different supposed "levels of intelligence" through salmon and crocodiles to humans and which constitutes the conclusions to your whole document.  Therefore, you are wrong in your charge and you owe me an apology.  No bargaining on my part is required.  What is required is a straight-forward apology from you for incorrectly impugning my honesty.

Just leave it at my having made it clear that you like yanking my chain, which has nothing to do with your honesty, it's the result of my having been yanked!

That was the best I could up with to describe what it felt like. And I then went into more detail about how with NoName and others prodding it becomes absurd to ridiculous in a way it's just part of the routine in this thread, where we now know that salmon do in fact stay to defend a nest they put much energy into making and simply do not want to leave. They are choosing to defend their progeny, till death, from a couple weeks or so in that water. It's impossible to be any more maternally devoted than that. Something for us to be humbled by, not belittle.

Right, everything is everybody else's fault.
What a prima donna!

Who cares what it felt like?  What's the relevance of that to a discussion of the merits or lack thereof in your "theory"?
That you are incapable of carrying on a discussion is not our fault, it is yours.  And so too are all the fruits of your relentless attempts to avoid any discussion of any flaw anyone finds in your "theory" at any time.

And, as N.Wells notes, you are still wrong about salmon.
Nobody is belittling them, but you are lying about them.
I'd say that's the more heinous of the two acts.

  
  18633 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 340 341 342 343 344 [345] 346 347 348 349 350 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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