RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 396 397 398 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,10:12   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 25 2014,00:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 25 2014,06:34)
 
Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 24 2014,21:53)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:21)
Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

Wow babe.

Now you've admitted that the entire theory is circular.  You make a model and you refuse to demonstrate that it has anything to do with reality.  And then you explain how it works.  Which you know, because you designed it.

Your theory is now officially based on explaining how your own fantasies work.  The program shows the workings of the theory, which in turn explains how the program works.  Madness.  Where's the link to reality?

I was going to point out the flaw in letting a guess be the result of a random process, but why bother?

Amazing, an actual instance of intelligent design!  Well, albeit without the "intelligent" part.

I have a theory that planes fly because angels hold them up by their wingtips.  I've modelled this in very detailed computer program that has two variables named Angel1 and Angel2, so it's clearly what happens.  It also proves that Einstein was wrong about relativity.  Wanna see my program?

Don't forget the RAM.


Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, are ewe?  :p

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,10:38   

Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 25 2014,09:13)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2014,23:34)
I have a theory that planes fly because angels hold them up by their wingtips.  I've modelled this in very detailed computer program that has two variables named Angel1 and Angel2, so it's clearly what happens.  It also proves that Einstein was wrong about relativity.  Wanna see my program?

do you have a dense and incoherent full-page graph, perchance?

No, You're the science stopper.  Stop bullying!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....6l_z3WY

Stop moving the goal posts.  And do you have a better model that explains aeroplane flight AND disproves relativity? Until you do, I win.

Look, a shiny blonde:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....tAABuXY

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,10:42   

Quote
And do you have a better model that explains aeroplane flight AND disproves relativity?

And bumblebee flight too; don't forget that!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,11:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 25 2014,11:38)
Stop moving the goal posts.  And do you have a better model that explains aeroplane flight AND disproves relativity? Until you do, I win.

I HAVE A CHART WHICH ALSO HERE SOLVES ALL THAT WHICH IT WAS NEEDED TO SOLVE, THAT PLUS THE P=NP PROBLEM, LIKENESS.

   
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,11:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2014,08:12)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 25 2014,00:52)

Don't forget the RAM.


Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, are ewe?  :p

I was wondering wether it was time for another flock of baad puns...

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,14:01   

Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 25 2014,11:40)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2014,08:12)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 25 2014,00:52)

Don't forget the RAM.


Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, are ewe?  :p

I was wondering wether it was time for another flock of baad puns...

As Satchmo used to say, "Who the hell designed that horn section?"

If you are shear you want to run the risk of getting lamb-punned to death, there's an amazing, almost endless, list of breed names to provide fodder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._breeds

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2014,08:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 25 2014,22:01)
Quote (JohnW @ Aug. 25 2014,11:40)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 25 2014,08:12)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 25 2014,00:52)

Don't forget the RAM.


Surely you're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes, are ewe?  :p

I was wondering wether it was time for another flock of baad puns...

As Satchmo used to say, "Who the hell designed that horn section?"

If you are shear you want to run the risk of getting lamb-punned to death, there's an amazing, almost endless, list of breed names to provide fodder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._breeds

Gary's udder nonsense fry's offal good, there's no ruminant for improvement.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2014,20:14   

Quote
Gary's udder nonsense fry's offal good, there's no ruminant for improvement.

So is that a reason to keep milking it?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2014,20:45   

There was an interesting reply at the NCSE blog, with two (so far) comment replies after it. To not have to search for the trinity (three) I will link straight to them.
 
http://ncse.com/blog....8648969

http://ncse.com/blog....9408441

http://ncse.com/blog....0975097

ROAR!!!!!!!

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

   
socle



Posts: 322
Joined: July 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2014,20:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 26 2014,20:45)
ROAR!!!!!!!


  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2014,21:36   

CdnMacAtheist and two others (making Three Stooges) have long been a problem for the NCSE blog, by being unwelcoming and profane. Some of their best crap had to be removed from comments. But I did not protest.  

Commenters were asked to resist encouraging them and I'm doing my part by not responding to that one either. Especially since it could turn into another rehab story from my youth (long ago gave up drinking, no shrooms) or long off topic thread full of even more of their droppings.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,05:59   

Gary, lately you've been infesting the internet like an outbreak of Ebola, with absolutely no success whatsoever.  No one with any knowledge of science has been impressed, so all you've accomplished is convincing an even larger audience of the lunacy of your ideas.

You say complete twaddle like,      
Quote
From my experience "fitness" is a generalization.
, which makes it obvious that your experience is completely worthless and you have no idea what you are talking about, and, worse, you say it as if you expect people to nod sagely in agreement.  At one level, yes, everything is a generalization, but not in a way that detracts from its usefulness and its accuracy.  Fitness is a very well worked out concept, with a good operational definition: it's mathematically legitimate, it has excellent supporting evidence, and fitness data can easily be duplicated independently (none of which is true of your stuff).  Even the point about the supposed problem of apparent fitness caused by lots of offspring, but who happen to be sterile, is a non-issue: in rare cases where reproductive success does not lead to grandchildren, or grandparents contribute importantly to the reproductive success of their grandchildren, or (more commonly) where reproductive success is achieved through the reproduction of siblings or cousins, fitness works perfectly when defined more precisely by reproductive success measured by the degree of propagation of each individual's genes in the third generation.  In "normal" cases, the number of offspring is a perfectly adequate measure.  However, in social insects and other organisms with weird genetic systems and in apparently altruistic populations where organisms sacrifice their own reproductive success for the benefits of their close relatives, we get some unusual results.  Again, selection theory handles these perfectly!

