RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (394) < ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,01:25   

Gary, for the sake of discussion let's say that insects are intelligent, and that molecules are intelligent, and that atoms are intelligent. And by 'intelligent' I mean that learned people agree that 'intelligent' is the correct word to describe certain features (or actions/processes) of insects, molecules, and atoms. Now, where, how, and when did the intelligence that ended up in those things ultimately originate? Who or what was/is the original cause (the designer-creator) of intelligence and/or anything else? What tests or research can be done to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause, or to determine whether there was/is an intentional original cause?

joe g regularly says that ID is all about origins and in a way he's right, but neither he nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence of the ultimate original cause of anything that he or any other ID pusher claims is caused ('intelligently designed'), nor any evidence of the existence of the ultimate original causer ('the designer'). Unless an ID pusher can show testable, verifiable evidence of the ultimate origin and cause of the universe, life, intelligence, or whatever ID pushers claim was caused ('intelligently designed'), and can show evidence of the original causer (the first 'designer' and the 'cause' of that 'designer'), I don't see what ID has to offer.

One of the things you do is apply the word 'intelligent' or 'intelligence' to particles, organisms, molecules, actions, events, or processes that most scientists would not describe with those words. In a way that doesn't matter because the labels that humans apply to things are just that, labels. What really matters, at least regarding your claims and the claims of other ID pushers, is how things (like so-called 'intelligence') came about.  

For instance, it's one thing to say that humans are 'intelligent' but does that automatically mean that some other 'intelligence' (a designer-god) caused (deliberately created) human intelligence? Is there any testable, verifiable evidence to show that? Is it just a matter of opinion? Should the biased opinions of people who believe in religious fairy tales be taken seriously? If so, which people who believe in which religious fairy tales should be taken seriously?

Does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' automatically make it intelligent (intelligent in the sense that it can consciously think, learn, plan, guess, and/or alter its function, processes, actions, etc.), and does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' show the ultimate origin or cause of that thing or its alleged 'intelligence'? And doesn't it take a lot more than applying a label to something to show that that something was/is intelligently, intentionally designed by some designer-god?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,02:42   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Gary, for the sake of discussion let's say that insects are intelligent, and that molecules are intelligent, and that atoms are intelligent. And by 'intelligent' I mean that learned people agree that 'intelligent' is the correct word to describe certain features (or actions/processes) of insects, molecules, and atoms. Now, where, how, and when did the intelligence that ended up in those things ultimately originate?


All of that was already explained in the text of the theory, now being prepared for printing. But it is not about atoms and molecules being intelligent, that's actually very absurd.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
Who or what was/is the original cause (the designer-creator) of intelligence and/or anything else? What tests or research can be done to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause, or to determine whether there was/is an intentional original cause?


The theory does not require tests or research to determine who or what is the ultimate original cause. That was already found to be from the unintelligent behavior of matter, chemistry.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
joe g regularly says that ID is all about origins and in a way he's right, but neither he nor anyone else has ever shown any evidence of the ultimate original cause of anything that he or any other ID pusher claims is caused ('intelligently designed'), nor any evidence of the existence of the ultimate original causer ('the designer'). Unless an ID pusher can show testable, verifiable evidence of the ultimate origin and cause of the universe, life, intelligence, or whatever ID pushers claim was caused ('intelligently designed'), and can show evidence of the original causer (the first 'designer' and the 'cause' of that 'designer'), I don't see what ID has to offer.


You are now confusing science and religion. That is not even allowed in US public school science classrooms.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
One of the things you do is apply the word 'intelligent' or 'intelligence' to particles, organisms, molecules, actions, events, or processes that most scientists would not describe with those words.


That is not what the theory is about.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
In a way that doesn't matter because the labels that humans apply to things are just that, labels.


It very much matters to me. That’s why I’m properly operationally defining what intelligence is.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
What really matters, at least regarding your claims and the claims of other ID pushers, is how things (like so-called 'intelligence') came about.


Theory already explains as much as can be said about the origin of intelligence, from the behavior of matter.

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 02 2012,01:25)
For instance, it's one thing to say that humans are 'intelligent' but does that automatically mean that some other 'intelligence' (a designer-god) caused (deliberately created) human intelligence? Is there any testable, verifiable evidence to show that? Is it just a matter of opinion? Should the biased opinions of people who believe in religious fairy tales be taken seriously? If so, which people who believe in which religious fairy tales should be taken seriously?

