Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Jerry Don Bauer's Thread

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

blipey Posts: 2061 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,15:26    the mechanics of the operation of the eye is a separation of church and state issue? Congrats on two fronts. One, decent sentence; well done.  Two, uh, what? -------------- 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

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,15:28    Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 13 2012,22:50) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 13 2012,22:20)   Quote (Doc Bill @ Dec. 13 2012,21:46) Literature deprived GaryBillyBobDumbFuck wrote:       Quote For the record, what does Panda’s Thumb have to say about how the human eye works? That war is over ever since the Baldwin brothers wrote their definitive paper "Evolutionary Sequence of Optical Structures Confirmed by Comparative Genetic Analysis Across Vertebrate Orders via Venter-Hilbert Space Analysis", A. Baldwin, S. Baldwin, PNAS, Vol. 97, Issue 7, 2009, pp 1120-1189.  (Subscription required) I assume you meant how it evolved, now how it works.  Every third grader on the planet knows how the eye works.  Hopefully, you're not that stupid, although I'm not holding my breath. I specifically need to know how the human (or vertebrate) eye works, especially how the photons are collected and other resolution related details. It is there. But since what I found indicates a serious problem (also a separation of church and state issue) I thought I would let you find where that is mentioned, just in case I missed the very important self-correction which should be there by now. Find a third-grader and ask them. Quit bugging us with stupid third-grade questions.  This has already been done: "ALGOL Model of Vertebrate Vision:  Image to Representation," S. Baldwin, NIH Review Letters, 2009, Vol. 45 Issue 11, pp 1123-1145 (Subscription required). The only information I found (on Panda's Thumb for how the vertebrate retina works) came from a myth in the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. -------------- 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: Dec. 14 2012,16:12    From what I can gather (by reading what your biggest critics say) Kenneth Miller also got well stuck in this "poor design" philosophical argument, that first requires ignorance of what Muller cells are for (or else the philosophical hypothesis goes the other way). http://www.icr.org/article....-design -------------- 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. 14 2012,16:27    by all means, read blogs instead of the fucking scientific literature.  it makes this much more hilarious -------------- 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: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,16:39    Gary, forget research and theorizing, you're even crap at doing a basic literature search. Why in the world would you search The Panda's Thumb for info on how the retina works? That's like searching a History of Ferrari Production website to learn how headlights work. Yeah, there's some overlap, but it's about as inefficient a technique as possible. Why wouldn't you do what a normal person (or a scientist without access to subscription-based databases) would do, and google "How the vertebrate retina works?". If you did you'd get Dowling, J. E. 1987. The Retina: An Approachable Part of the Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press. Hattar, S., H.-W. Liao, M. Takao, D. M. Berson and K.-W Yau. 2002. Melanopsin-containing retinal ganglion cells: Architecture, projections, and intrinsic photosensitivity. Science 295:1065–1070. Kolb, H. and E. V. Famiglietti. 1974. Rod and cone pathways in the inner plexiform layer of the cat retina. Science 186:47–49. Kolb, H. , R. Nelson, P. Ahnelt and N. Cuenca. 2001. Cellular organization of the vertebrate retina. In Concepts and Challenges in Retinal Biology: A Tribute to John E. Dowling, pp. 3–26, ed. H. Kolb, H. Ripps and S. Wu. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press. Kolb, H., E. Fernandez and R. Nelson. 2002. Webvision: The Organization of the Retina and Visual System. http://www.webvision.med.utah.edu/....tah.edu Nelson, R., E. V. Famiglietti and H. Kolb. 1978. Intracellular staining reveals different levels of stratification for on-center and off-center ganglion cells in the cat retina. Journal of Neurophysiology 41:427–483. Rodieck, R. W. 1998. The First Steps in Seeing. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. 2003 January–February 35 etc etc etc etc.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,16:43    The very first google result page has a link entitled How the Fucking Vertebrate Retina Works, Gary, You Daft Git. by Sigma Xi. I think I paraphrased the title slightly. Edited by stevestory on Dec. 14 2012,17:45

