RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 529 530 531 532 533 [534] 535 536 537 538 539 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,07:01   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 21 2016,06:42)
Quote
If the proper terminology required for Cognitive Science is too difficult for you then you should stay out of discussions where it is required.


That's an false attack, but nevertheless the proper terminology for pretty much everything in biology is clearly too difficult for you, so by your logic you should stay out of everything biological.  

In fact, seeing how general usage of words in English eludes you, ..................

You are again co-opting all the theories in science into your "evolution by natural selection" paradigm in order to make it seem like all other theories in biology must follow it, when it's the other way around.

--------------
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: Jan. 21 2016,07:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2016,08:01)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 21 2016,06:42)
 
Quote
If the proper terminology required for Cognitive Science is too difficult for you then you should stay out of discussions where it is required.


That's an false attack, but nevertheless the proper terminology for pretty much everything in biology is clearly too difficult for you, so by your logic you should stay out of everything biological.  

In fact, seeing how general usage of words in English eludes you, ..................

You are again co-opting all the theories in science into your "evolution by natural selection" paradigm in order to make it seem like all other theories in biology must follow it, when it's the other way around.

As per usual that is not responsive to the post you quote.
You are entirely lacking in evidence for your oft-repeated assertions.

But let us note that you commit the very flaw you assert in others by attempting to force-fit everything into your perverse notions of 'Cognitive Science'.
We've already proven that you have zero connection to or insight about genuine Cognitive Science.  If you did, you'd either be using their definition of 'learn' or showing, in detail and with evidence, why your [absurd] usage is superior and should replace the standard definition.

You're nothing but an uncomprehending parasite with an attraction for intellectually 'shiny objects'.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,08:52   

Quote
You are again co-opting all the theories in science into your "evolution by natural selection" paradigm in order to make it seem like all other theories in biology must follow it, when it's the other way around.


Gaulin, this is one of your most blatant lies to date.

Show us where we have co-opted cosmology, electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces, subatomic particles etc. etc. into biology.

Then you could do a bit of thinking and list "all the theories in science" on a ream or two of paper.

After you have done this you will see that your "not-a-theory" isn't there.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,09:10   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 21 2016,08:52)
     
Quote
You are again co-opting all the theories in science into your "evolution by natural selection" paradigm in order to make it seem like all other theories in biology must follow it, when it's the other way around.


Gaulin, this is one of your most blatant lies to date.

Show us where we have co-opted cosmology, electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces, subatomic particles etc. etc. into biology.

Then you could do a bit of thinking and list "all the theories in science" on a ream or two of paper.

After you have done this you will see that your "not-a-theory" isn't there.

Moreover, Gary, in addition to what ChemiCat said, you are once again lying about my views.  I do not have an "evolution by natural selection" paradigm.  I have have been at pains to say since the beginning of this thread, I have a paradigm of  evolution by mutation, recombination, drift, and natural selection.  These are not the same things - contrary to the way you describe my views, I am not claiming that natural selection on its own can account for everythingthing in biology.  The combination of mutation, recombination, and drift IN TANDEM WITH the well-documented process of natural selection offers a powerful process for change and adaptation.  On its own, natural selection is a process where culling leads largely to stasis or "moderate" change in the organisms up to the point where too much change in the environment would cause extinction.  Moderate change is still quite a lot: natural selection is quite capable of changing allele frequency (e.g. making some alleles or combinations of alleles more abundant, while culling others), which has been enough to produce pretty much all the many variations seen in dogs or in Brassica vegetables.   Mutation proposes, selection disposes.  (Its contribution comes through culling and pruning, slightly like sculpting a statue of a horse from a block of marble by cutting away everything that doesn't look like a horse and keeping everything that does, except that evolution lacks goals.)

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,11:45   

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 21 2016,04:18)
Gary, please note that 'evolution' is far less a generalization than 'Cognitive Science'.
It is far less a generalization than 'intelligence'.

Your absurd and perverse opposition to "generalizations" is itself a generalization.
There is nothing wrong with generalizations per se.
And if there were, your vaunted "premise" would be first up against the wall.

Language is not your friend.  Nor, apparently, is thinking.

Well, generalizations should be avoided. As a rule.

