NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 27 2015,16:58) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 27 2015,13:50) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 27 2015,13:30) | There has not been a single bit of contrary scientific evidence presented by a single person in this forum. They have none.
Enough said. |
To repeat, the scientific evidence against your most recent diagram is that arrows are not explanations, and that there there is no scientific evidence for chemical species being equivalent to biological species or for them speciating, or for molecules being intelligent.
| Quote |
If you can't discuss what I spent a long time drawing then get out of this tread! |
Sadly, there's no correlation between the time you spent and the worth of the product. Your diagram is merely asserting your misunderstandings about what some words mean. That's not science. |
Google Scholar will get you up to date on modern use of the phrases "Molecular Species" and "Genetic Species".[/quote]
To no one's surprise, you are the one who is entirely incorrect in his usage of the terms. This is due in no small part to your complete ignorance of biology and chemistry.
'Species' does not mean what you think it means, does not imply what you think it implies, and is not justified in its usage on your diagram nor in your "theory".
The one who needs to study up on this matter is you.
Obviously.
[quote]Origins theory that works is expected to have both represented in there somewhere. It's an indicator that the theory is very complete. Your expecting the opposite is another red-herring, away from reality.
Your opinion on the use of the word "intelligent" is likewise overruled by science and evidence in regards to theory of operation for computer models of such systems.
I'm almost finished with new code to draw it out with more detail, and better labeling to help make it more clear. |
What's missing is any indication that your steaming heap of malformed verbiage should or could count as a theory.
It isn't one, it can't count on one, and there is exactly one person on Earth who believes otherwise. That would be you.
Catch a clue Gary -- if there were any merit to your drivel, any merit at all, you would have found at least one person to agree with you. 8+ years and no one, literally no one, other than you thinks this mess is or could count as a theory.
Furthermore, the one here with absurd opinions on the word "intelligent" and its variants is you.
You are completely clueless about science and have no grounds for asserting that it supports your effluent. It doesn't.
You have no evidence to support your assertions to the contrary.
Nor do you have a 'theory of operation' for software as such.
You have a pile of words, ill-formed, ill-conceived, all but meaningless, signifying nothing whatsoever other than your own ignorance and delusions of adequacy.
Mucking about with your software is a waste of time, effort, and electrons. Better labels will avail you not at all, for what is being labeled is meaningless garbage with zero evidential status other than to your insanity, your inanity, the vapidity of your vacuity.
|