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,17:18    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 14 2012,16:27) by all means, read blogs instead of the fucking scientific literature.  it makes this much more hilarious The literature is here: http://www.pnas.org/content....7.short That paper was the main attraction of the Intelligent Design Scores! Science Trashes Opposition's Books! thread also in York/Dover, PA which set that issue straight, real fast, by showing the (then) newly published literature from PNAS for how the vertebrate retina works. In my scientific method, sudden scientific upsets like this are a good thing. Books worth of philosophy/religion being made gone, only eliminates more non-science that does not belong in a science classroom, in the first place. -------------- 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: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,17:55    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,17:18) *snip* In my scientific method, sudden scientific upsets like this are a good thing. Books worth of philosophy/religion being made gone, only eliminates more non-science that does not belong in a science classroom, in the first place. I'm sorry Gary, but your 'scientific method' (spoiler, it's not) is completely and comprehensively refuted by this: Which has received a 100% 5 stars ranking (better than yours did). (editz 4 spellz) Edited by Richardthughes on Dec. 14 2012,17:57 -------------- "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: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,17:59    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,16:43) The very first google result page has a link entitled How the Fucking Vertebrate Retina Works, Gary, You Daft Git. by Sigma Xi. I think I paraphrased the title slightly. I used "Find" to search your pdf for mention of Muller cells. It was not found anywhere in the document. What you just recommended leaves out necessary detail, hence it only supports your messed up view of retina biology, not corrects it. -------------- 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: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,18:10    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,16:43) The very first google result page has a link entitled How the Fucking Vertebrate Retina Works, Gary, You Daft Git. by Sigma Xi. I think I paraphrased the title slightly. Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. Anyway. Little known fact. Steve Baldwin, the scientist, was the youngest person to ever be elected into Sigma Xi.  He was also the youngest person to be elected into the AAAS.  Too bad he can't act or he'd have a great future.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,18:36    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,18:59) I used "Find" to search your pdf for mention of Muller cells. It was not found anywhere in the document. What you just recommended leaves out necessary detail, hence it only supports your messed up view of retina biology, not corrects it. a) that Muller glia weren't mentioned in one thing i posted, therefore you understand the situation better than I do is funny because I don't remember you beating me in any of my numerous A&P classes. b) you clearly didn't bother going to that http://webvision.med.utah.edu/....tah.edu link I posted. Here are the articles on that site which discuss Muller glia: Gene Expression Changes Within Müller Glial Cells in Retinitis Pigmentosa Nov 13, 2012 — No Comments Cyclin D1 Inactivation Extends Proliferation and Alters Histogenesis In The Postnatal Mouse Retina Jul 11, 2012 — No Comments Photovoltaic Retinal Prosthesis With High Pixel Density May 15, 2012 — No Comments Retinal Metabolic Response to Cigarette Smoke May 8, 2012 — No Comments Glycine Receptor Diversity in the Mammalian Retina Mar 25, 2012 — No Comments Activated Müller Glia Dec 23, 2011 — No Comments Metabolic Profiling of Activated Retinal Glia Nov 18, 2011 — No Comments Proliferative reactive gliosis is compatible with glial metabolic support and neuronal function Oct 17, 2011 — No Comments Notable Paper: Structural basis of PIP2 activation of the classical inward rectifier K+ channel Kir2.2 Sep 6, 2011 — No Comments Targeting Müller Cell-derived VEGF With Short Hairpin RNA May 4, 2011 — No Comments Cellular Remodeling in Mammalian Retina Induced by Retinal Detachment Mar 30, 2011 — 3 Comments The Electroretinogram and Electro-oculogram: Clinical Applications Mar 30, 2011 — 30 Comments The Electroretinogram: ERG Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Regeneration in the visual system of adult mammals Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Regeneration in the Goldfish Visual System Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Space Perception Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Formation of Early Retinal Circuits in the Inner Plexiform Layer Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments Development of cell types and synaptic connections in the retina Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Bipolar Cell Pathways in the Vertebrate Retina Mar 30, 2011 — 3 Comments Glutamate and glutamate receptors in the vertebrate retina Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Phototransduction in Rods and Cones Mar 30, 2011 — 4 Comments AII Amacrine Cells Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Roles of Amacrine