Does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' automatically make it intelligent (intelligent in the sense that it can consciously think, learn, plan, guess, and/or alter its function, processes, actions, etc.), and does merely labeling something as 'intelligent' show the ultimate origin or cause of that thing or its alleged 'intelligence'? And doesn't it take a lot more than applying a label to something to show that that something was/is intelligently, intentionally designed by some designer-god?


I never mix science and religion in the text of theory like you are now asking me to do. And at this point in time it’s the text that’s at the Theory of ID site which needs a good going over, and you are most welcome to review that. But asking me questions that are not even close to what it is about is not helpful when I may only have only one week to get it ready to roll on the high speed sheetfed printing press I have been busy preparing for (at my day job) which will soon be arriving and need a nice job like this for a test run, that in this case I won’t mind giving it for free.

--------------
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: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,04:12   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,00:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,20:42)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2012,18:08)
for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts.  is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable?  testable?  can you state this clearly?

Why is this not good enough for you?



http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?

That is perhaps the worst written abstract I have ever seen.  And I was a TA in the writing lab at university.  Come on, Gary, your writing skills aren't even up to a 7th grade level.  You might as well pull words out of a bag at random.

Let me try to help.  Your abstract (and subsequent writings here) should be closer to something like the following:

 
Quote
This next generation Intelligence Generator is a simple reduction of a complex biological circuit.  The circuit in this case is an insect's compound eye.  The Generator will give us an idea of how self-learning intelligence works.

The program provides a precise and testable definition of "intelligence".  Also provided is a precise and testable definition of "intelligent cause".

Using this model we will attempt to show the advantages of a two lobed brain over a single--even much large--lobed brain.  In the analysis of this model we will also show important findings in the questions of Origin of Life, Intelligence, and Mechanisms of Speciation.


While this version still has many problems (which were in the original), it has the necessary advantage of being FUCKING CLEARLY STATED!!!.

If you can't see this, Gary, there is no help for you anywhere.

I agree it's not much of an abstract, it's not even supposed to be one. That's a standard description for computer software. Where I used the word "we" and worded as an abstract it would be out of place there. And if you look at other write-ups for VB intelligence related software you'll find long sentences broken up with parenthesis, not sort ones that there might look like grade-school "See Jane run." type grammar. It's also well written and very descriptive in comparison to others that might have a sentence or two with numerous typos and spacing problems. Not that any of us really seem to care about such details, it's the source code that matters.

Due to there being no way to cover all this in a journal article it has to be in book or booklet form that includes a CD with the software. It then needs a preface instead of abstract. But a journal article would then be good for introducing the book/booklet to scientists who would also be interested. That takes care of the issues caused by this being theory that goes with a computer model. Science journal publishers require software be on an academic type website which I do not have. By the time all the color illustrations are added into the cost it's thousands of dollars I do not have either, and I doubt they would want to have to cover that after telling them I'm broke.

This Theory of Intelligent Design is not going to be decided by science journal. It's already getting around anyway, so all anyone can do is prepare for it already becoming high school science. There is nothing illegal about that at all.

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1751
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,05:35   

Quote
This Theory of Intelligent Design is not going to be decided by science journal. It's already getting around anyway, so all anyone can do is prepare for it already becoming high school science. There is nothing illegal about that at all.

You don't expect anything like that to happen before anyone understands your theory, do you?

What, and how will you teach the teachers?

You have failed to demonstrate that you have a working theory of anything. If it cannot be explained with words but depend on color diagrams, you are lost. What about the colorblind, or the blind? You wouldn't be able to teach your theory to the smartest man in the world if he happened to be blind.

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,09:24   

No, Gary, it is not well written.  Oops.  Let me try to explain this in a way you will grasp.  Let's see...ah, yes!

No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

Now do you see?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,13:37   

Oh great, now blipey is channling Byers!

Now if only Gary would stop trying to merge physics, chemistry, and biology into a single subject. Yes, chemistry uses parts of physics, and biology uses parts of the other two, and there's some overlap in the other direction, but in general each of them has its own set of basic principles.

Henry

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:28   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:37)
Oh great, now blipey is channling Byers!

