RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (412) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Woodbine



Posts: 795
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,17:11   

I have some good questions, Gary!

1) Why do you keep posting that PSC badge in your signature in every forum you inhabit?
1b) Do you believe it helps or hinders your mission?

2) Is there anyone on the planet Earth besides yourself using your 'theory' in any way, shape or form?

3) How many more forums do you think you will have to visit after this one before it sinks in that nobody understands a word you are saying?

4) How many more times do you need to be reminded what a scientific theory is before it sinks in?

5) How many more times do you need to be asked what your theory explains or predicts before it sinks in that whatever you claim to be doing - it isn't science.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10310
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,17:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,16:56)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 15 2012,16:37)
 
Quote
'Sports' The position of one who draws no opponent for a round in a tournament and so advances to the next round. Idiom: by the bye/by.


I.E. you are giving up. As let's face it your responses are becoming less and less relevant to anything at all that's been said in this thread.

I am not going anywhere. I'm still here waiting for something better than brush-offs. And do sometimes get good questions, like from The whole truth who has asked good ones.

Then present something other than 'batshit crazy non predictions'. And learn what a theory is. And attacking science in general isn't going t help you. And VB Script and shit diagrams isn't really going to help your cause either.

And I start sentences with and.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 8994
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,17:14   

Also, let us know what your actual theory is. I read that 40+ pages of jibber-jabber you wrote and could not locate a theory in it.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,18:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2012,18:14)
Also, let us know what your actual theory is. I read that 40+ pages of jibber-jabber you wrote and could not locate a theory in it.

you read all that shit!!!????



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10310
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,19:05   

Read this. Then imagine how epic a seperate thread for Gary Gygax could have been!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,19:16   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 15 2012,19:05)
Read this. Then imagine how epic a seperate thread for Gary Gygax could have been!

If you could have gotten him to come to our slime pit... if only.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,23:19   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 15 2012,17:11)
I have some good questions, Gary!

1) Why do you keep posting that PSC badge in your signature in every forum you inhabit?
1b) Do you believe it helps or hinders your mission?

2) Is there anyone on the planet Earth besides yourself using your 'theory' in any way, shape or form?

3) How many more forums do you think you will have to visit after this one before it sinks in that nobody understands a word you are saying?

4) How many more times do you need to be reminded what a scientific theory is before it sinks in?

5) How many more times do you need to be asked what your theory explains or predicts before it sinks in that whatever you claim to be doing - it isn't science.

1, the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that. And 1b it's my mission to make sure they are proudly represented and credited not sidelined in a forum where some will always instead demand respect of some pompous tribunal, which even needs to judge theory with recent controversial philosophy to get the answer they want.

2 only helps show how out of touch with the rest of the planet your opinion is, which leads to 3,4,5 not being worth answering. Reality is, that programmers, school board members, artists, politicians and others found this theory useful for answering questions they had in regards to the scientific merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design and what a theory is and is not. I already explained how in Kansas the US laws and ethics combines to add an unresolved public hearing requiring a number of years after that to even begin to resolve, and all that takes the outcome of this theory very seriously. It's a learning thing, at the citizenry level, that the law of the land wants to happen too. Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud. So for whatever it's worth, here again is the link to what is to be fairly judged to be science or not:

Theory of Intelliget Design - Download Page with 3 Formats (including pdf)

And of course:

Computer Model with included Theory of Intelligent Design at Planet Source Code

And even though I try not to outdo YouTube videos here's one more to add to your culture collection:

Collective Soul w/ Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

The videos I link to can make a music teacher proud. The theory's art/music model already shows US culture, at its best. And I know you can't beat that with your paradigm either. Really need a theory that is already stuck in a culture war, where in a sense all that need be easily changed is its outcome, by not over-reacting, and other simple basics which all help change the way things go.

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

   
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,23:22   

Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2153
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,00:44   

21 pages of gibberish, self-congratulation, and question dodging later, you still have not shown how this notion of yours is more useful to biologists (or anyone else) than the prevailing paradigm.

By dissing Popper you seem to be saying "Testing? We don't need no stinking testing!"

Of course, no-one really ever knows for sure what you're saying because you're constantly trying too hard to be clever instead of just getting to the fucking point, already.

That's why I've turned to just making fun of you, GG. You refuse to engage in any meaningful way, just spout the same nonsense over and over and over.

You probably think of yourself as "erudite" and "eloquent". I bet KF (aka kairosfocus aka GEM of TKI aka Gordon Mullings) does too.