If you were trying to combine tragedy and comedy in performance art, it would be hard to do better, but as science your stuff fails on every level.

What on earth are you getting out of it?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,06:14   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 27 2014,04:14)
Quote
Gary's udder nonsense fry's offal good, there's no ruminant for improvement.

So is that a reason to keep milking it?

Ewe herd of Feta?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,11:43   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 27 2014,05:14)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 27 2014,04:14)
Quote
Gary's udder nonsense fry's offal good, there's no ruminant for improvement.

So is that a reason to keep milking it?

Ewe herd of Feta?

It's Greek to me.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,16:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2014,05:59)
What on earth are you getting out of it?

So many questions.
And the answers come back unanswered.

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,16:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 27 2014,17:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2014,05:59)
What on earth are you getting out of it?

So many questions.
And the answers come back unanswered.

Could this be the first sign of self-awareness from Laddy Gaga?

Nah, any sign of coherence from that source is obviously a mistake.  Or a mis-translation.  An accident entirely without meaning.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,17:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 27 2014,16:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2014,05:59)
What on earth are you getting out of it?

So many questions.
And the answers come back unanswered.

How, pray tell, does an answer come back unanswered?

Gary, if you want to revolutionize science, you really have to respect us, and yourself, enough to learn to communicate.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,17:05   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 27 2014,17:02)
How, pray tell, does an answer come back unanswered?



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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,17:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 27 2014,17:05)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 27 2014,17:02)
How, pray tell, does an answer come back unanswered?


English, do you speak it?

You could argue that was a (I apologize for the caps,  but Gary is really stupid) QUESTION that came back unanswered.

But you claimed an ANSWER came back unanswered.  And it is your complete inability to fucking proof-read or learn to write that is insulting to us and embarrassing to you.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,17:33   

As to your stupid question.  If you are going to make claims about having a better theory than the modern ToE, the least you could do is understand it at a higher level than a middle school meth head.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,17:59   

I am not to blame for your problem keeping up with science, that you yourself chose to ignore.

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 27 2014,23:11   

Quote
how would you precisely calculate the "fitness score" of one dancer over another (in the eyes of each beholder) including whatever it is that should on its own develop in behavior that makes some gay, too shy to say hi, startled off, too busy to stay but would if they could, or one of millions of other reasons why in reality otherwise reproductively fit couples never get together?


Quite apart from your incompetent English, the mere fact that you ask such a deeply asinine question indicates how very little you understand about evolution.  The answer, which is obvious to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the subject, is that if any of those millions of reasons are sufficient to prevent successful reproduction, then that startled, shy, gay, and/or busy person has a fitness of zero.  It is only a slight exaggeration to say that "otherwise reproductively fit" and "how would you calculate their fitness?" share almost the same degree of pointlessness as "Well, if you had legs, how fast do you think you'd run the mile?" or  "Other than that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?". None of your imagined person's genes get passed on (assuming that such people aren't donating sperm or eggs or helping their siblings raise huge families or somesuch), so they have zero fitness.  They don't get 20% or whatever just because they aren't sterile or because their respective parts would fit (in an unrelated sense of fitness) if only they were to apply themselves more diligently.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,01:51   

I finally finished writing this one that amply squashes the latest argument from the ID movement's greatest nemesis:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014....8684540

In regards to variables like "fitness" it is very fair to ask the same questions I right along have had to ask of the model and theory that I am defending. A scientific answer is easily possible by humoring me by admitting that Darwinian Theory is not for that level of modeling detail. It might sound like opening Pandora's Box then dancing Zombie demons come flying out while golden crabs scurry, but it's just science...

--------------
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: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,03:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 28 2014,09:51)
I finally finished writing this one that amply squashes the latest argument from the ID movement's greatest nemesis:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......8684540

In regards to variables like "fitness" it is very fair to ask the same questions I right along have had to ask of the model and theory that I am defending. A scientific answer is easily possible by humoring me by admitting that Darwinian Theory is not for that level of modeling detail. It might sound like opening Pandora's Box then dancing Zombie demons come flying out while golden crabs scurry, but it's just science...

No Gary, it's not science. It's just childish fear and loathing fiction.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,06:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 28 2014,02:51)
I finally finished writing this one that amply squashes the latest argument from the ID movement's greatest nemesis:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......8684540

In regards to variables like "fitness" it is very fair to ask the same questions I right along have had to ask of the model and theory that I am defending. A scientific answer is easily possible by humoring me by admitting that Darwinian Theory is not for that level of modeling detail. It might sound like opening Pandora's Box then dancing Zombie demons come flying out while golden crabs scurry, but it's just science...

Your 'model' is rubbish and has been falsified insofar as it is concrete enough to be falsifiable.
As a 'general theory of intelligence', it fails to cover a host of acts generally considered intelligent.  It provides no grounds for excluding them because it provides no grounds for distinguishing proper instances of intelligence from everything else.
We've been over this before, we've presented evidence.
You've failed to grapple with the criticisms and have presented no evidence whatsoever.  Your risible software doesn't count, also for reasons that have been exhaustively explained.

BTW, you don't even have variables in your "theory".
But, of course, you don't have a theory, and you don't actually have a model.  You have a steaming heap of malformed verbiage and a precious little diagram that is in no way shape or form a model, nor a picture of a model.

Deal with the evidence against your work.  Stop the pretense.  Get a life.
I'll go easy on you -- pick two.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,08:24   

Quite some time ago you argued for a lag function in differential lengths of left and right laryngeal nerves, before you learned about equalization of transmission times by differential myelinization.  Now you propose the same argument with differential myelinization, without otherwise changing the arguments.  Differential myelinization and signal processing are much easier ways to produce a lag than changing the LN differential if a lag was needed, but you haven't even demonstrated that a lag is needed, let alone a lag in LN transmission.  You've made a point of low / long-wavelength sound production in giraffes and in elephants.  It's especially important in elephants, yet giraffes have a very long throat and recurrent laryngeal nerve, while the elephant's RLN and throat are comparatively short for their size (closer to horse-size, shorter than camel-size).  Comparatively short necks do not seem to be a problem for alligators.  Although there is a strong tendency for large animals to use infrasound and small animals to use ultrasound, the correlation is imperfect.  For example, some animals use both.  Lengths of resonating chambers are only one of several influences on what sounds can be made, so animals produce a whole variety of sounds that are not simplistically correlated with the length of their RLN and their larynx.  Birds, which have an RLN, use their syrinx instead instead of a larynx, and both the larynx and the syrinx in birds are innervated by the hypoglossal nerve (the 12th cranial), rather than the vagus (the 10th cranial nerve, of which the RLN is a branch).  Clearly, the situation is not as simple as you imagine it to be.  Once again, you are making empty assertions without backing anything up.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,22:01   

Here's something novel at the NCSE blog, I had to complement then compliment:

http://ncse.com/blog.......4247331

And believe it or not again: I have just the right 'noise' to intelligently communicate the necessary 'signal' for our forum collective to together celebrate this occasion!

Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra

From the "fun of things" it's evident that scientific progress has been made, again.........

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2014,22:28   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 28 2014,08:24)
Quite some time ago you argued for a lag function in differential lengths of left and right laryngeal nerves, before you learned about equalization of transmission times by differential myelinization.....

You are now getting into details that do not matter to the fact that there is a signal with propagation delay time roughly proportional for the acoustic chamber size, resonance.

Large horses and elephants have similar vocal ranges, can trumpet. Baby giraffes make a somewhat low frequency sheep baaaaa sound but (in comparison to horses and elephants) giraffes are (other than infrasound we do not hear) mute by adulthood. I watched videos of their fighting and other stressed behaviors. It is like watching brawling mimes. Why?

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2014,06:18   

Quote
details that do not matter

And there's the heart of your problems: it does not matter to you that insects don't have hippocampi, that salmon don't defend 'nests full of young until death', that you haven't actually demonstrated the existence of molecular intelligence, that emergence is not design, that genomes do not actually learn or guess in the same sense that standardly intelligent creatures do, that things that aren't the same aren't self-similar, that your definitions of intelligence exclude things that the rest of us consider to be the highest levels of intelligent, that your usages classify Neato vacuum cleaners and autofocus cameras as intelligent, that you still don't have an operational definition of intelligence, that nothing emerges in your computer program, that your computer program doesn't address even a tiny fraction of the claims that you assert, that your sentences are rarely comprehensible, that no one on either side of the debate sees the slightest value in your assertions, that you fail to back up any of your assertions with evidence, and so on and so forth.  You've got your obvious-to-you conclusions, and details be damned.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2014,07:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 28 2014,23:28)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 28 2014,08:24)
Quite some time ago you argued for a lag function in differential lengths of left and right laryngeal nerves, before you learned about equalization of transmission times by differential myelinization.....

You are now getting into details that do not matter to the fact that there is a signal with propagation delay time roughly proportional for the acoustic chamber size, resonance.
...

Details that you brought into discussion.
Details you got wrong.
Details on which you  remain hysterically confused -- there is a profound difference between a delay and a resonance.  
There is a profound difference between correlation and causation.
There is a profound difference between a resonance in an acoustic chamber and an alleged resonance in an electrical circuit (nerved fiber) more or less adjacent to a potential acoustical chamber.

There is a profound and fundamental difference between what you do and science.

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 388 389 390 391 392 [393] 394 395 396 397 398 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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