Now if only Gary would stop trying to merge physics, chemistry, and biology into a single subject. Yes, chemistry uses parts of physics, and biology uses parts of the other two, and there's some overlap in the other direction, but in general each of them has its own set of basic principles.

Henry

Evidence that we're losing IQ points as we read this stuff.

Our only salvation is that the writers lose many many more actually creating this kind of thing... I'm not sure what that says about Blipey at this point.

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8879
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:32   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,10:24)
No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

that's actually a pretty good example of a typical GG sentence.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,21:42)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2012,18:08)
for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts.  is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable?  testable?  can you state this clearly?

Why is this not good enough for you?



http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?

"Why is this not good enough for you?"

Because it doesn't do any of the shit i asked you about, does it?

You say the point of your little model is

 
Quote
to be made as simple as possible to reduce all that is happening in a complex biological circuit of an intelligent living thing to what is most important to understand about the way self-learning intelligence works


So, the point is to reduce all of the details?  Most important to who?  what is the difference between "self-learning intelligence" and whatever other kinds of intelligence or learning you have come up with? when i have word salad i like some dressing, luv

 
Quote
the program provides a precise and testable operational definition for "intelligence"


but it turns out that you mean "intelligence as understood by your model" and not as "intelligence" as experienced by organisms.  right?

many processes understood to be supervenient upon intelligent actors show brownian motion.  but that is most certainly an aside

your "model"

 
Quote
provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause"


why do you say this definition is useful or operational?  who would care about this?

Quote
this model also provides insight into the origin of life, intelligence and mechanisms that produces new species


so you say, but i think i probably speak for a majority when I say "Bullshit son".  if it does "provide" these "insights" then you ain't provided that shit here.  here's your chance!  

since there doesn't seem to be any genetic analysis or modeling here, how can you claim (well, and how can you claim and expect us not to horselaugh you from the planet) that your "model" showed that human speciation "was found to be systematically the primary result of good-guess chromosome speciation from fusion of two ancestral chromosomes".  Be honest, you ain't got shit to say about that do you.  Well, other than "BUT JESUS SAID"

 
Quote
how does falsification change even a single word of it


well, if you want to pretend like your model is all that matters, and not reality, then you go ahead and don't worry about how well your model claims are supported by reality.  i suspect you have already worn a furrow around the perimeter of this psychological defensework.

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 02 2012,17:51

--------------
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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8879
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:50   

Quote

This Theory of Intelligent Design is not going to be decided by science journal.  


that's for damn sure.

Quote
It's already getting around anyway, so all anyone can do is prepare for it already becoming high school science.


I am not aware of any high schools which have courses in Jibber-Jabber. Should any arise, I think you'll be included in the curriculum.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,16:52   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,17:50)
Quote

This Theory of Intelligent Design is not going to be decided by science journal.  


that's for damn sure.

Quote
It's already getting around anyway, so all anyone can do is prepare for it already becoming high school science.


I am not aware of any high schools which have courses in Jibber-Jabber. Should any arise, I think you'll be included in the curriculum.

perhaps Social Text

--------------
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: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,18:37   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,20:30   

I am very disappointed, GeryBobbyBillyJoe!

I thought you'd have a link to the Cartoon Network.

Wazzamatta U?

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,21:58   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with no intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

ETA the "no" I missed in the following sentence that initially read: Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Edited by sparc on Dec. 03 2012,09:03

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,23:01   

Quote (sparc @ Dec. 02 2012,21:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

Thanks for letting me know that a .pdf is now easy to find online! It was initially in Encyclopedia Britannica but that required a subscription.

Intelligence related theory is one of my scientific interests, a most favorite. Due to the Theory of Intelligent Design being harder to explain and more controversial than "self-assembly" was (back then) it's important to first pave the way, ahead of time.

As with the self-assembly demonstration I enjoy introducing new concepts to education. This theory bundles up a number of them, including self-assembly which is here needed for the theory to be coherent, even though self-assembly is not intelligent.

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

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 02 2012,23:59   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,16:32)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,10:24)
No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

that's actually a pretty good example of a typical GG sentence.

It took me about 5 minutes to write that.  I'm a bit in awe over the way he can just barf that stuff out in a never ending stream.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,00:14   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,00:59)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,16:32)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,10:24)
No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

that's actually a pretty good example of a typical GG sentence.

It took me about 5 minutes to write that.  I'm a bit in awe over the way he can just barf that stuff out in a never ending stream.

i suspect a brain injury in the prefontal cortex

--------------
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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,00:19   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 03 2012,00:14)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,00:59)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,16:32)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,10:24)
No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

that's actually a pretty good example of a typical GG sentence.

It took me about 5 minutes to write that.  I'm a bit in awe over the way he can just barf that stuff out in a never ending stream.

i suspect a brain injury in the prefontal cortex

I don't think it progressed that far but I was starting to get a headache.  :D

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,09:51   

Take two aspirin...

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3284
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,23:01)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 02 2012,21:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
 
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:  
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

Thanks for letting me know that a .pdf is now easy to find online! It was initially in Encyclopedia Britannica but that required a subscription.

Intelligence related theory is one of my scientific interests, a most favorite. Due to the Theory of Intelligent Design being harder to explain and more controversial than "self-assembly" was (back then) it's important to first pave the way, ahead of time.

As with the self-assembly demonstration I enjoy introducing new concepts to education. This theory bundles up a number of them, including self-assembly which is here needed for the theory to be coherent, even though self-assembly is not intelligent.

1) Scientists have been researching vesicle formation for decades.  In fact, Oparin put forth the notion in 1924.  Nothing in this is new.

2) The notion that vesicles are evidence of intelligent design is ludicrous.  Such vesicles form easily under a variety of conditions.  Why don't you go ask Jerry if vesicles have CSI.

3) I notice that your NCSE thing has 1 review.  Do you have stats on how often it's been downloaded?  Did you write the review?

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

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:37   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,08:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,23:01)
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 02 2012,21:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
 
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:  
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

Thanks for letting me know that a .pdf is now easy to find online! It was initially in Encyclopedia Britannica but that required a subscription.

Intelligence related theory is one of my scientific interests, a most favorite. Due to the Theory of Intelligent Design being harder to explain and more controversial than "self-assembly" was (back then) it's important to first pave the way, ahead of time.

As with the self-assembly demonstration I enjoy introducing new concepts to education. This theory bundles up a number of them, including self-assembly which is here needed for the theory to be coherent, even though self-assembly is not intelligent.

1) Scientists have been researching vesicle formation for decades.  In fact, Oparin put forth the notion in 1924.  Nothing in this is new.

2) The notion that vesicles are evidence of intelligent design is ludicrous.  Such vesicles form easily under a variety of conditions.  Why don't you go ask Jerry if vesicles have CSI.

3) I notice that your NCSE thing has 1 review.  Do you have stats on how often it's been downloaded?  Did you write the review?

I notice that the lab exercise "shows how easily polar forces help construct then hold together the cell membranes".  Are polar forces intelligent, Gary?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,10:39   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,01:19)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 03 2012,00:14)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,00:59)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 02 2012,16:32)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,10:24)
No, there are many sometimes problematical to the point of being understandable only to those who view such things as a basis for pointed conversational dialectics--those who understanding is less than scientifically thought out--structures to the basic layout of grammatical English communication.

that's actually a pretty good example of a typical GG sentence.

It took me about 5 minutes to write that.  I'm a bit in awe over the way he can just barf that stuff out in a never ending stream.

i suspect a brain injury in the prefontal cortex

I don't think it progressed that far but I was starting to get a headache.  :D

LOL not you, him!

--------------
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: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,17:23   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 03 2012,10:37)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,08:05)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,23:01)
   
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 02 2012,21:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
     
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:      
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

Thanks for letting me know that a .pdf is now easy to find online! It was initially in Encyclopedia Britannica but that required a subscription.

Intelligence related theory is one of my scientific interests, a most favorite. Due to the Theory of Intelligent Design being harder to explain and more controversial than "self-assembly" was (back then) it's important to first pave the way, ahead of time.

As with the self-assembly demonstration I enjoy introducing new concepts to education. This theory bundles up a number of them, including self-assembly which is here needed for the theory to be coherent, even though self-assembly is not intelligent.

1) Scientists have been researching vesicle formation for decades.  In fact, Oparin put forth the notion in 1924.  Nothing in this is new.

2) The notion that vesicles are evidence of intelligent design is ludicrous.  Such vesicles form easily under a variety of conditions.  Why don't you go ask Jerry if vesicles have CSI.

3) I notice that your NCSE thing has 1 review.  Do you have stats on how often it's been downloaded?  Did you write the review?

I notice that the lab exercise "shows how easily polar forces help construct then hold together the cell membranes".  Are polar forces intelligent, Gary?

No, polar forces are not intelligent.

But FYI it was an intelligent idea for me to offer to test out the 2 color high-speed printing press (that should arrive next week) because I just got the OK to run the book/booklets!

--------------
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: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,19:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 03 2012,15:23)
No, polar forces are not intelligent.

So, just the known laws of physics and chemistry - no "intelligence".  Nothing to do with your "theory"*.







*  I'm going to sprain my eye-rolling muscles one of these days.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,20:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,10:05)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,23:01)
     
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 02 2012,21:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,18:37)
       
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 02 2012,05:35)
What, and how will you teach the teachers?

Here's one way:

http://learningcenter.nsta.org/product....4_07_72

I didn't read the article yet. But according to Acrobat's search function no word containing "intelli" appears in the text. The starting paragraph says:        
Quote
Although the cell membrane is a complex structure, its basic form, and the self-organizing behavior of the molecules that produce it, can be easily simulated in a high school science classroom.
(emphasis mine)
Self-organizing complex structures with intelligence involved?

Seemingly, you didn't dare to mention your theory in that article.

BTW, the article is freely available here.

Thanks for letting me know that a .pdf is now easy to find online! It was initially in Encyclopedia Britannica but that required a subscription.

Intelligence related theory is one of my scientific interests, a most favorite. Due to the Theory of Intelligent Design being harder to explain and more controversial than "self-assembly" was (back then) it's important to first pave the way, ahead of time.

As with the self-assembly demonstration I enjoy introducing new concepts to education. This theory bundles up a number of them, including self-assembly which is here needed for the theory to be coherent, even though self-assembly is not intelligent.

1) Scientists have been researching vesicle formation for decades.  In fact, Oparin put forth the notion in 1924.  Nothing in this is new.


It is true that scientists were researching vesicle formation, unfortunately "self-assembly" was essentially unheard of in public school science classrooms. That's why I experimented with a number of different things in order to create a safe and inexpensive home/classroom demonstration which does not require a microscope. The project required finding a grocery store source of phospholipids (which turned out to be egg yolk) and a procedure that makes something large enough to see (which turned out to be cooking oil in water).

I helped introduce what was being studied by scientists to the public schools.

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,10:05)
2) The notion that vesicles are evidence of intelligent design is ludicrous.  Such vesicles form easily under a variety of conditions.  Why don't you go ask Jerry if vesicles have CSI.


My only intent was to introduce the concept of "self-assembly" to science teachers. The theory does not even mention CSI, or ever needs to.

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 03 2012,10:05)
3) I notice that your NCSE thing has 1 review.  Do you have stats on how often it's been downloaded?  Did you write the review?


Please do not confuse the (private nonprofit) National Center for Science Education (that only exists to promote a single theory over all others and stomps out intelligence related sciences and scientists who study cellular and molecular intelligence) with the National Science Teachers Association (that exists to help keep US science teachers ahead of the curve in science education). The two entities are entirely different.

--------------
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: Dec. 03 2012,20:23   

Gary what theory does Super Mario Brothers 3 test?

What about Street Fighter.  Surely there is a theory just like yours in there.  No?

What about Sim City?

Sim Bug Eyeballs?

Admit giggles you don't really care about testing 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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 03 2012,20:23   

And no I did not write the NSTA review. How often it was downloaded is irrelevant when enough high school science teachers already had the journal delivered to them, in printed form. The only science teachers who would need to download it are new teachers and ones who missed that issue.

--------------
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: Dec. 18 2012,12:31   

gary post here not billybob's thread please

--------------
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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2012,17:47   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 18 2012,10:31)
gary post here not billybob's thread please

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ZHiJJnE

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3275
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 18 2012,23:00   

Either way, it was already shown that the mob in this forum is dangerously unqualified to judge scientific cognitive theory.  And I’m done wasting my time is your little hell-hole.

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

   
  11799 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (394) < ... 32 33 34 35 36 [37] 38 39 40 41 42 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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