Like KF, a more accurate description is "windy".

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Quack



Posts: 1786
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,04:41   

OK Gary, you have a theory? (I don't think so but you maybe do?)
If, in the unlikely case that you actually have a theory, insane and useless or not, how do you use your theory? Is it good for anything and if you think so, good for what?

I presume, althought that may be more than deserved, that you properly understand what "theory" means; the implications of something being presented as a theory, and are able to draw the proper conclusions from that.

So what use is a theory if it suggest no experiment and no way to test for a positive or negative result - to determine if the theory is valid, if it should be abandoned, or modified to better suit the purpose and so on and on and on.

You got some work before you my lad, and the first is to fix the tumbleweed of your brain.

Just think, if you can, that I only ever spent seven years in school, have no scientifc training - and yet I can write coherent sentences dealing with subjects in intelligible terms, and in English to boot - another of all the subjects that I've been able to learn all by myself!

I could go on for pages and readers would not be in any doubt of what I want to say, while you crank out endless reams of gibberish. It ain' t even funny.

--------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself — and you are the easiest person to fool.
                                                                                               Richard Feynman

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,04:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,23:19)
Reality is, that programmers, school board members, artists, politicians and others found this theory useful for answering questions they had in regards to the scientific merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design and what a theory is and is not.

Then it won't trouble you to name one of those school board members will it?

Or is it a secret?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,04:53   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 15 2012,17:07)
Make a prediction using your "theory".

Test it.

Show the results.

that.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,04:59   

perhaps a different approach.

Gary, would you care to describe what you mean when you use the word "theory"?

It's obvious you are using it in a way that is different to the way which scientists are using it.

So perhaps it would clarify matters if you would explain in your own words what the word "theory" means?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Woodbine



Posts: 795
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,06:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,05:19)
1, the PSC award banner (that is only for award winners) is there so that no matter how well you think you're doing (making it seem that you know better than everyone else) the how-to community most knowledgeable in what else is around already made it clear what they think about it, and you cannot change that.

The award is for 'superior coding', Gary. Not 'superior science'. Just because your little application might be well written bears no relevance as to its scientific merit.
 
Quote
And 1b it's my mission to make sure they are proudly represented and credited not sidelined in a forum where some will always instead demand respect of some pompous tribunal, which even needs to judge theory with recent controversial philosophy to get the answer they want.

They don't need your help, Gary. In fact I would suggest that Planet Source Code would rather not be seen to endorse what (ever) it is you are selling.
 
Quote
2 only helps show how out of touch with the rest of the planet your opinion is, which leads to 3,4,5 not being worth answering. Reality is, that programmers, school board members, artists, politicians and others found this theory useful for answering questions they had in regards to the scientific merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design and what a theory is and is not.

If this is true then you will have no problem in providing those answers here! But you won't.
 
Quote
I already explained how in Kansas the US laws and ethics combines to add an unresolved public hearing requiring a number of years after that to even begin to resolve, and all that takes the outcome of this theory very seriously. It's a learning thing, at the citizenry level, that the law of the land wants to happen too. Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud.

Delusional gibberish capped off with a dose of Glenn Beck-style patriotism.

You're not a birther by any chance are you, Gary?

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,07:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,23:19)
Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud.

Here's an apropos quote in response to an unintelligible statement:
Quote
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them... (Thomas Jefferson)


Whatever your "theory" might be, it can't be parsed on any level. This is not because we're all big meanies; it's because *you* are a horseshit writer. There are times when dense and anfractuous language is deliberately used to mask a writer's true intentions, but in your case it's simple incompetence in articulation. When someone of reasonable intelligence tells you that you're not being understood, it's not because your "theory" is so advanced that only an enlightened few can grasp its concepts; it's because it's unintelligible on any level, including your own, I suspect.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4511
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,07:20   

Gary Gaulin's PDF (version of 2012/11/16):

 
Quote


Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.



That's your theory's conclusion?

That's it?

You've suffered an incredible amount of pain for pretty much no gain at all. You've come to a conclusion that nobody has *ever* disputed ("a human is an intelligent designer", modulo that "a human is" should be "some humans are"). That's in the category of "ordinary design" that science as practiced by everybody but you is perfectly fine investigating and elucidating.

That first sentence in the conclusion is arguably OK. There was no need to try to force some sort of "intelligent" framework on every physical process leading up to humans, whether it made any sense or not.

