RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (337) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
olegt



Posts: 1375
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:05)
Oh and by the way I had this on file:

Quote
Predictions

The following are some of the major predictions of this theory. At the research level there should be many thousands of minor predictions possible (i.e. the news headline "Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts role of gene in cellular sensory and epigenetic memory addressing circuitry.") but in these cases the researchers would be the ones who would have to explain what the theory predicted, as it pertains to their discovery. All are testable although the ones that concern subatomic behavior would be difficult to verify, for the same reason String Theory is currently considered untestable. The lack of DNA in long extinct organisms also presents a problem but that is one reason why the theory is very useful. Live testing of the Chromosomal Adam and Eve prediction presents a serious ethical problem but future advances in phylogenetics and genome modeling should make that unnecessary.

The Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts:

The origin of intelligent life is then the result of a progression of an "autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system" that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us then to collective intelligence and possibly collective consciousness.

Molecular intelligence (self-replicating RNA, DNA genome, centrosome) is emergent from nonrandom subatomic forces (predictable atom interactions).

Cellular intelligence is emergent from Molecular intelligence.

Multicellular intelligence is emergent from Cellular intelligence.

Collective intelligence is emergent from Multicellular intelligence.

When all neural circuits are fully understood the human brain will be found to work the same way as the other intelligence systems that are explained.

Computer models can predict what was happening at the genome level in long extinct organisms.

Cambrian Explosion.

Two (or more) smaller "Explosions" prior to Cambrian Explosion that may be somewhat evidenced by phylogenetics which research is unable to verify.

Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope and this is not due to filling of environmental niches, it is the result of genome learning curve.

Four part mechanism produces intelligence.

Intelligence can be detected and measured in any somehow observable system by it meeting all four requirements for any intelligence system.

As a result of fully autonomous behavior what is called "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism, not something added to it.

The fossil record will show that never once was there not a predecessor of like design present for the descendant design to have come from.

Gaps in the fossil record will be found where no transitional forms ever existed. In humans the pelvis and bipedalism are examples of morphological features that suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Predecessor of like design was a different species.

Chromosomal Adam and Eve.

Human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism found at other levels.

Humans can "feel" the "confidence" changing success/failure mechanism inherent to the intelligence mechanism, which in turn explains some of the strong drives evident in art/culture.

Future behavioral speciation morphology can with some certainty be determined by what it finds desirable in a mate.

What triggers sexual arousal is not "hard wired" in neurons as an image, it has a molecular origin with feedback circuitry that is more or less able to sense what the eyes and brain are seeing.

Detectable and measurable intelligence (at least) includes Electronic, Unimolecular, Molecular, Cellular, Multicellular.

Some detail of centrosome mechanism (centrosomal intelligence) ahead of any other scientific evidence that can explain how it works.


I will now await the trashing that will be required for them to make it appear that the theory makes no predictions.

These aren't predictions, Gary. You have to make them specific. What you have is vague bullshit.

Take this one, for instance: Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope. Spell it out. What should be plotted as a function of what? How do you measure these quantities?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:22   

Richardthughes is unable to figure out how to test predictions (that a high school aged scientist mind would have little problem with) therefore it is not a theory!

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2166
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,16:16)
Quote
Molecular intelligence (self-replicating RNA, DNA genome, centrosome) is emergent from nonrandom subatomic forces (predictable atom interactions).


I missed the question-begging criteria for theories!

Did you miss his prediction of the Cambrian Explosion?

I predict that Napoleon will lose the Battle of Waterloo.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10000
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:22)
Richardthughes is unable to figure out how to test predictions (that a high school aged scientist mind would have little problem with) therefore it is not a theory!

Sorry Gary - see Oleg's point above. There are no emperical croutons in your word salad, dipshit.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:32   

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 24 2012,18:21)
These aren't predictions, Gary. You have to make them specific. What you have is vague bullshit.

Take this one, for instance: Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope. Spell it out. What should be plotted as a function of what? How do you measure these quantities?

That was also well enough covered in the theory:

 
Quote
Cambrian Explosion

Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after the planet formed a solid crust 3.4 billion years ago living things were already at the prokaryotic (primitive bacteria, algae) stage.  Then there was a sudden proliferation of more complex eukaryotic cells (has nucleus and specialized organelles).  Then later there was the Cambrian Explosion where multicellular biodiversity rapidly proliferated where at the dawn of multicellular organisms some 530 million years ago or more, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) had the compound eyes of modern insects.  Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here in much the same form as in the beginning.  Because of this evidence we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates.  In molecular and cellular intelligence systems (the two combined producing multicellular intelligence) this translates to a high “learning rate”.

To account for this rapid of a biodiversity increase we will first graph the information increase (learning curve) of (per David Heiserman “Beta class”) intelligence then look for curve shape that correlates with fossil and phylogenetic evidence.  The simple Intelligence Generator/Detector model will be kept busy going from feeder to feeder while we as usual monitor memory (information) increase with time. Its relatively static yet challenging environment would represent typical information increase in a series of new niches becoming available after a new food source establishes itself in new territories.