--------------
"[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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,12:00   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 21 2016,12:45)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 21 2016,04:18)
Gary, please note that 'evolution' is far less a generalization than 'Cognitive Science'.
It is far less a generalization than 'intelligence'.

Your absurd and perverse opposition to "generalizations" is itself a generalization.
There is nothing wrong with generalizations per se.
And if there were, your vaunted "premise" would be first up against the wall.

Language is not your friend.  Nor, apparently, is thinking.

Well, generalizations should be avoided. As a rule.

Yes, but in Gary's usage 'generalization' equates to 'abstraction'.  That conflation is regrettably common and should be avoided.

Regardless, we have seen no generalizations as broad (and useless) as the ones he uses to define and describe his "theory".

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,12:26   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 21 2016,11:45)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 21 2016,04:18)
Gary, please note that 'evolution' is far less a generalization than 'Cognitive Science'.
It is far less a generalization than 'intelligence'.

Your absurd and perverse opposition to "generalizations" is itself a generalization.
There is nothing wrong with generalizations per se.
And if there were, your vaunted "premise" would be first up against the wall.

Language is not your friend.  Nor, apparently, is thinking.

Well, generalizations should be avoided. As a rule.

:)

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,12:59   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 21 2016,11:45)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 21 2016,04:18)
Gary, please note that 'evolution' is far less a generalization than 'Cognitive Science'.
It is far less a generalization than 'intelligence'.

Your absurd and perverse opposition to "generalizations" is itself a generalization.
There is nothing wrong with generalizations per se.
And if there were, your vaunted "premise" would be first up against the wall.

Language is not your friend.  Nor, apparently, is thinking.

Well, generalizations should be avoided. As a rule.

More or less.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2016,21:07   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 21 2016,09:10)
I do not have an "evolution by natural selection" paradigm.  I have have been at pains to say since the beginning of this thread, I have a paradigm of  evolution by mutation, recombination, drift, and natural selection.

Groovy. I get the drift, man.

Seeing I'm hip with all that I'll give two empirical everyday examples of what is clearly intelligent and what is not:

Intelligent = "A functional human."
UnIntelligent = "A box of hammers."

Now it's your turn to lay it all on the line with two empirical everyday examples for how your opposites work:

Natural Selection = "?"
UnNatural Selection = "?"

--------------
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: Jan. 22 2016,00:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2016,21:07)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 21 2016,09:10)
I do not have an "evolution by natural selection" paradigm.  I have have been at pains to say since the beginning of this thread, I have a paradigm of  evolution by mutation, recombination, drift, and natural selection.

Groovy. I get the drift, man.

Seeing I'm hip with all that I'll give two empirical everyday examples of what is clearly intelligent and what is not:

Intelligent = "A functional human."
UnIntelligent = "A box of hammers."

Now it's your turn to lay it all on the line with two empirical everyday examples for how your opposites work:

Natural Selection = "?"
UnNatural Selection = "?"

You are again showing your lack of understanding of natural selection, because there is no "opposite" (you might as well ask what the "opposite" of genetic drift is) and "unnatural selection" is not a defined concept.  Nonetheless,  

A) Natural selection = differential reproductive success attributable to inheritable genetic factors (and the resultant changes in allele frequencies in succeeding generations).  Examples:
1) Differential reproductive success of Geospiza individuals due to body size and beak size under various conditions of food availability on Daphne Major in the Galapagos
2) Differential reproductive success in male Poecilia due to spot size and colors under constant female preference but various intensities of predation,
3) Differential reproductive success in 142 female sparrowhawks over 13 years
and so many, many more well-documented studies.

B) Changes in gene frequencies due to chance, i.e. unrelated to differences in genotype, = genetic drift of various sorts such as founder effects and bottlenecks, which are not equivalent to natural selection.  A good example is the genetic differences that built up in six populations of the nene in Hawaii.


Artificial selection (i.e. intentional selection of breeding pairs by people for specific attributes) is also not natural selection.  Examples = dogs, breeds of sheep, breeds of cattle, Brassica, varieties of fruit trees (pears, plums, apples, etc.), and so forth.  

(Edited to add: Note, the extreme muscle developments in bully whippets and Belgian Blue and Piemontaise cattle are due to mutations, rather than selection.)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,03:47   

Once again Gaulin displays his colossal ignorance of anything scientific.