You, however, seem to freight your "theory" with greater significance than the (relatively modest) conclusion offers. You have spoken of justifying "creation science" and "intelligent design" of the sort espoused at the 2005 Kansas State School Board hearings. Example:

Quote

Much like Metaphysics where it's OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you.


Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.

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

    
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,07:34   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2012,07:20)
Gary Gaulin's PDF (version of 2012/11/16):

Quote


Conclusion

We can here say that a human is an intelligent designer. Cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. Molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells. Behavior of Matter is the behavioral designer of genetic based molecular intelligence systems, from which the other levels of intelligence are in-turn emergent from.



That's your theory's conclusion?

That's it?

You've suffered an incredible amount of pain for pretty much no gain at all. You've come to a conclusion that nobody has *ever* disputed ("a human is an intelligent designer", modulo that "a human is" should be "some humans are"). That's in the category of "ordinary design" that science as practiced by everybody but you is perfectly fine investigating and elucidating.

That first sentence in the conclusion is arguably OK. There was no need to try to force some sort of "intelligent" framework on every physical process leading up to humans, whether it made any sense or not.

You, however, seem to freight your "theory" with greater significance than the (relatively modest) conclusion offers. You have spoken of justifying "creation science" and "intelligent design" of the sort espoused at the 2005 Kansas State School Board hearings. Example:

 
Quote

Much like Metaphysics where it's OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you.


Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.

The roll of scientist as your ownself might be is only feasting upon  Karl Pooper-style paradigm shifts into third gear while uphill on a tiny rollercoaster, which you're lack of understanding demonstrates, while in Kansas they understand that Creation Science thinks the theory belongs where it is, being honorifically deposed on Planet Sourcecode, which obviously render's you're objections untimely.

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

  
George



Posts: 313
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,08:01   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 16 2012,07:08)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,23:19)
Modern day in the name of science invading your forum like this, then makes our forefathers proud.

Here's an apropos quote in response to an unintelligible statement:  
Quote
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them... (Thomas Jefferson)


Whatever your "theory" might be, it can't be parsed on any level. This is not because we're all big meanies; it's because *you* are a horseshit writer. There are times when dense and anfractuous language is deliberately used to mask a writer's true intentions, but in your case it's simple incompetence in articulation. When someone of reasonable intelligence tells you that you're not being understood, it's not because your "theory" is so advanced that only an enlightened few can grasp its concepts; it's because it's unintelligible on any level, including your own, I suspect.

POTW

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,08:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 15 2012,19:05)
Read this. Then imagine how epic a seperate thread for Gary Gygax could have been!

Just an FYI, but having known the man for a number of years, I can attest to the fact that in conversation and even argument, that Gary was mercifully succinct. He could get pretty esoteric and opinionated, but he used only the number of words necessary to get his point across.

And now back to the regularly scheduled thread of rambling...

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed. Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,09:04   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,09:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities?  quantitatively, and not from the gut?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:01   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 16 2012,07:20)
Your conclusion does not do that, for the simple reason explained in the 2001 Wilkins and Elsberry paper, to wit, that "ordinary design" does not provide justification for "rarefied design" inferences. Both "creation science" and "intelligent design creationism" *require* those "rarefied design" inferences, and thus no "theory" that solely deals with "ordinary design" can be said to support or justify any such thing.

First, out of curiousity, I'm wondering whether you would (as a reviewer) accept this as meeting PNAS journal standards. Do you see any problem with it?

 
Quote
Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome

Abstract

Intelligent design (ID)the latest incarnation of religious creationismposits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. Yet, many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species. Here, I highlight several outlandish features of the human genome that defy notions of ID by a caring cognitive agent. These range from de novo mutational glitches that collectively kill or maim countless individuals (including embryos and fetuses) to pervasive architectural flaws (including pseudogenes, parasitic mobile elements, and needlessly baroque regulatory pathways) that are endogenous in every human genome. Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces. In this important philosophical sense, the science of evolutionary genetics should rightly be viewed as an ally (not an adversary) of mainstream religions because it helps the latter to escape the profound theological enigmas posed by notions of ID.

http://www.pnas.org/content....7.short


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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:04   

Quote
As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

And so therefore your theory predicts that when the colony is isolated _ will happen and when it's not then will happen.

Now, fill in those blanks with something that can be measured and tested and explain how to go about doing that.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 16 2012,10:04

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1008
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:17   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?

 
Quote
As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical.