A blue line shows number of highest confidence 3 memories. This is a measure of the most successful responses to environment. The middle two lines show number of lesser confidence 1 and 2 memories, a measure of relative uncertainty. The black line shows total memory, a measure of relative genome size.

 

We can here see that there is in fact a very rapid information increase. The number of confidence 3 memories in comparison to total can suggest a relatively large genome size for the amount of useful information that is stored in it.

We can now predict three major events are easily possible. The first event when molecular intelligence first emerged (Origin of Life).  Then a second event when cellular intelligence first emerged. Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.


http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2166
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:32)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 24 2012,18:21)
These aren't predictions, Gary. You have to make them specific. What you have is vague bullshit.

Take this one, for instance: Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope. Spell it out. What should be plotted as a function of what? How do you measure these quantities?

That was also well enough covered in the theory:

 
Quote
Cambrian Explosion

Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after the planet formed a solid crust 3.4 billion years ago living things were already at the prokaryotic (primitive bacteria, algae) stage.  Then there was a sudden proliferation of more complex eukaryotic cells (has nucleus and specialized organelles).  Then later there was the Cambrian Explosion where multicellular biodiversity rapidly proliferated where at the dawn of multicellular organisms some 530 million years ago or more, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) had the compound eyes of modern insects.  Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here in much the same form as in the beginning.  Because of this evidence we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates.  In molecular and cellular intelligence systems (the two combined producing multicellular intelligence) this translates to a high “learning rate”.

To account for this rapid of a biodiversity increase we will first graph the information increase (learning curve) of (per David Heiserman “Beta class”) intelligence then look for curve shape that correlates with fossil and phylogenetic evidence.  The simple Intelligence Generator/Detector model will be kept busy going from feeder to feeder while we as usual monitor memory (information) increase with time. Its relatively static yet challenging environment would represent typical information increase in a series of new niches becoming available after a new food source establishes itself in new territories.

A blue line shows number of highest confidence 3 memories. This is a measure of the most successful responses to environment. The middle two lines show number of lesser confidence 1 and 2 memories, a measure of relative uncertainty. The black line shows total memory, a measure of relative genome size.

 

We can here see that there is in fact a very rapid information increase. The number of confidence 3 memories in comparison to total can suggest a relatively large genome size for the amount of useful information that is stored in it.

We can now predict three major events are easily possible. The first event when molecular intelligence first emerged (Origin of Life).  Then a second event when cellular intelligence first emerged. Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.


http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:02   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2166
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:20   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
 
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
   
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

How do you exclude the fauna of the Ediacaran from displaying multicellular intelligence?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:36   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,19:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
   
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

How do you exclude the fauna of the Ediacaran from displaying multicellular intelligence?

The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10000
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,19:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,19:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:20)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
     
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

How do you exclude the fauna of the Ediacaran from displaying multicellular intelligence?

The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:00   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,19:23)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:20)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,19:04)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:02)
       
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,18:53)
Gary, I'm trying to strip away the babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs to find out what you're trying to say here.  Is it that multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian?

Cambrian Explosion

Answer the fucking question.  What are you claiming?

Does the following say "multicellular life first appeared in the Cambrian" or does it say "when multicellular intelligence first emerged"?
     
Quote
Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.

I am being very specific. If all you see is babble, misapplied terms and meaningless graphs, then don't blame me for your inability to figure it out.

How do you exclude the fauna of the Ediacaran from displaying multicellular intelligence?

The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Quote

Then there was a third event, the Cambrian Explosion, when multicellular intelligence first emerged.


Oops.

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

    
JohnW



Posts: 2166
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:18   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:10)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

From theory:

Quote
Multicellular Intelligence

Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light.  Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.


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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2166
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:18)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

From theory:

 
Quote
Multicellular Intelligence

Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light.  Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Animals existed for many millions of years before the Cambrian.  So your "molecular intelligence" notions have no relevance to the Cambrian Explosion.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
olegt



Posts: 1375
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:32)
A blue line shows number of highest confidence 3 memories. This is a measure of the most successful responses to environment. The middle two lines show number of lesser confidence 1 and 2 memories, a measure of relative uncertainty. The black line shows total memory, a measure of relative genome size.

 

We can here see that there is in fact a very rapid information increase. The number of confidence 3 memories in comparison to total can suggest a relatively large genome size for the amount of useful information that is stored in it.

The axes are not labeled. What quantity is plotted against what? How are the plotted quantities measured? Recipe?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,20:33   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:18)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 24 2012,20:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,18:00)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,19:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,19:36)
The theory only discusses the "Cambrian Explosion" not exact date that the first multicellular intelligence appeared which is expected to have been shortly before that time period.

Why? How is the 'theory' anchored to only one time period / event?

The exact time period of the Cambrian Explosion is irrelevant to this theory. The only thing that matters is the sudden proliferation of multicellular intelligence, found in the fossil record.

So how do you distinguish "multicellular life with multicellular intelligence" from "multicellular life without multicellular intelligence"?