   
Quote
Now it's your turn to lay it all on the line with two empirical everyday examples for how your opposites work:

Natural Selection = "?"
UnNatural Selection = "?"


N.Wells has set out exactly what evolution by natural selection and random mutation is which you would understand if you lifted your nose out of creationist sites and read a biology text book.

How many times must you be told that your "theory" and "model" have nothing to do with reality before you throw it all away and get a decent job to support your long-suffering family?

How is your list of "all the theories in science" coming along?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,06:37   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,00:51)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2016,21:07)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 21 2016,09:10)
I do not have an "evolution by natural selection" paradigm.  I have have been at pains to say since the beginning of this thread, I have a paradigm of  evolution by mutation, recombination, drift, and natural selection.

Groovy. I get the drift, man.

Seeing I'm hip with all that I'll give two empirical everyday examples of what is clearly intelligent and what is not:

Intelligent = "A functional human."
UnIntelligent = "A box of hammers."

Now it's your turn to lay it all on the line with two empirical everyday examples for how your opposites work:

Natural Selection = "?"
UnNatural Selection = "?"

You are again showing your lack of understanding of natural selection, because there is no "opposite" (you might as well ask what the "opposite" of genetic drift is) and "unnatural selection" is not a defined concept.  Nonetheless,  

A) Natural selection = differential reproductive success attributable to inheritable genetic factors (and the resultant changes in allele frequencies in succeeding generations).  Examples:
1) Differential reproductive success of Geospiza individuals due to body size and beak size under various conditions of food availability on Daphne Major in the Galapagos
2) Differential reproductive success in male Poecilia due to spot size and colors under constant female preference but various intensities of predation,
3) Differential reproductive success in 142 female sparrowhawks over 13 years
and so many, many more well-documented studies.

B) Changes in gene frequencies due to chance, i.e. unrelated to differences in genotype, = genetic drift of various sorts such as founder effects and bottlenecks, which are not equivalent to natural selection.  A good example is the genetic differences that built up in six populations of the nene in Hawaii.


Artificial selection (i.e. intentional selection of breeding pairs by people for specific attributes) is also not natural selection.  Examples = dogs, breeds of sheep, breeds of cattle, Brassica, varieties of fruit trees (pears, plums, apples, etc.), and so forth.

Hint:
Wikipedia - Naturalism (philosophy)
 
Quote
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.


The only thing you need to do now is explain why your scientific phrase is actually a religious concept.

--------------
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: Jan. 22 2016,06:53   

Quote
Hint:
Wikipedia - Naturalism (philosophy)

 
Quote
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that   govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.


The only thing you need to do now is explain why your scientific phrase is actually a religious concept.

Well, first, my statements (not quite sure what you mean by my "scientific phrase") are not expressing a religious concept.  Secondly, I don't "need to explain why my scientific phrase is actually a religious concept".  (I think this is you being incompetent at basic English again: for that attack to make sense, you must have left out a "not".)  Everything I said is backed up by numerous studies, unlike your stuff, so it's closer to truth than your rubbish.  The other day, I encountered a cute definition of science that works quite well:  "He said I was full of BS, and I said that he was full of BS, so we figured out a test to see which of us was right."  You haven't passed (or even considered) any such tests for your proposals.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,08:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2016,07:37)
...
Hint:
Wikipedia - Naturalism (philosophy)
   
Quote
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.


The only thing you need to do now is explain why your scientific phrase is actually a religious concept.

You seem to have missed the fact that what you quoted was philosophy, not science.

Or you are being deliberately misleading by leaping from one field to another and thinking no one would notice or care.

There is a well-known (by knowledgable people, which accounts for your ignorance of this  matter) separation between 'methodological naturalism' and 'metaphysical naturalism'.  Science is based on and requires the former.
This is not up for debate.
Philosophy legitimately grapples with metaphysical issues.  I personally believe the case for certain flavors of metaphysical naturalism are more sound and better grounded than any of the alternatives.  But that's philosophy, not science.
You are incompetent to do either.

As always in these 'discussion's, N.Wells is right, you are wrong.  Insofar as you are coherent at all.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,10:20   

Is Gaulin now co-opting philosophy for his "not-a-theory"?

