RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 542 543 544 545 546 [547] 548 549 550 551 552 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,10:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,11:23)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ April 24 2016,04:39)
   
Quote
$30, which was the full package including all conference videos.  I was easily enough able to afford it.


So you threw away $30 on a pseudoscience internet "conference" without regard to the health and welfare of your sick wife?

In November I am expected to fly to London for a "free" conference that would cost over a thousand dollars for me to get to and attend.

Expected?  By whom?
 
Quote
Then when I get back home my wife will be steaming mad over my selling everything we have left of value for me to get to London, while she stays home alone in the dark due to months of utility bills having to be left unpaid.

And rightly so,  Attending would be a ridiculous move on your part if for no other reason than financial.

 
Quote
The internet age has made it possible to network and video conference in ways that make the academic way of doing things wasteful and obsolete. It's no wonder why the science being taught at many colleges and universities are equally wasteful and obsolete.

Oh boo hoo.  You can't afford to attend a conference.

It is a complete non sequitur that technology now presents new and expanded opportunities for some of the features of actual professional conferences.

But do please take note that these technologies have been around for a fair while, and there are few if any conferences conducted using them.

There are reasons for this.  The networking, the socializing, the job-hunting, the 'getting away from the office/lab', the informal conversations that develop into meaningful friendships and meaningful work.
This has nothing to do with 'academics' per se.  How many 'virtual' conferences are put on by the ACM? The IEEE? Really, any of the professional associations?

Even distinctly amateur groups, such as electronic musicians and manufacturers who create tools and products for them, meet up 'in real life' or 'in the flesh' if you prefer.  Networking and video conferencing have been found to be useless for most of the value to be had from conferences.

Lots of us can't afford to go.
We don't whine about how "it should be different because then it would be better for me."
Either make it better yourself or STFU.  In this as in so many other things, you're not in charge.  

The world would not be a better place if you were in charge.  There's no one 'in charge' of these sorts of dynamic emergent activities.  

But of course, you are both clueless about and strongly resistant to any hint of emergent behaviors.  Why else would you push 'intelligence' all the way down to individual molecules?  You're trying to get past the genuine problem of emergence by defining it away.  Failing, of course, but that's exactly what your move to "molecular intelligence" amounts to -- a failed attempt to 'solve' the problem of emergence by defining it away.

It's balderdash, every bit of it.  Whining about it doesn't help matters at all.  It just reinforces the view everyone on the net has of you -- a whiny pathetic buffoon who thinks everyone else is 'privileged' and he is being singled out to be kept down.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,10:42   

Let's talk a little about your absurdity of 'molecular intelligence'.
Molecules as such do not learn.  There is no learning involved in the behavior of chemical elements nor molecules made from them.  Sodium does not 'learn' how to bind to Chlorine.
DNA, as has been exhaustively point out to you, is a polymer, not a singular molecule.
But even DNA does not learn, not in any standard meaning of the term.  Even the analogy is tenuous and ultimately distractive rather than helpful.

Yet 'learning' is one of the hallmarks of intelligence.
So by what reasoning to you assert that 'molecular intelligence' exists?  It can't be because intelligence emerges out of the behavior of systems of molecules assembled as subsystems within larger systems, at varying scales.  That's not 'molecular intelligence', that's "all intelligence is a feature of structures made up of molecules".  The distinction is sharp, clear, meaningful, and entirely different from what you continue to assert.

It's the Stephen Hawking and "intelligence requires motor control" debacle all over again.  You gave up on that and educed your first element of 'intelligence' to "well, of course there has to be a body" and abandoned the notion that it was anything other than a passive pre-requisite.
Otherwise, you'd be able to explain why and how Hawking's unquestionable intelligence is impacted by his almost total inability to exercise a 'system of control'.
You'd be able to handle the composition and recognition of new melodies.

You've got nothing but steaming heaps of failure, and you keep doubling down on it.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,11:30   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,10:29)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,09:39)
N.Wells, please explain your vested interest in this research program that has rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry.

Already mostly answered.
     
Quote
My assessment about the Templeton grant is that those folk are arguing against a strawman-version of evolutionary biology (implying that they don't know their fundamentals or are overhyping their research and are therefore NOT exemplars of excellence), and that they are at risk of wanting to prove some strongly desired conclusions.  The first part is consistent with what I've said to you and many times previously when we were both on ARN, that natural selection is very well documented but it is not the alpha and omega of evolutionary biology.