From theory:

 
Quote
Multicellular Intelligence

Multicellular intelligence produced by a brain operates with clock cycles that can be detected from the outside by tuning to waves with an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine to observe brain waves. In humans intelligence can be gauged using academic test scores and personal accomplishments, while in less academic organisms mazes or other cognitive tests are used.

Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light.  Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.

Animals existed for many millions of years before the Cambrian.  So your "molecular intelligence" notions have no relevance to the Cambrian Explosion.

Is this better?

From updated version of theory not yet online:

Quote
Most animals easily meet all four requirements of intelligence. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.


--------------
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: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,21:02   

I just added more detail to the paragraph in question:

Quote
Most animals easily meet all four requirements for intelligence at the multicellular level. This includes corals, sponges and sea squirts where in the larval (tadpole) stage also have a light sensing ocellus (motion sensing navigation eye) to help them find a comfortable place to stay.


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

   
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,21:14   

That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,21:43   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,21:14)
That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

Then show me where "evolutionary theory" seamlessly explains the origin of life especially intelligence, its features and circuit/algorithm, three major "explosion" events, Chromosomal Adam and Eve, "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism not something added to it, human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism, and all the rest that is covered by this theory.

--------------
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: 2815
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,22:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,05:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,21:14)
That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

Then show me where "evolutionary theory" seamlessly explains the origin of life especially intelligence, its features and circuit/algorithm, three major "explosion" events, Chromosomal Adam and Eve, "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism not something added to it, human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism, and all the rest that is covered by this theory.

Fundy horseshit gary.

Using the Theory of Evolution scientists can make predictions which when tested, guess what?
Don't support your crap.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,22:30   

Request denied.

You're trying to claim that your stuff somehow adds significantly to current knowledge.

That assertion cannot be supported by demanding that other people pretend that current knowledge is seamless; it isn't. It has gaps.

So, at the risk of repeating something that everybody keeps asking you, just what patterns of evidence does your concept explain that isn't already explained by current theory?

And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

Besides, abiogenesis precedes evolution, it isn't specifically covered by it. For those "explosion" events, I would guess either (1) an environment shift made more elaborate structures possible, or (2) some species or other developed some trait that caused a subsequent "arms race" (or it might be both of those at once). As for Chromosomal Adam and Eve, as I understand it that is predicted from genetics plus statistics.

Now whether your concepts actually improve on scientific understanding of the evolution of neural networks (if that's what you meant by last item in that list of irrelevant demands), that's between you and people with expertise in that subject area. You'll have to convince them of that, and having arguments on an internet forum won't do that.

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,22:41   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,22:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,22:41)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,22:59   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 24 2012,22:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 25 2012,05:43)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,21:14)
That list of "predictions" looks to me like a summary of stuff that was already known, just with the word "intelligence" inserted in places where as far as I can tell it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject matter. So even if all of that is a logical consequence of a clearly stated model, if it doesn't predict stuff not already known, and doesn't disagree with current knowledge anyway, then it doesn't add anything to scientific knowledge.

As for that phrase "intelligent causation", as far as I can tell on that, it involves claiming intelligence for things that in some way resemble components of later things that have intelligence. But if intelligence is a result of interaction of large numbers of parts (neurons in living things, logic gates in computers), then there's nothing to gain by asserting partial intellgence of the components or things that resemble them.

Henry

Then show me where "evolutionary theory" seamlessly explains the origin of life especially intelligence, its features and circuit/algorithm, three major "explosion" events, Chromosomal Adam and Eve, "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism not something added to it, human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism, and all the rest that is covered by this theory.

Fundy horseshit gary.

Using the Theory of Evolution scientists can make predictions which when tested, guess what?
Don't support your crap.

This theory predicts all that yours can and much much more, especially in regard to the role of intelligence in the origin of life and species.

In science, that is a very major breakthrough. But in religious politics, that is something some must immediately suppress.

--------------
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: 2815
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,23:05   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,22:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,22:41)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 24 2012,22:30)
And don't say "intelligent causation" unless you also explains how that adds anything to what is known without merely inserting that phrase into summaries of current knowledge.

And yes I would most certainly need your better explanation for the phenomenon of "intelligent cause". But since you are unable to even begin developing theory like this, you are best off just pretending that science allows you to deny such requests.

Given that you define things idiosyncratically, what, precisely, is your connotation for "the phenomenon of intelligent cause"?

From Theory:
 
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).


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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4375
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,23:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:57)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,17:42)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

   
Quote
HOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES TURN THE SORDID LESSONS FROM SOVIET AND NAZI HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN
By Wesley R. Elsberry and Mark Perakh


Amazing!  They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

My co-author, Mark Perakh, was a citizen of the USSR, fought Nazis in WWII, and spent time in a Soviet gulag for civil disobedience.

I think he has some insight into the Soviet and Nazi systems, and what suppression was about.

I don't see any variance between our account and Wikipedia. So let's see your documentation of what, precisely, in our article "counters" something in the Wikipedia article. If none is forthcoming, I wouldn't be at all surprised.

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10000
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,23:17   

Ah look - Gary's make changes as he's being corrected. Looks like a well thought out 'theory' to me..

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

  
  10080 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (337) < ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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