Cells Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments Cone Pathways through the Retina Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Circuitry for Rod Signals Through The Retina Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Glial cells of the Retina    Mar 30, 2011 — 6 Comments    Ganglion Cell Physiology    Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments    S-Potentials and Horizontal Cells    Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment    Photoreceptors    Mar 30, 2011 — 24 Comments    The retinal pigment epithelium    Mar 30, 2011 — 9 Comments    Simple Anatomy of the Retina    Jan 25, 2011 — 70 Comments    Part XIII: Facts and Figures concerning the human retina    Jan 25, 2011 — 10 Comments    Part IV: Neurotransmitters in the Retina    Jan 25, 2011 — No Comments So please, tell us, specifically, exactly how my view of retina biology is messed up.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,18:40    I would also accept an apology for making false accusations about my understanding of retinas.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,18:45    Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,19:37    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:36) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,18:59) I used "Find" to search your pdf for mention of Muller cells. It was not found anywhere in the document. What you just recommended leaves out necessary detail, hence it only supports your messed up view of retina biology, not corrects it. a) that Muller glia weren't mentioned in one thing i posted, therefore you understand the situation better than I do is funny because I don't remember you beating me in any of my numerous A&P classes. b) you clearly didn't bother going to that http://webvision.med.utah.edu/....tah....tah.edu link I posted. Here are the articles on that site which discuss Muller glia: Gene Expression Changes Within Müller Glial Cells in Retinitis Pigmentosa Nov 13, 2012 — No Comments Cyclin D1 Inactivation Extends Proliferation and Alters Histogenesis In The Postnatal Mouse Retina Jul 11, 2012 — No Comments Photovoltaic Retinal Prosthesis With High Pixel Density May 15, 2012 — No Comments Retinal Metabolic Response to Cigarette Smoke May 8, 2012 — No Comments Glycine Receptor Diversity in the Mammalian Retina Mar 25, 2012 — No Comments Activated Müller Glia Dec 23, 2011 — No Comments Metabolic Profiling of Activated Retinal Glia Nov 18, 2011 — No Comments Proliferative reactive gliosis is compatible with glial metabolic support and neuronal function Oct 17, 2011 — No Comments Notable Paper: Structural basis of PIP2 activation of the classical inward rectifier K+ channel Kir2.2 Sep 6, 2011 — No Comments Targeting Müller Cell-derived VEGF With Short Hairpin RNA May 4, 2011 — No Comments Cellular Remodeling in Mammalian Retina Induced by Retinal Detachment Mar 30, 2011 — 3 Comments The Electroretinogram and Electro-oculogram: Clinical Applications Mar 30, 2011 — 30 Comments The Electroretinogram: ERG Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Regeneration in the visual system of adult mammals Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Regeneration in the Goldfish Visual System Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Space Perception Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Formation of Early Retinal Circuits in the Inner Plexiform Layer Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments Development of cell types and synaptic connections in the retina Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Bipolar Cell Pathways in the Vertebrate Retina Mar 30, 2011 — 3 Comments Glutamate and glutamate receptors in the vertebrate retina Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Phototransduction in Rods and Cones Mar 30, 2011 — 4 Comments AII Amacrine Cells Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Roles of Amacrine Cells Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments Cone Pathways through the Retina Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment Circuitry for Rod Signals Through The Retina Mar 30, 2011 — No Comments Glial cells of the Retina    Mar 30, 2011 — 6 Comments    Ganglion Cell Physiology    Mar 30, 2011 — 2 Comments    S-Potentials and Horizontal Cells    Mar 30, 2011 — 1 Comment    Photoreceptors    Mar 30, 2011 — 24 Comments    The retinal pigment epithelium    Mar 30, 2011 — 9 Comments    Simple Anatomy of the Retina    Jan 25, 2011 — 70 Comments    Part XIII: Facts and Figures concerning the human retina    Jan 25, 2011 — 10 Comments    Part IV: Neurotransmitters in the Retina    Jan 25, 2011 — No Comments So please, tell us, specifically, exactly how my view of retina biology is messed up. I am specifically addressing the issue of Muller cells being left out of the equation in what I found on Panda's Thumb. What you do or do not know about retina biology is irrelevant. The fact remains that PT is a very bad place to accidentally run across info on retina biology. Still just get an obsolete philosophy laced view, that should have been corrected by now. -------------- 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.