Those objections aside, the bulk of the grantees' scientific programs appear to be involve good scientific procedures such as documenting evidence and testing falsifiable hypotheses.  I'm perfectly happy to have their ideas investigated scientifically, as I'm sure we still have stuff to learn about non-Darwinian processes in evolutionary change, so if Templeton wants to throw such a large amount of its money, I'm not strenuously objecting.  The grantees have a much better chance of doing something worthwhile than you do, so the money is better spent on them than on you.  This has nothing to do with you not being an academic, and everything to do with you not having many clues about what you are doing.


However, since you asked......  

For background, read http://www.nature.com/news.......1.16080

My opinion is that Gregory Wray is far more correct in that exchange, but my opinion does not and should not determine funding decisions.  Clearly, more than a little expert opinion favors Laland's side, so the whole thing constitutes a legitimate controversy, which justifies funding and further investigation of the subject.  However, that does not yet mean that this project by these people is the best way to proceed.

The specific subjects being investigated comprise:

   The EES in historical focus (Lewens)
   The EES in philosophical focus (Lewens)
   How evolution learns from experience (Watson)
   Developmental bias and the origin of adaptive variation (Uller)
   The role of developmental plasticity in innovation and diversification of Onthophagus beetles (Moczek)
   Evolution and ontogeny of complex group adaptation (Gardner)
   The origins of organismal complexity (Cornwallis)
   Plasticity and house building in social insects (Ruxton)
   The evolution of inclusive heredity through the genomic interactions of symbionts (Wade)
   Adaptation through genes, without change to the genome: host adaptation via change in its microbiome composition (Feldman)
   Evolution of non-genetic inheritance – a life cycle perspective (Johnstone)
   Non-genetic inheritance and adaptation to novel environments (Uller)
   Adaptation through niche construction and microbiome function in Onthophagus beetles (Moczek)
   An experimental test of plasticity led evolution (Foster)
   Plasticity and adaptive radiation in Anolis lizards (Uller)
   Phenotypic plasticity, developmental bias and evolutionary diversification in butterflies (Brakefield)
   Plasticity as a bridge between micro- and macroevolution (Svensson)
   Adaptive trends and parallel evolution generated by niche construction (Laland)
   Niche construction, plasticity and the diversity of coral reef fauna (Dornelas)
   Niche construction and evolutionary diversity in experimental communities (Paterson)
   Macroevolutionary dynamics of niche construction (Erwin)
   Ecosystem networks and system-level functions (Watson)

All of those things are worthy of investigation. The list suggests that some of the researchers are simply trying to climb onto a gravy train to do what they wanted to do anyway.  (This is far from an unknown tactic in science.)  I note in passing Watson's metaphorical and inaccurate use of "learn", which does not justify your own conflations regarding learning and intelligence.  Regardless, even if we were sure we understood all of those things according to current evolutionary theory, it would still be worth re-investigating them, because part of science involves re-investigating what you think you know.

However, I have three particular concerns.  A) Do I see any potential pitfalls or shortcomings for this project? Do I think this is B) the best use of money in science, and C) the best way for Templeton to pursue its goals?

C) It seems highly unlikely to provide Templeton with a way to justify their religious beliefs and unify them with science.  Even if they were to manage to disprove evolutionary theory in its entirety, that wouldn't do much to advance Templeton's goals.  (They are falling for the fallacy that destroying "Darwinism" somehow attacks atheism and supports religion.)  However, it's their money, and it's not as though they were likely to do anything more useful with it, so my concern on this point is irrelevant.

A) Yes.  The overall project is the "Third Way" gang.  I am familiar with and impressed by the work of some of the researchers, and they are likely to go ahead and do whatever it was they were going to do anyway in terms of good science on their individual projects.  Others are more problematic: e.g., read Coyne on Denis Noble, at [URL=https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013/08/25/famous-physiologist-embarrasses-himself-by-claiming-that-the-modern-theory-of-evolution-is


-in-tatters/]https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2013....tatters[/URL] .  At minimum, the Third Way group overhypes arguments against the present paradigm by arguing against a strawman version.  To the extent that they believe their own hype (unlikely for some of the grantees, but I don't know for most of them), they are uninformed about some of the fundamentals of the field and are doing science "with an axe to grind", both of which typically indicate problems ahead.  So, B), to the extent that that is true, this would not be the best way to spend money in science.  However, again, we are talking about the Templeton Foundation, so they were likely to throw their money away anyway.  However, this becomes "put up or shut up" time for the Third Way group, so that becomes one benefit of this grant.

Here's Coyne on the grant:
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016.......biology

The Third Way people are still mostly doing science in standard ways, so I'm not arguing strenuously against it.  However, they are arguing against the same strawman that you attack, and they are looking for "something extra", which seems to be your goal too, so what's going on here looks like  you abandoning your principles because of butthurt and envy.

Ah yes, what a shame it would be for Darwinian theory to have been antiquated by a cognitive theory that makes science changing predictions galore. It would be like turning your sacred cow into hamburgers, so that those who need to be starved out of science will survive the famine.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,11:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,12:30)
...
Ah yes, what a shame it would be for Darwinian theory to have been antiquated by a cognitive theory that makes science changing predictions galore. It would be like turning your sacred cow into hamburgers, so that those who need to be starved out of science will survive the famine.

Except for the pesky fact that that's simply not how it works.

A 'cognitive model', of which you have none, is of no particular value in explaining mutations, natural selection, or, really, any of the non-cognitive aspects of biological life.
Just for the record, that's most aspects of biological life -- even given generous definitions of what counts as 'cognitive'.

To repeat a constant refrain in this thread -- you are not part of science.  You are barely an onlooker.  Insofar as you are an actual onlooker, you present yourself in a fashion highly similar to a fan of American football attempting commentary on a Rugby match.

The modern evolutionary synthesis is known not to be the last word.  It is equally known to have established solid foundational facts that simply must be accommodated by any subsequent revision of the theory, or by any replacement theory.
There's no escaping it.

Your nonsense isn't even in contention.  Nor does it have anything to offer to those attempting to advance our understanding of biology -- except perhaps the occasional object lesson in 'going wrong with confidence'.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,11:40   

Quote
Ah yes, what a shame it would be for Darwinian theory to have been antiquated by a cognitive theory that makes science changing predictions galore. It would be like turning your sacred cow into hamburgers, so that those who need to be starved out of science will survive the famine.


Umm, I'm the one arguing somewhat in favor of a research program that potentially has the capability of falsifying what you claim is my sacred cow.  (And if they were to disprove evolutionary theory, then I'd change my conclusions: that's how science works.)   If evolutionary theory was truly my "sacred cow", I'd be invested in fighting the research.  You're arguing against it because you are too far gone into your "you versus everyone" delusion.  Your logic is getting as twisted as that impenetrable metaphor in your final sentence.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,12:10   

Gary initially said:
Quote
(GaryGaulin @ April 22 2016,19:24)
This one should read "Templeton funds evolution rethink - in order to help academic parasites rip-off Gary Gaulin"
http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....e-links


Gary is then critiqued for suggesting that Templeton is trying to rip him off, and responds (ignoring his own words):
Quote
Do you have a reading comprehension problem or are you just throwing another discrediting insult in order to make it seem like I said "Templeton is trying to rip me off"?


and he immediately continues by saying:  
Quote
Considering how my past email related experience has left me with no respect at all for the Templeton Foundation I would not at all be surprised by this in part being retaliation for speaking out against their hypocritical public policy.


So according to Gary, saying that Templeton doing something to help academics rip off Gary is vastly different from saying that Templeton is trying to rip him off.  In case the paranoia in that world view is not enough, he follows up by considering that part of Templeton's reason for giving millions of dollars to The Third Way group is to retaliate against Gary!!!!

Subsequently, Gary accuses me of having a vested interest in Templeton's grant (before I even said anything on the matter), presumably because all us anti-Gary academics and the anti-Gary Templeton Foundation have to hang together, even though the Templeton grant is supposed to slay my supposedly sacred cow, which is why lots of leading scientists are supposedly angrily opposed to the grant (and rightfully so, according to Gary).