Of course, you've done experiments to confirm this assertion. You do have evidence, right? You have a tested method of measurement of "molecular level intelligence" and you're going to share it with us soon, right?  
Quote
But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

Because I'm sure of your basic integrity and know that you would never make unsupported assertions, I'm anxious to see your measurement method applied to incremental development of "cellular intelligence." :p

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:22   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:25   

Gary,

Please explain (simply) how

<blockquote>Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of <b>nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces</b>.</blockquote>

Unless you choose to argue that evolution is an intelligence, then this paper doesn't help you.

I would personally argue that evolution is a design system and I think that most here would agree provided that 'design' is defined very specifically.  But it sure isn't intelligent.

As far as this paper, you might consider that it's something called a "review paper".  You not being familiar with scientific publishing, I will explain.

In this paper, the author does no unique experiments or observations.  Instead, the author collects the research from other unique experiments/observations and combines related ones into a single paper.  

These are very good for showing things like safety of GM organisms or why "intelligent design" isn't.

It really doesn't help you.  I'll also point out that, unlike your paper, this one is concise, explains itself very well, and has copious references to the actual experiments and observations that support the statements in the paper (something you really ought to consider).

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, I know you don't care to actually understand what science really is.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:34   

And excuse typo from rushing, should read "(or conceptualize what that ends up looking like)."

The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:34)
The cell model would need a molecular intelligence algorithm, and unless it self-emerges the cellular intelligence (that controls all its motor molecules) there would need to be a cellular intelligence algorithm for each subsystem (there is more than one intelligence system running but all are cellular intelligence systems).

And your model/theory demonstrates this does it?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugers work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,10:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,11:22)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 16 2012,09:56)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 16 2012,10:04)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 15 2012,23:22)
Again:
Gary, what does theory say about the distribution of intelligence in a bacterial clone? Is theory assuming that all cells contain the same amount of intelligence?


As long as they were well isolated from external information from wild colony conjugation the molecular level intelligence of the clones would be essentially identical. But the cellular intelligence is the part it develops during its lifetime and depends on environment, resulting in tumblers, swarmers, or even sessile, resulting in very different cellular intelligence circuits.

how do you measure these similarities? quantitatively, and not from the gut?

Best to model it (or conceptualize what that ends up looking right). You then have all of the variables of the algorithm(s) to monitor for comparisons. Also know for sure such things as whether new information from conjugation influenced its molecular or its cellular intelligence.

Depending on cell type there may be little or no conjugation. Where it has a centrosome we get an animal cell which can perform amazing feats, even form social-cell colonies called humans.

So, have you measured this?  What metric of similarity did you use? What variables does your algorithm use that we can use to measure this "cellular intelligence"?

is there ANYTHING you can measure to compare your model predictions to a real world scenario?  

You have made statements that seem to be aimed at conveying the impression that you have made these comparisons.  This is what we are interested in

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 16 2012,11:12   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 16 2012,10:25)
Gary,

Please explain (simply) how

<blockquote>Gross imperfection at the molecular level presents a conundrum for the traditional paradigms of natural theology as well as for recent assertions of ID, but it is consistent with the notion of <b>nonsentient contrivance by evolutionary forces</b>.</blockquote>

Unless you choose to argue that evolution is an intelligence, then this paper doesn't help you.

I would personally argue that evolution is a design system and I think that most here would agree provided that 'design' is defined very specifically. But it sure isn't intelligent.

As far as this paper, you might consider that it's something called a "review paper". You not being familiar with scientific publishing, I will explain.

In this paper, the author does no unique experiments or observations. Instead, the author collects the research from other unique experiments/observations and combines related ones into a single paper.

These are very good for showing things like safety of GM organisms or why "intelligent design" isn't.

It really doesn't help you. I'll also point out that, unlike your paper, this one is concise, explains itself very well, and has copious references to the actual experiments and observations that support the statements in the paper (something you really ought to consider).

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, I know you don't care to actually understand what science really is.

Your opinion was actually very helpful. It is certainly not an ordinary PNAS article. And I doubt that it helps the theory any. I was just wondering what Wesley sees in it, with no harm adding your thoughts. Personally, I would not even want to have to attempt showing that evolution is intelligent, the theory is simply not made for answering that question. A cell normally has two types of intelligence, not one. Not all the intelligence can be said to have "evolved" it developed. Without a model to clearly separate out the different kinds of intelligence, there is at best a big-fuzzy incomplete answer.

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

   
  12336 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (412) < ... 16 17 18 19 20 [21] 22 23 24 25 26 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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