N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | I don't have time to explain it all over again. |
You haven't explained anything once, yet. Also, resorption of brains does not in any way involve loss of the genome.
| Quote | | It's a good time for you (as I did in the theory I defend) to provide testable evidence that this predicted self-similarity in behaviors is instead a coincidence that has nothing to do with the basic circuit systematics of the intelligence levels being the same. To be taken seriously you'll have to show an even more Occam's razor simple modeling method for behavior of matter, genetic behavior, cellular and multicellular behavior, intelligent or not. |
Your pile of rubbish is not a theory, and you haven't provided any relevant evidence, testable or not. The scientific side has published vast amounts of evidence, but you haven't. You have merely asserted self-similarity, but you haven't demonstrated it or provided any relevant mathematics. Also, the levels clearly aren't self-similar: animals have neurons and brains: plants, prokaryotes, cells, and molecules don't. Therefore, there is no coincidence to explain. You have no valid basis for predicting self-similarity: you have merely asserted it. You have yet to document multiple intelligence levels. So far you are adding in complications with no evidence for their necessity or their existence, so current standard science is better than your rubbish. You are making exceptional claims, so it is your responsibility to come up with exceptional evidence.
| Quote | | After accepting that eye lens cells and possibly more also have no nucleus, you'll then need to show that all white blood cells have the exact same code, which is exactly the same as all other cells like muscle, lung, liver, brain and germ cells, oops! |
No, I don't need to do that. First, all cells can accumulate mutations when they copy themselves, so it is false to claim that biologists expect all cells in an individual to have the EXACT same code. Basic types of white blood cells have nuclei and a full set of chromosomes, and people can be identified by the DNA in white blood cells in a blood sample (http://www.biology.arizona.edu/human_bio/problem_sets/dna_forensics_2/06t.html). I already talked about B cells and immunoglobins with rearranged genes, so that is not an issue. Moreover, immunoglobin production is becoming well understood and does not involve or require intelligence ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed.....0807577 ; http://genomemedicine.com/content....t....20 ;
| Quote | | I realize that in standard behavior data/genes are controlled and may never be addressed/activated by any of the sensory molecule cascades into memory. |
Then the levels aren't self-similar, are they?
| Quote | | That is why I called the article "incomplete" then went on to explain what was embarrassingly wrong with it, which is in part due to Darwinian theory not caring about the self-similarity of a trinity of intelligence levels. |
You haven't established self-similarity, your three levels are bogus and do not include Edgar Postrado's more recent and more extensive proposals for "intelligent design".
| Quote | | PZ can just blame the logical construct of their theory for his having missed so much, I'll forgive him. |
For someone who does nothing but promulgating rubbish and errors, that's more than a tad presumptuous.
| Quote | | And Intelligence or not you need to propose a biologically relevant model for modeling genetic systems, which has a systematic way to qualify intelligence when it does exist in a system that can be modeled that way. |
We have great models for genetic systems (e.g. check out the Hardy-Weinberg model). We will eventually need but do not yet have a detailed model for the emergence of intelligence (although we have some decent general hypotheses), but your offerings in this regard are worse than useless, so even "we don't know" provides a superior explanation to your not-a-theory.
|