Gary, take a breath, go look in a mirror, and reconsider your "logic" here.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,12:17   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,11:40)
Umm, I'm the one arguing somewhat in favor of a research program that potentially has the capability of falsifying what you claim is my sacred cow.  (And if they were to disprove evolutionary theory, then I'd change my conclusions: that's how science works.)

From what I have found: it's the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age.


The EES includes as evolutionary causes processes that generate novel variants, bias selection, modify the frequency of heritable variation (including, but not restricted to, genes) and contribute to inheritance. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity, are potential sources of bias that can be evolutionarily relevant, not only as constraints but also as facilitators of adaptive variation.  (from Laland et al. 2015. Proc R Soc Lond B)
http://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/ees............ees

--------------
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: April 24 2016,12:25   

It's sad to see the current leaders of the ID movement muddled into praising the latest effort to restore Darwinian theory to its former glory. But at least those who need to justify the 8.7 million dollars will be able to honestly say that they at the very least did a wonderful job achieving some of the Templeton Foundation's anti-ID objectives.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,12:28   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,13:17)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,11:40)
Umm, I'm the one arguing somewhat in favor of a research program that potentially has the capability of falsifying what you claim is my sacred cow.  (And if they were to disprove evolutionary theory, then I'd change my conclusions: that's how science works.)

From what I have found: it's the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age.


The EES includes as evolutionary causes processes that generate novel variants, bias selection, modify the frequency of heritable variation (including, but not restricted to, genes) and contribute to inheritance. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity, are potential sources of bias that can be evolutionarily relevant, not only as constraints but also as facilitators of adaptive variation.  (from Laland et al. 2015. Proc R Soc Lond B)
http://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/ees............ees

Ya know what, Gary, Algebra is old too.  Maybe it needs to be replaced with a cognitive science model.
And what about propositional logic?  Antiquated.  How could we possibly rely on it for science or computing?

You're clearly bitter as hell about the success of a theory you don't even understand.
The really sad fact is you haven't even attempted to show a genuine problem with any aspect of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

You can't spell out any aspect of the summary given in your quote that is false or why you would object to any part of it.  Go ahead, try.  I dare you.

I doubt you can even begin to do it without delving into that massive absurdity you call "molecular level intelligence".  There is no such, and you've provided zero evidence to even suggest that there might exist such a thing.
You don't even have an operational definition of it.  That's part (a small part) of why it falls to the arguments from chemistry and physics.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,12:29   

If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,12:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,13:25)
It's sad to see the current leaders of the ID movement muddled into praising the latest effort to restore Darwinian theory to its former glory. But at least those who need to justify the 8.7 million dollars will be able to honestly say that they at the very least did a wonderful job achieving some of the Templeton Foundation's anti-ID objectives.

Way too many words.

The correct entry would be:
"It's sad to see the current leaders of the ID movement."

As if there were a singular movement, even in the  digestive byproduct sense of the phrase 'ID movement'.  lol.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,12:50   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,12:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,13:50)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

You are demonstrably unqualified to judge.

Instead of sniping with your snide and ignorant little remarks, why don't you point out what you find problematic about the modern evolutionary synthesis?
Words fail you?  Well, we knew that.  Give it a try anyway.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,13:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,12:50)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

Who liked what the way it was?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,13:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,13:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,12:50)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

Who liked what the way it was?

Who: Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, etc..

What: Darwinian theory.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,13:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,14:23)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,13:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,12:50)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

Who liked what the way it was?

Who: Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, etc..

What: Darwinian theory.

The key question remains:
What is wrong with it?
Please be precise.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,14:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,13:23)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,13:13)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,12:50)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,12:29)
If it is true that the Templeton proposal is "the same old same old, with another new face-lift to help hide its real age", then why has it "rightfully made experienced experts in the scientific community very angry", when according to you we are all about protecting our sacred cows and vested interests?

Apparently the new face-lift makes it look hideous, to those who liked it the way it was.

Who liked what the way it was?

Who: Larry Moran, Jerry Coyne, etc..

What: Darwinian theory.


Well, thank you and I'm glad I asked, because neither of those answers were what I expected from all your unreferenced pronouns.

That said, first of all, Moran is not a Darwinist, so you are horrendously misinformed:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2006.......st.html
This is a common objection within evolutionary biology:
http://link.springer.com/article....-0111-2

However, Coyne is more of an adaptationist, and is comfortable with the term Darwinism, which is why he and Moran have often been at odds with each other.
http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2009.......rwinism

Regardless. both have spoken out against the Templeton grant: both see the Templeton grant as opposed to modern evolutionary biology, and wrong to boot.
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016.......at.html
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015.......the-woo
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016.......biology

Therefore, how can the Templeton grant possibly be just a face-lift on "more of the same old, same old"?????

Can't you at least try to make an argument that is consistent with (A) reality, (B) logic, and ( C) itself?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,14:26   

No, it appears that he absolutely cannot.
I can't think of a single time when he did, anyway.

But it's very funny to notice how he disappears when specific concrete questions are asked and his attempts to deflect and distract are rejected.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,15:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,14:23)
That said, first of all, Moran is not a Darwinist, so you are horrendously misinformed:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar....=0%2C22

--------------
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: April 24 2016,15:31   

And by the way I said "Darwinian theory" not "Darwinism". For more information on the phrased is used in science see the Google Scholar link I provided.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,15:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,15:31)
And by the way I said "Darwinian theory" not "Darwinism". For more information on the phrased is used in science see the Google Scholar link I provided.

Or "Darwinist".

Excuse my rushing, I'm trying to get some work done on a questionnaire and other things concerning future Blythe Institute conferences.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,15:37   

Make that "Blyth Institute". Sorry Jonathan!

--------------
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: April 24 2016,16:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,15:31)
And by the way I said "Darwinian theory" not "Darwinism". For more information on the phrased is used in science see the Google Scholar link I provided.

Indeed you did, but that's not a good thing to point out.

First up, when you are talking about evolutionary biologists, Darwinism and Darwinist are more common terms, while creationists & IDists are more likely to use "Darwinian Theory" (and to use it wrongly to refer to all evolutionary theory rather than just to evolution by natural selection, i.e to adaptationists):
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......ml#more

Second, "Darwinian Theory" gets used more broadly in the social sciences and psychiatry, but you can't possibly have been implying that Coyne and Moran are social scientists or psychiatrists, correct?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:06   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,14:23)
Therefore, how can the Templeton grant possibly be just a face-lift on "more of the same old, same old"?????

I earlier showed the illustration for the EES which is clearly another variation of the usual natural selection based paradigm that can make no predictions at all in regards to "intelligence" that the theory I have predicts exists at multiple levels of biology. Having to accommodate the usual generalizations like "selection" and "drift" might work for a fuzzy view of what is happening but creates ambiguous variables that make computer modeling of reality impossible, but I'm sure it will lead to more all show and no go simulations that will at least keep the funding flowing.

BTW:
Quote
The Blyth Institute is an educational nonprofit organization which explores new avenues of exploration in biology, cognitive science, and engineering, focusing on the formal, semantic, and logical relationships within systems.  The institute is named after Edward Blyth, a 19th century biologist whose works in this field remain influential today.

http://www.blythinstitute.org/....ute....ute.org

Maybe you can see why I ended up being impressed by this institute.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,16:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,17:06)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,14:23)
Therefore, how can the Templeton grant possibly be just a face-lift on "more of the same old, same old"?????

I earlier showed the illustration for the EES which is clearly another variation of the usual natural selection based paradigm that can make no predictions at all in regards to "intelligence" that the theory I have predicts exists at multiple levels of biology. Having to accommodate the usual generalizations like "selection" and "drift" might work for a fuzzy view of what is happening but creates ambiguous variables that make computer modeling of reality impossible, but I'm sure it will lead to more all show and no go simulations that will at least keep the funding flowing.

BTW:
 
Quote
The Blyth Institute is an educational nonprofit organization which explores new avenues of exploration in biology, cognitive science, and engineering, focusing on the formal, semantic, and logical relationships within systems.  The institute is named after Edward Blyth, a 19th century biologist whose works in this field remain influential today.

http://www.blythinstitute.org/....ute....ute.org

Maybe you can see why I ended up being impressed by this institute.

Correction:  your "theory" does not predict the emergence of intelligence.  It presupposes it, and renders itself circular and thus invalid.