There is NO philosophy in your bullshit as well as no science.

Give it up, Gaulin, and go look after your family properly.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,10:56   

Quote
There is a well-known separation between 'methodological naturalism' and 'metaphysical naturalism'.  Science is based on and requires the former.
This is not up for debate.


Let me add to that.  We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.  If when we searched for explanations of things, methodological naturalism tended not to produce reliable answers and accurate predictions, but close readings of religious texts had a better track record, then those of us who value accurate explanations would abandon methodological naturalism as an approach and shift to studying scripture.  

As it is, deciphering scripture has had an absolutely horrible record of making accurate statements about the natural world (a record almost as bad as Gary's, in fact).

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,11:28   

in short, we use it because it works.

--------------
"[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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,14:06   

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 22 2016,11:28)
in short, we use it because it works.

Yeh, I'm wordy.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2016,17:20   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 22 2016,10:20)
Is Gaulin now co-opting philosophy for his "not-a-theory"?

There is NO philosophy in your bullshit as well as no science.

Give it up, Gaulin, and go look after your family properly.

Philosophy is one of Gary's trigger words.  He goes even more off the rails than usual (hard to believe, I know) if you mention Popper or the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

--------------
"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: Jan. 22 2016,20:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,10:56)
We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.

Then show me convincing empirical evidence that we were not created by the "behavior of matter" (a.k.a. our "Creator").

--------------
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: Jan. 22 2016,21:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2016,20:27)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,10:56)
We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.

Then show me convincing empirical evidence that we were not created by the "behavior of matter" (a.k.a. our "Creator").

I just answered your challenge by providing examples of evolution proceeding by means of mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and natural selection, rather than needing a "Creator".  Why don't you deal with that that before moving the goalposts yet again?


Edited to add:
To answer your question narrowly, about our origin as humans, the evidence is extremely strong that we evolved from an as-yet unknown common ancestor that we shared with chimps, through Australopithecines similar to "Lucy" (A. afarensis).  We share with Lucy similarities in dental morphology, bipedality, and details of face, foot, hip, shoulder, and arms and so on, but have some additional differences in those structures and some larger differences in stature, brain size, and general body proportions.  Additional evidence comprises all the biomolecular/genetic and anatomical similarities we share with chimps.  The changes required to transform something like Lucy into us are comparatively minor and none of them appears to be beyond the capabilities of well-documented evolutionary processes, even if we do yet know all the details. There is no evidence that any Creators or Intelligent Designers or other processes were involved, or needed.

In normal parlance, "behavior of matter" is the concept underlying standard scientific explanations for everything and anything, albeit generalized beyond usefulness, and is not equal to "our [Capital-C] Creator".  

To most people, a capital-C "Creator" implies a divine Creator, but no one has ever presented any strong independently verifiable evidence for such a thing at any level from the outcome of a coin flip through storms, eclipses, volcanic eruptions, and the prosperity of monarchs and nations, to the origin of life.  Moreover, there is no knowledge of how a capital-C divine "Creator" creates life (or affects a coin flip).

However, we are dealing with your warped use of English and your bizarre assertions where both "behavior of matter" and "Creator" have unique-to-you meanings for which you have yet to provide good definitions and any supporting evidence.  The burden of proof is on you here.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,06:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2016,18:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,10:56)
We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.

Then show me convincing empirical evidence that we were not created by the "behavior of matter" (a.k.a. our "Creator").

WTF? Are you claiming that the "behavior of matter" is the designer-creator you are pushing and that intelligence is the ingredient in matter that causes/guides its behavior?

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,07:30   

Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2016,06:37)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2016,18:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,10:56)
We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.

Then show me convincing empirical evidence that we were not created by the "behavior of matter" (a.k.a. our "Creator").

WTF? Are you claiming that the "behavior of matter" is the designer-creator you are pushing and that intelligence is the ingredient in matter that causes/guides its behavior?

Yep, that's Gary in a nutshell.  So to speak.

If you ask nicely, he's got a diagram about it that he might show you. :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,10:15   

Quote (The whole truth @ Jan. 23 2016,06:37)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 22 2016,18:27)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,10:56)
We mostly do not use methodological naturalism because of prior belief in it (i.e. metaphysical naturalism) but because of empirical experience.