Ignatious Posts: 5 Joined: Feb. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,21:48    [quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 14 2012,19:37] Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,18:59) The fact remains that PT is a very bad place to accidentally run across info on retina biology. Still just get an obsolete philosophy laced view, that should have been corrected by now. Inorite? I am very dissapoint in my local waffle house, as they are very bad places to accidentally run across Faberge Eggs, as well.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,23:04    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45)   Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... -------------- 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: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 14 2012,23:23    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:04) Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45)     Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... That's right Gaga. So why are you here with your VB code if we're the metaphorical Dodos of origins? Why do you correct your idiotic 'theory' based on us laughing at it? Oh, My theory has 100% 5 stars. Yours, does not, so is inferior. EDITZ Edited by Richardthughes on Dec. 14 2012,23:25 -------------- "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: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,01:51    Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2012,23:23)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:04)     Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45)         Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... That's right Gaga. So why are you here with your VB code if we're the metaphorical Dodos of origins? Why do you correct your idiotic 'theory' based on us laughing at it? Oh, My theory has 100% 5 stars. Yours, does not, so is inferior. EDITZ And that is some of the usual nonsense awaiting those who dare suggest that the ID issue is far more than their simple imaginary evolution/origins issue where one side is in denial of science. In the ID camp that I know (where there are serious people needing sound advice to know things way or another) none I know are even denying evolution or "origins" science the problem has all along been not satisfactorily explaining macroevolution scale changes. Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. -------------- 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. 15 2012,05:46    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 15 2012,02:51) Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. why do you think this is, giggles? i mean, since you won't answer the other question.  tell us, why is it that people gang up against the more complete scientific view? could they be...  without excuse? -------------- 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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,07:39    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:51)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2012,23:23)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:04)         Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45)             Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... That's right Gaga. So why are you here with your VB code if we're the metaphorical Dodos of origins? Why do you correct your idiotic 'theory' based on us laughing at it? Oh, My theory has 100% 5 stars. Yours, does not, so is inferior. EDITZ And that is some of the usual nonsense awaiting those who dare suggest that the ID issue is far more than their simple imaginary evolution/origins issue where one side is in denial of science. In the ID camp that I know (where there are serious people needing sound advice to know things way or another) none I know are even denying evolution or "origins" science the problem has all along been not satisfactorily explaining macroevolution scale changes. Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. Gary, will you please elaborate on why you think that "macroevolution scale changes" has not been explained satisfactorily?   Quote Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. I agree that "Searching for a more complete scientific view" is something that should be cherished, as long as the search is scientific. None of the typical ID claims are scientific and I don't see the typical IDiots searching for anything other than the destruction of evolutionary science and total religious dominance of everyone and everything on Earth. Your 'search' may be scientific in some ways but I don't see that it's searching for or finding what you seem to think it is. It's often difficult or impossible to figure out what you're trying to say about your 'theory' and I find myself 'searching' for clarity and relevant evidence in your claims. I also wonder about the urge that drives you and whether you're really interested in a scientific search or in pushing a religious/political agenda. I've seen signs of both from you and I haven't completely made my mind up about what you're trying to accomplish. I admire your persistence even though I'm not convinced that you have a valid argument for your version of ID. You have a lot more guts than chickenshit bloviators like gordon e mullings (kairosfocus), barry arrington, vj torley, luskin, o'leary, klinghoffer, and many other typical IDiots who spew their dishonest insanity in heavily moderated or closed to comments sanctuaries like UD or ENV. You deserve some credit for being willing to face the fire here even if you ultimately fail to convince anyone of your claims. -------------- 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