Once again, 'computer modeling' is neither the be-all nor the end-all of science.  Nor scientific theories.
You're stuck in the cognitive science of the 50s and 60s as your source of inspiration.  There is literally everything wrong with that.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:15   

Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2016,16:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,15:31)
And by the way I said "Darwinian theory" not "Darwinism". For more information on the phrased is used in science see the Google Scholar link I provided.

Indeed you did, but that's not a good thing to point out.

First up, when you are talking about evolutionary biologists, Darwinism and Darwinist are more common terms, while creationists & IDists are more likely to use "Darwinian Theory" (and to use it wrongly to refer to all evolutionary theory rather than just to evolution by natural selection, i.e to adaptationists):
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......ml#more

Second, "Darwinian Theory" gets used more broadly in the social sciences and psychiatry, but you can't possibly have been implying that Coyne and Moran are social scientists or psychiatrists, correct?

Just get used to using the phrase "Darwinian theory" as scientists do, instead of jumping to conclusions in order to bash me with 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.

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:27   

[quote=GaryGaulin,April 24 2016,16:06][/quote]
   
Quote
I earlier showed the illustration for the EES which is clearly another variation of the usual natural selection based paradigm that can make no predictions at all in regards to "intelligence" that the theory I have predicts exists at multiple levels of biology. Having to accommodate the usual generalizations like "selection" and "drift" might work for a fuzzy view of what is happening but creates ambiguous variables that make computer modeling of reality impossible, but I'm sure it will lead to more all show and no go simulations that will at least keep the funding flowing.

Their whole claim, and the reason Templeton gave them millions of dollars, was that they think that these things ARE NOT solely or primarily due to natural selection and that they have new processes and mechanisms.  

Also, selection and drift are precisely defined and well documented processes, not ambiguous variables.

Also as NoName says, your nonsense (which is not a theory) presupposes intelligence at all levels, rather than predicting it.  Predictions stem from a theory: if intelligence at all levels is your prediction, then you don't have anything left to constitute a theory.

Also, you are still wrong about "Darwinian theory": look at your own dang list.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,16:55   

To simplify things the operative words to look for are in the phrase "evolution by natural selection". If the word "selection" appears just once then it is the same old "evolution by natural selection" theory, with just another face-lift to make it seem like it's something brand new when it's really not.

Now study this:


With all considered, what I honestly see is a "selection" based mess that when programmed will result in the creation of a new Rube Goldberg machine.

--------------
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: April 24 2016,17:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,17:55)
To simplify things the operative words to look for are in the phrase "evolution by natural selection". If the word "selection" appears just once then it is the same old "evolution by natural selection" theory, with just another face-lift to make it seem like it's something brand new when it's really not.

Now study this:


With all considered, what I honestly see is a "selection" based mess that when programmed will result in the creation of a new Rube Goldberg machine.

You really don't understand the theory at all, do you?
Not even a little bit.

You appear to be very confused by the word 'selection'.
It could be accurately used for the process you fantasize wherein a 'result' is 'evaluated' for 'suitability' and 'stored'.
That's a form of selection.

But something about the natural process seems to generate the emotional equivalent of an allergic response.  One you've never been able to explain or justify.

Interestingly enough, the modern evolutionary synthesis has no difficulty explaining allergies and bio-allergens.  Your "theory" is mute and helpless in the face of that whole arena.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2016,17:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2016,16:55)
To simplify things the operative words to look for are in the phrase "evolution by natural selection". If the word "selection" appears just once then it is the same old "evolution by natural selection" theory, with just another face-lift to make it seem like it's something brand new when it's really not.

Now study this:


With all considered, what I honestly see is a "selection" based mess that when programmed will result in the creation of a new Rube Goldberg machine.

Look at it again: beside genetic inheritance, they list epigenetic, cultural, ecological, and other inheritance. They've got phenotypic accommodation and facilitated variation.  They have a whole panel for developmental bias and niche construction, both biasing selection, with arrows going from both to selection, mutation, drift, and gene flow (except niche construction to mutation).  This is a lot of stuff in addition to selection.

You just focus on the word selection because you don't like it.

I agree with Moran and Coyne that those supposedly new arrows are not that new, but it is self-evidently NOT just selection.

You have a strawman the size and rigidity of the Colossus of Rhodes stuck in your brain somewhere, preventing you from thinking straight and seeing what is in front of you.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 542 543 544 545 546 [547] 548 549 550 551 552 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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