Then show me convincing empirical evidence that we were not created by the "behavior of matter" (a.k.a. our "Creator").

WTF? Are you claiming that the "behavior of matter" is the designer-creator you are pushing and that intelligence is the ingredient in matter that causes/guides its behavior?

I am still claiming the following:

Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

[1] Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

[2] Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

[3] Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life, where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Merciless alligators will lovingly protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and they will scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level may sense but cannot directly experience. It is possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...


--------------
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: Jan. 23 2016,10:31   

And we are still claiming that your claims are either trivially true or incoherent.  In either case, the notions you present are wild generalizations and have zero explanatory power.
At the very best they are banal, trite, trivially true, and require explanation.
They very rarely rise to that level.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,10:42   

Claim anything you want to, Gaulin. I claim you are a religion-soaked imbecile with no knowledge of science.

I see alligators are still putting sticks on birds' heads, salmon are still guarding nests and gametes are molecules.

In all the years you have wasted you still have learnt nothing about science or English grammar.

I now claim you are a waste of oxygen.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,11:00   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,21:15)
I just answered your challenge by providing examples of evolution proceeding by means of mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and natural selection, rather than needing a "Creator".  Why don't you deal with that that before moving the goalposts yet again?

I am not an adherent to the "naturalism" belief, which (whether you know it or not) sneaks philosophy/religion into science by creating a "natural" and "supernatural" dichotomy.

Stop moving the goalposts by expecting scientific theories to include your religious/philosophical beliefs.

--------------
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: Jan. 23 2016,11:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2016,12:00)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2016,21:15)
I just answered your challenge by providing examples of evolution proceeding by means of mutation, recombination, genetic drift, and natural selection, rather than needing a "Creator".  Why don't you deal with that that before moving the goalposts yet again?

I am not an adherent to the "naturalism" belief, which (whether you know it or not) sneaks philosophy/religion into science by creating a "natural" and "supernatural" dichotomy.

Stop moving the goalposts by expecting scientific theories to include your religious/philosophical beliefs.

If you do not hold to "naturalism" then you are the one introducing a "naturalism - 'something else'" dichotomy into the discussion.
You have yet to provide any evidence of anything other than natural entities, processes, and events.

Perhaps your excessive generalization has betrayed you.

The goalposts remain where they've always been -- learn how the world works.
You've contributed less than zero to that effort.

Consider, for example, your nonsense presented just a few posts above.
Provide empirical evidence for an actual (modern) scientist during the performance of science claiming that intelligence is not an emergent phenomenon of the material world -- that is, that molecules self-assemble (strictly according to the laws of physics and chemistry) into systems that aggregate until at some point intelligence, no matter how defined, appears.
Show us empirical evidence that an actual scientist during the performance of science claims that the aforementioned systems are not cellular.
Show us empirical evidence that an actual scientist during the performance of science claims that the aforementioned systems are not multi-cellular.

Your claims are banal, trivial, and lack all explanatory power.  They are strictly non-controversial until you start poncing around asserting that there's more here than naturalism -- without ever defining any of your terms.

You're not just a waste of oxygen, you're a waste of space.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2016,11:35   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 23 2016,10:42)
I see alligators are still putting sticks on birds' heads, salmon are still guarding nests and gametes are molecules.

Is that better?

Quote
Otherwise merciless female alligators will lovingly protect their well-cared-for offspring who scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger, and are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks that birds are searching for on her head.


--------------
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: Jan. 23 2016,12:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 23 2016,12:35)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 23 2016,10:42)
I see alligators are still putting sticks on birds' heads, salmon are still guarding nests and gametes are molecules.

Is that better?

Quote
Otherwise merciless female alligators will lovingly protect their well-cared-for offspring who scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger, and are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks that birds are searching for on her head.

Doesn't matter, it's still irrelevant.*

Just like you.

*Note for the hard-of-thinking (that's you, Gary) -- the antecedent for the pronoun is your verbiage, not its meaning or lack thereof, nor its accuracy nor truthfulness.  That  was what you were asking about, right?

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

Pages: (622) < ... 529 530 531 532 533 [534] 535 536 537 538 539 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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