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,07:46    Quote (Ignatious @ Dec. 14 2012,22:48) [quote=GaryGaulin,Dec. 14 2012,19:37] Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,18:59) The fact remains that PT is a very bad place to accidentally run across info on retina biology. Still just get an obsolete philosophy laced view, that should have been corrected by now. Inorite? I am very dissapoint in my local waffle house, as they are very bad places to accidentally run across Faberge Eggs, as well. I am aghast at my local Neiman Marcus. It is a terrible place to accidentally run across Torx™-head Deckmate 8x2.5" deck screws.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,08:58    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 15 2012,07:46) [quote=Ignatious,Dec. 14 2012,22:48] Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,19:37)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,18:59) The fact remains that PT is a very bad place to accidentally run across info on retina biology. Still just get an obsolete philosophy laced view, that should have been corrected by now. Inorite? I am very dissapoint in my local waffle house, as they are very bad places to accidentally run across Faberge Eggs, as well. I am aghast at my local Neiman Marcus. It is a terrible place to accidentally run across Torx™-head Deckmate 8x2.5" deck screws. Shockingly, Toy-R-Us (despite the name) is a poor place to accidentally run across... massagers. Anyway, perhaps Gary doesn't understand the purpose of Panda's Thumb (which is likely, I'm certain he doesn't even understand the purpose of his own work). And yes, AtBC and PT have slowed down because the high quality tard has either dropped off the face of the planet or actually learned something and we're left with brain damaged trolls who can barely string two sentences together. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,18:26    Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 15 2012,08:58) Anyway, perhaps Gary doesn't understand the purpose of Panda's Thumb (which is likely, I'm certain he doesn't even understand the purpose of his own work). And yes, AtBC and PT have slowed down because the high quality tard has either dropped off the face of the planet or actually learned something and we're left with brain damaged trolls who can barely string two sentences together. Your purpose has become to perform (academia approved) tricks for a big-tent circus where fart-noise cartoons are good enough to go there. It still has to be by credentials, therefore none care about what's really going on with school board members and others who were elected to serve entire states worth of public school science classrooms. My purpose is to make sure all who most matter are learning something new from this controversy. In that effort, I am being successful. This helps explain why places like PT are ignored like like it's just another side-show act, that all have seen before. -------------- 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. 15 2012,20:02    successful troll is successful? -------------- 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

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,20:28    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 15 2012,20:02) successful troll is successful? It's the Baldwin Effect.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,22:27    Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 15 2012,07:39)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:51)       Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 14 2012,23:23)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 14 2012,23:04)           Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 14 2012,18:45)               Quote Somewhat OFF Topic but here on GaryJerryBillyBobFtKJoeG's thread I've sort of lost what ON Topic is. The metatopic is how sad and low-energy this place is, now that the ID creationists with two brain cells to rub together have slunk off the stage, and we're just left with a few people who are very likely legitimately mentally disabled, and the attendant ethical questions posed w/r/t making fun of them. In my honest opinion: The real reason for how sad and low-energy this place is, is what I have been trying to explain that has to do with PT not having kept up with the major science paradigm changers like the earlier mentioned PNAS Müller cells are living optical fibers in the vertebrate retina. PT is simply becoming a dated world-view. Sadly, now a bad place to look for current reliable information. And its connected forum is ruled by those who fight any attempt to stay current. So you are (metaphorically speaking) getting what you deserve... That's right Gaga. So why are you here with your VB code if we're the metaphorical Dodos of origins? Why do you correct your idiotic 'theory' based on us laughing at it? Oh, My theory has 100% 5 stars. Yours, does not, so is inferior. EDITZ And that is some of the usual nonsense awaiting those who dare suggest that the ID issue is far more than their simple imaginary evolution/origins issue where one side is in denial of science. In the ID camp that I know (where there are serious people needing sound advice to know things way or another) none I know are even denying evolution or "origins" science the problem has all along been not satisfactorily explaining macroevolution scale changes. Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. Gary, will you please elaborate on why you think that "macroevolution scale changes" has not been explained satisfactorily?       Quote Searching for a more complete scientific view is something ganged up against. It should instead be something cherished because of science needing those who attempt to go beyond what was known before, not those who will never even try. I agree that "Searching for a more complete scientific view" is something that should be cherished, as long as the search is scientific. None of the typical ID claims are scientific and I don't see the typical IDiots searching for anything other than the destruction of evolutionary science and total religious dominance of everyone and everything on Earth. Your 'search' may be scientific in some ways but I don't see that it's searching for or finding what you seem to think it is. It's often difficult or impossible to figure out what you're trying to say about your 'theory' and I find myself 'searching' for clarity and relevant evidence in your claims. I also wonder about the urge that drives you and whether you're really interested in a scientific search or in pushing a religious/political agenda. I've seen signs of both from you and I haven't completely made my mind up about what you're trying to accomplish. I admire your persistence even though I'm not convinced that you have a valid argument for your version of ID. You have a lot more guts than chickenshit bloviators like gordon e mullings (kairosfocus), barry arrington, vj torley, luskin, o'leary, klinghoffer, and many other typical IDiots who spew their dishonest insanity in heavily moderated or closed to comments sanctuaries like UD or ENV. You deserve some credit for being willing to face the fire here even if you ultimately fail to convince anyone of your claims. You are also overcomplicating things, keep it scientifically simple. There is an algorithm for standard modeling any behavior (intelligent or not) of any biological system that may exist, as well as "intelligent cause". It is up to you to make sure that it is coded/wired as in the real thing. Not me, or the algorithm that you somehow believe can do that for you too. Even where you found something missing in my insect brain it's then easily added to Addressing, Confidence logic circuit or wherever else that parameter should be listed in. Can keep on going until you have a whole human brain modeled that way. Where you start at the cellular level you get neurons that are constantly changing at the molecular level like this that I recently found with good news from the BBC to help sum up that process: http://iaincarstairs.wordpress.com/2011.......rturned The core IA is part of a standard modeling methodology that preserves any underlying multiple emergent levels of self-organization that exist in the real thing, but normally not your models. Object is to sort out the literature for one thing into an IA model of it, for example molecular intelligence of a neuron that is expected to self-organize it's own cellular level intelligence/behavior system needed for migration. The only question is how well you have the system figured out. That is tested by how well your model behaves like the real thing. In the Intelligence Design Lab I use for testing it's a simple insect navigation, result is common ordinary insect foraging behavior. It does not have to display more than that. It's already obvious it learns how to get from one food source to another like it should, there is no question whether it worked or not. What remains is improving the model by adding more detail, and I am making progress with in the updated version. I'm thankful that you noticed I'm not a big-tent regular. I try to stay out of the rings when the circus is on. In the camp I'm from both PT and UD is like the same old show kept going for too long. As a two time graduate of the Holyoke Public Schools Parent Empowerment training program (where they too stressed the importance of empowering others) I have been corresponding with others who I could tell deserved empowerment that goes along with the territory of theory like this. Main connection there is Kathy Martin, who is the result of a public hearing gone bad when the big-tent came to Kansas. Only thing that matters to her and others is what helps turns such a giant mess around, so it at least ultimately results in something of great educational value. And you did not even have to know about NSTA publishing the self-assembly demonstration and Kathy getting that around with credits where her peers (and biggest critics) are, the KCFS forum which had to be credited too. I focus on what science needs for theory, and who most needs to know about the accomplishments made along the way. It's already said and done, not something paraded around in what is now more like a circus, few care about anymore. -------------- 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.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 15 2012,22:33    Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 15 2012,05:39) (snip) I also wonder about the urge that drives you and whether you're really interested in a scientific search or in pushing a religious/political agenda. (snip) Just looks like egomania and a need for validation, to me. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,01:06    Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 15 2012,22:33)   Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 15 2012,05:39) (snip) I also wonder about the urge that drives you and whether you're really interested in a scientific search or in pushing a religious/political agenda. (snip) Just looks like egomania and a need for validation, to me. As the story goes: The (jokingly referred to as innocent looking toes in the sand country girl) Lucky Lady from District 6 in Kansas already had no problem driving what she needed from the theory home, to where she lives. Here's (metaphorical) highlights of that now epic upset: Rev Theory - Hell Yeah Picture a culture war where your ivory tower circus already fell apart, and your nightmare has only just begun. Between gauging theory with philosophy (in order to stop any new one from ever being written) and expecting supernatural deities to poof out of a test-tube, I have no sympathy at all for your very sinister antiscientific methods. -------------- 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. 16 2012,09:42    I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in. -------------- 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. 16 2012,12:00    I don't know where billywillybob went, and this is his thread.  but since giggles' doesn't care about his thread here we go. Gary drolly lies Quote There is an algorithm for standard modeling any behavior (intelligent or not) of any biological system that may exist, as well as "intelligent cause". first of all, you can model any fucking thing as fucking thing.  This is shit-tier word salad, you can do much better than this. What is the point of your model?  to make a video game bug that responds it's video game environment?  fuck yeah you done good son.  is that what you need to hear? because the next question is "who the fuck cares"?  why should we care?  that's a serious question.  Do you think your model says anything about actual insects that anyone should care about?  or anything else?  If so, what?   Quote It is up to you to make sure that it is coded/wired as in the real thing. Again, why should we  care what you think is "up to you" or anyfuckingbody else? You are the laziest sonofabitch that ever lived.  You have this theory but you won't explain it yet you expect other people who are smarter than you to test it for you themselves.  Although i do not speak for the human race entirely, i speak for the bulk when i say, as someone smarter than you, "Fuck off I'm busy". -------------- 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

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

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard