RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 558 559 560 561 562 [563] 564 565 566 567 568 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 22 2016,21:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 22 2016,19:17)
Everyone remember that in certain cases it is both stupid and false to demand that evolutionary biology must have something to do with intelligence and cognitive science.

Unless of course it's Texas Teach or their wife teaching us all about the evolution of human intelligence, in which case evolutionary biology has very much to do with intelligence and cognitive science.

Remember everyone that gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s/s everywhere, and that to claim otherwise is some sort of mental illness.

Gary, because you are especially stupid:  I have been saying that it is fine to talk about intelligence if you are studying intelligence, but it is ridiculous to talk about intelligence when talking about molecules, cells, or evolution in general.

And, to be clear, I'm not calling you stupid for disagreeing with me.  I'm calling you stupid because you can't seem to actually understand the words I'm typing.  Guess better.

If you still don't understand, go get a middle school student to explain it to you slowly.

--------------
"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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin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: May 22 2016,23:12   

Educators with no experience at all testing cognitive science related models and theory should not be teaching anything related to the origin of human or any other intelligence. The only thing for sure is you'll eventually prove how little you actually know about the topic.

--------------
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: May 23 2016,00:21   

Texas Teach is doing just fine on this topic, but you are not.

Speaking of your not knowing what you are talking about, I see you've been making a fool of yourself over at Sandwalk.  It turns out that the Hawkins and Ahmad paper does not say what you thought it did, and Larry's opinions are different from what you accuse him of as well.

I am curious as to just how many times and to what degree you need to be wrong before you finally realize that you are better off shutting up completely.  My money holds that you will never reach that level of self-awareness.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,01:05   

Here's a link to the carnage, poor Larry. It looks like his book idea is totally doomed. And I doubt N.Wells scored any points for disrupting our discussion in regards to what guided and unguided "evolution" looks like, by giving praise to the power of natural selection to explain away anything:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/05/research-for-book.html?showComment=1463946000018#c3591116582432237356

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,01:48   

Quote
If the police bash down my door and arrest me for theft of scientific materials then I'll have to blame you!

A quick scan shows that they are discussing the RNA methods only. I'll have to spend some time going through them for more detail. I'm finding this very interesting.

The estimate for the percentage of the genome that codes for RNA's appears to have been added to the press release only. Normally I would not take it overly serious but in this case it's a more reliable source than usual.


From Gaulin at Sandwalk.

Larry is writing his book about DNA. Gaulin can't tell the difference between this and RNA. What a surprise! Gaulin's ignorance knows no bounds.

Earlier he even asked Georgi for the $31.50 to access the paper, showing that Gaulin hasn't read the paper only the magazine article and he wasted his money on a so-called conference.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,01:52   

And another gem from baby Gaulin;

Quote
Gary GaulinSunday, May 22, 2016 7:41:00 PM
Let's talk science!
Yeah!

How do we prove the guided evolution? Where do we start?
The ID movement already proposed a hypothesis that only needs to be tested to be true by a testable scientific theory, which I just so happen have all set to go:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

I'll soon be improving the wording to make the theory more precise and also cover the cognitive origin of the "scientific method" but it's still a good start towards explaining how "guided evolution" works.


ROFLMAO!

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,06:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 23 2016,00:12)
Educators with no experience at all testing cognitive science related models and theory should not be teaching anything related to the origin of human or any other intelligence. The only thing for sure is you'll eventually prove how little you actually know about the topic.

Cognitive science has its origins in (human) intelligence.
Intelligence does not have its origins in cognitive science.

Not that you know squat about science, cognition, or cognitive science.
eta:  Nor educators nor education.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,06:22   

More on anadromy in fish, because I oversimplified at Sandwalk.  Nonetheless, fish biologists have proceeded by hypothesis testing, unlike Gary.

See review in McDowall, 1997, at http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/fish511....iew.pdf and Kinnison and Hendry (in Hendry and Stearns, Evolution Illuminated, 2004) for discussions of the very variable and flexible life cycles of salmonids and some other species with respect to diadromy, and the various costs and benefits involved.

According to Gross et al., 1988, Science,  http://labs.eeb.utoronto.ca/gross/Grossetal1988.pdf , catadromy and anadromy in salmonids can be explained largely by the relative availability of resources in oceans and streams, with the fish going to wherever the resources allow the most rapid growth, resulting in migration from rivers to the sea in temperate zones, but migration from the sea into rivers in tropical zones.  

However, this is disputed with respect to migration trends seen in clupeiforms (herring & allies), and in less detail in eels, catfish, and sticklebacks, where reduction in competition and other factors may be more important (I'm oversimplifying here) (Bloom & Lovejoy, 2014, at  http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1778/20132081 )

Corey Phillis, 2014 at summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/14549/etd8634_CPhillis.pdf    
Quote
Anadromy [in steelheads] is a locally adapted, evolved behavior that may be capable of responding on contemporary timescales to increased selection presented by migratory barriers. In Chapter 2 I use a population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) introduced above a barrier waterfall in 1910 to test whether the alternative life-histories of freshwater residence and ocean migration represent a growth-dependent conditional strategy capable of responding to selection against migration. Common garden-raised offspring of parents from the introduced above-barrier population were 11% smaller and 31% lighter than offspring of parents from the below-barrier source population, as estimated with an ‘animal model’ (Wilson et al. 2010). Using a latent environmental threshold model (Buoro et al. 2012), I estimated that the mean size at which above-barrier fish switched between the resident and migrant strategy was 43% larger than below-barrier fish. As a result, above-barrier fish were 30% less likely to express the migratory strategy. These results demonstrate how rapid and opposing changes in growth rate and threshold size contribute to the contemporary evolution of a conditional strategy and indicate that migratory barriers may elicit contemporary evolution towards the resident life-history on timescales relevant for conservation and management of conditionally migratory species.


Dodson et al., 2009, at http://www.bio.ulaval.ca/labdods....AFS.pdf found that smelt migrate into freshwater to find safe places for young to grow up:    
Quote

We hypothesize that anadromy in osmeroids may be first and foremost an adaptation to place embryos and the early larval stages in reproductive safe sites to maximize their survival. The evolution of exclusive freshwater species of osmeriforms has occurred via anadromy through the various processes associated with landlocking. Freshwater amphidromy in osmeroids is most likely a consequence of anadromy rather than a precursor and may be contingent upon the availability of food resources in freshwater. Finally, marine osmeroids have been derived from anadromous ancestors and are “safe-site” specialists, exploiting principally the upper intertidal zone for reproduction.  We also suggest that such contrasting evolutionary pathways to anadromy may provide insight into the evolution of partial migration, observed uniquely in salmonids, and the nature and extent of population genetic structure found in the two groups of fishes.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,18:42   

Quote

Quote (jeffox @ May 21 2016,10:37)
Would you have been hired at your present job without a HS diploma?

Yes. I started work in the graphic arts industry before graduating from high school.


Wow, I joined the Navy right out of HS.  THEY, like just about everybody else, required a HS diploma.  Seems your a one percentile kinda guy - IOW, NOBODY gets a job without a HS diploma, and it's been that way for quite some time.  Job training is pretty much what that 'diploma mill' is all about.

Quote

Quote (jeffox @ May 21 2016,10:37)
Also, why didn't you seek out and work with other students who were working on those 'science and electronics projects'?

There were none in my neighborhood, except one who I started building a telephone with but he soon moved away or something. My parents did on occasion find a summer camp with rocketry and Math Magic, or other academic class I could attend like one where we built radios but they were rare.


Gee, I had to travel 15 miles for the annual rocketry festival, and 9 miles for my HS (semi-VoTech) classes in electronics.  Good thing I had good parents, but I also stood straight As in my science and math courses.  I also learned how to critically think in HS - something YOU need to start doing; as we've pointed out time and time again.

Stop making excuses and get on the ball, Goo Goo!  Otherwise, nobody in here will take you seriously . . . and THAT'S exactly what you deserve.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,21:10   

[quote=jeffox,May 23 2016,18:42][/quote]
Well jeffox I set type, locked up and ran my first letterpress printing job when I was around 10 years old. But that's me.

If you want to show-off the superior logical thinking skills you learned in high school then N.Wells and others at Sandwalk need your help:

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/05/research-for-book.html?showComment=1464048626423#c6745104510959789986

Music to help pass the time, it has already been a long wait:
Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

--------------
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: May 23 2016,21:16   

Gary, you are making yourself look like an idiot over at Sandwalk.

In that thread, you said,   
Quote
Reproductive success is greatly increased by reproducing more than once per lifetime. You did not rule out the possibility that they are simply cognitively guided towards doing things the hard way, because of that being part of their millions of years old learned behavioral knowledge.

If you believe that you just described "unguided evolution" then you now need to describe what "guided evolution" looks like. And invoking an untestable religious deity is not scientifically acceptable. I require a scientifically testable answer.


Once again, Gary, it is not up to us to do your work for you. However, so far, all the evidence indicates that evolution is not goal-oriented or directed (https://acbr12.wordpress.com/2012/08/04/mutation-basic-feature-and-joshua-and-esther-lederbergs-experiment-2/) and rarely takes direct routes to any particular result.  Field and lab work have yet not shown that anything is needed beyond the standard processes (plus their many variations and complications) of mutation, recombination, natural selection, and drift.  You are the one who wants to propose something additional or different, so it is up to you to state clearly what it is and provide some evidence that it is real, which you have yet to do.

Suppose I had a "theory" that nothing happened in biology except through the influence of pixie dust, and my assertion was based on the fact that stuff does happen in biology, therefore there must be pixie dust everywhere because according to my "theory" it couldn't happen without pixie dust.  You should want to know what I meant by pixie dust, and how it can be identified, and how it works, and you should want to see some hard evidence for its existence before you bought into my claims.  Well, that's where your nonsense is at.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,21:29   

I gave a scientifically acceptable answer, time for you to give yours.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

--------------
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: May 23 2016,22:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 23 2016,21:29)
I gave a scientifically acceptable answer, time for you to give yours.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

At the first level, let's suppose that you in fact asked a question that could be answered scientifically.  What you have not provided is a reason for anyone to want to bother with it.  Scientists are not required to work on any particular half-brained idea proposed by some crank. You need to demonstrate why the idea has promise and is worth working on.

However, at the next level in, no, you didn't ask a scientific question.  A scientific question requires rigorous logically valid definitions, including usable operational definitions.  It is not up to us to do that work for you, and you manifestly have not done it yet.

What makes you think your question is scientific?  How would you go about testing it?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,22:49   

For a recap of the events:

bwilson mentioned the need to "distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution", which I did by providing the following information, in two replies:

"Guided evolution"
 
Quote
The combined knowledge and behavior of all three intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may choose to stay to defend their nests "till death do they part" from not being able to survive for long in freshwater conditions. Motherly alligators and crocodiles gently carry their well guarded hatchlings to the water, and their fathers will learn to not eat the food she gathers for them. If the babies are scared then they will call and she will be quick to come to their aid and let them ride on her head and body, as they learn what they need to know to succeed in life. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious part of us that our multicellular intelligence level (brain) may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels we cannot directly experience, which at the genetic intelligence level has for billions of years been alive, and is now still alive inside of us.


"Unguided evolution"
 
Quote
Salmon would squirt out their eggs in the ocean then let the other fish eat them. Alligators and crocodiles would eat their young. Humans would be "meat robots" that have no need for marriage ceremonies and discard their young soon after birth.


Then bwilson formally gave it a go:

"Unguided evolution"
 
Quote
In unguided evolution, genes of individuals who leave more offspring become more frequent in the populations. Animals within a species vary in how much care they give their offspring. In some cases, giving more care results in more offspring surviving and reproducing. In those cases, genes related to caring for offspring will increase in the population. In following generations, parents still vary in how much care they give and the process is repeated. Parental care can evolve in unguided evolution.


Others chimed in with the same thinking.

The only thing left is for the other contestants to "distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution" as they expected from me by scientifically explaining what their "guided evolution" looks like, at least as well as I did. If they cannot then they were out of bounds of science to begin with, and are unable to scientifically distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution. They thus forfeited the game.

So now it's time to get back to America's game show!

Jeopardy theme song [6 1/2 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

--------------
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: May 23 2016,23:37   

Quote
It might also be more reproductively successful for all salmon to stay in the ocean, instead of taking a long usually suicidal journey back to where they were born. The easy answers from Darwinian theory is causing you to assume things that could very well be false.


First, my understanding is that if any salmonids spawned in the sea, all the young would die, which would not count as reproductive success.  (As far as I know, all salmonids spawn in freshwater.)

Second, I think you failed to understand the information I quoted: I cited work that studied whether it was better for salmonids to stay in the river or migrate to the sea and back.  The migrators do better (grow faster and bigger, which means that they have more reproductive success) than the ones that stay fixed.  Specifically, from Corey Phillis, 2014 at summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/14549/etd8634_CPhillis.pdf    
Quote
Anadromy is a locally adapted, evolved behavior that may be capable of responding on contemporary timescales to increased selection presented by migratory barriers. In Chapter 2 I use a population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) introduced above a barrier waterfall in 1910 to test whether the alternative life-histories of freshwater residence and ocean migration represent a growth-dependent conditional strategy capable of responding to selection against migration. Common garden-raised offspring of parents from the introduced above-barrier population were 11% smaller and 31% lighter than offspring of parents from the below-barrier source population, as estimated with an ‘animal model’ (Wilson et al. 2010). Using a latent environmental threshold model (Buoro et al. 2012), I estimated that the mean size at which above-barrier fish switched between the resident and migrant strategy was 43% larger than below-barrier fish. As a result, above-barrier fish were 30% less likely to express the migratory strategy. These results demonstrate how rapid and opposing changes in growth rate and threshold size contribute to the contemporary evolution of a conditional strategy and indicate that migratory barriers may elicit contemporary evolution towards the resident life-history on timescales relevant for conservation and management of conditionally migratory species. To test whether this case of contemporary evolution has ecological consequences I performed an instream mesocosm study using the common garden-raised juvenile resident (rainbow trout) and anadromous (steelhead) O. mykiss described in Chapter 2. In addition to different migratory strategies, resident and anadromous O. mykiss populations achieve different juvenile densities due to the greater fecundity of the anadromous ecotype.


The short version is that you are being foolish again.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 23 2016,23:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 23 2016,22:49)
For a recap of the events:

bwilson mentioned the need to "distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution", which I did by providing the following information, in two replies:

"Guided evolution"
   
Quote
The combined knowledge and behavior of all three intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may choose to stay to defend their nests "till death do they part" from not being able to survive for long in freshwater conditions. Motherly alligators and crocodiles gently carry their well guarded hatchlings to the water, and their fathers will learn to not eat the food she gathers for them. If the babies are scared then they will call and she will be quick to come to their aid and let them ride on her head and body, as they learn what they need to know to succeed in life. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious part of us that our multicellular intelligence level (brain) may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels we cannot directly experience, which at the genetic intelligence level has for billions of years been alive, and is now still alive inside of us.


"Unguided evolution"
   
Quote
Salmon would squirt out their eggs in the ocean then let the other fish eat them. Alligators and crocodiles would eat their young. Humans would be "meat robots" that have no need for marriage ceremonies and discard their young soon after birth.


Then bwilson formally gave it a go:

"Unguided evolution"
   
Quote
In unguided evolution, genes of individuals who leave more offspring become more frequent in the populations. Animals within a species vary in how much care they give their offspring. In some cases, giving more care results in more offspring surviving and reproducing. In those cases, genes related to caring for offspring will increase in the population. In following generations, parents still vary in how much care they give and the process is repeated. Parental care can evolve in unguided evolution.


Others chimed in with the same thinking.

The only thing left is for the other contestants to "distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution" as they expected from me by scientifically explaining what their "guided evolution" looks like, at least as well as I did. If they cannot then they were out of bounds of science to begin with, and are unable to scientifically distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution. They thus forfeited the game.

So now it's time to get back to America's game show!

Jeopardy theme song [6 1/2 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

No, you did not provide valid predictions.

First, your claimed "prediction" with regard to unguided evolution is merely an ungrounded assertion rather than a logically derived prediction, and it is an insanely wrong and stupid assertion at that.  If one genotype leads to greater reproductive success than another, then that genotype will become more abundant in subsequent populations: it is almost self-evident that (barring exceptional circumstances*) feeding your young to other creatures or eating them yourself is unlikely to lead to greater reproductive success, and will thus tend to be selected against.

(Exceptional circumstances include some shark reproduction cycles that make use of in utero cannibalism of excess brothers and sisters in order to feed the largest young to allow them to be carried to a relatively late live birth, and similar sibling cannibalism in some birds of prey.)

As bwilson explained,  
Quote
In unguided evolution, genes of individuals who leave more offspring become more frequent in the populations. Animals within a species vary in how much care they give their offspring. In some cases, giving more care results in more offspring surviving and reproducing. In those cases, genes related to caring for offspring will increase in the population. In following generations, parents still vary in how much care they give and the process is repeated. Parental care can evolve in unguided evolution.


 
Quote
The only thing left is for the other contestants to "distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution" as they expected from me by scientifically explaining what their "guided evolution" looks like, at least as well as I did. If they cannot then they were out of bounds of science to begin with, and are unable to scientifically distinguish guided evolution from unguided evolution. They thus forfeited the game.
Your words are nonsense, yet once more. You haven't distinguished guided vs unguided evolution (and especially not "well").  It is your job to do this, as you are proposing "guided evolution", not us.  This is like my presenting my pixie dust "theory" and demanding that you define pixie dust and present a model for how it works, otherwise you would be unscientific and my "theory" would win.  YOU are the one who can't distinguish stuff that is crucial for YOUR proposal, because you don't have any decent operational definitions.


The short version is that you are being foolish again.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,02:09   

Gary at Sandwalk;

Quote
Gary GaulinMonday, May 23, 2016 1:54:00 AM
Drats, the brown-noser found me!

The operational definition for intelligence and information I provided in the .pdf for theory I linked to above is more than enough to model all the levels of intelligence it covers. It's wonderful for systems biology related work. Anyone who needs more than that from someone who gets no funding at all is either new to science or just being a biased creep, like N.Wells needs to be.


He found you because YOU PROVIDED a link, you demented moron.

You have not provided any testable scientific definitions, you have asserted (look up the meaning, moron) your presuppositions. There is no science in your bullshit.

Provide a methodology for testing 'molecular intelligence' and come back when you have it, moron.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,05:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 23 2016,22:29)
I gave a scientifically acceptable answer, time for you to give yours.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

You've never given a 'scientifically acceptable' answer.  The proof is in the basic fact that no one, ever, anywhere, has accepted any of your output as 'scientifically valid'.
You don't get to judge your own work -- the world gets to.  So far, out in the real world, you have convinced no one.
Not. One. Single. Person.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,06:45   

Quote
So far, out in the real world, you have convinced no one.
Not. One. Single. Person.

Thereby clearly proving the extent of the Global Anti-Gaulin conspiracy.  [Gives secret handshake] To the continued success of the Conspiracy!
:)



http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016.......4428975

Judmarc has what for any rational person should be the last word:  
Quote
Unguided evolution is what over 150 years of research in numerous scientific disciplines supports and reaffirms. Guided evolution is a completely unevidenced fairy tale.

If you think life would "go off the rails" without something to guide evolution, you don't know enough about evolution. I'm continually surprised by the people commenting on this blog and others who think their ignorance of the facts constitutes a challenge to said facts, rather than a challenge to them to rid themselves of their ignorance.


However, Gary is not rational on this topic.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,06:56   

Judmarc could not provide a scientifically testable answer. They forfeited the game. I better give the others another 10 hours of thinking time.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

--------------
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: May 24 2016,06:58   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 24 2016,07:45)
Quote
So far, out in the real world, you have convinced no one.
Not. One. Single. Person.

Thereby clearly proving the extent of the Global Anti-Gaulin conspiracy.  [Gives secret handshake] To the continued success of the Conspiracy!
:)



http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016.......4428975

Judmarc has what for any rational person should be the last word:  
Quote
Unguided evolution is what over 150 years of research in numerous scientific disciplines supports and reaffirms. Guided evolution is a completely unevidenced fairy tale.

If you think life would "go off the rails" without something to guide evolution, you don't know enough about evolution. I'm continually surprised by the people commenting on this blog and others who think their ignorance of the facts constitutes a challenge to said facts, rather than a challenge to them to rid themselves of their ignorance.


However, Gary is not rational on this topic.

Three extra words at the close of your concluding sentence ;-)

The thing that strikes me as particularly odd about Gary's support for 'guided evolution' is his complete failure to account for the guider and the mechanism of said 'guidance'.

HOW is evolution 'guided'?
What mechanisms are involved that transcend standard physics and chemistry?

If his claim ultimately boils down to "the laws of physics and chemistry guide evolution" then he's in compliance with standard science.  Uselessly so as the flat assertion neither clarifies nor suffices, but it's at least correct.
If he asserts that they can only do this because molecules are 'intelligent' he multiplies entities beyond necessity, without evidential support.  To say nothing of giving up on the notion of emergence.

Gary's inchoate and incoherent notions that 'somehow stuff happens' combined with his complete inability to grasp the process of science and its results lead him to believe that the flaw is in others, so his notions, which he (wrongly) believes he understands are somehow an improvement and thus simply must be accepted.
All buried under prose that is not so much tortured as it is a smoldering heap of rubble.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,07:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2016,06:56)
Judmarc could not provide a scientifically testable answer. They forfeited the game. I better give the others another 10 hours of thinking time.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

This is just one more area where you are completely clueless.  It's your effing proposal.  Therefore you have to define what you mean, and YOU have to demonstrate that YOUR idea is worthy of further investigation.

You can ask for help in developing it, and if someone sees promise they are likely to offer to help (or to grab it and run with it independently - science is both collaborative and competitive).  Everyone in science is always looking for something new and interesting, so your inability to attract any interest is a good indication that no one sees any promise in your stuff.  In fact, every indication so far suggests that your idea is completely useless and totally wrong.  Until you show otherwise, it is in the interest of scientific progress to ignore it.

Is science responsible for investigating my pixie dust proposal, given that I have now proposed it?  Well, it's the same for your nonsense.

   
Quote
and their fathers will learn to not eat the food she gathers for them. If the babies are scared then they will call and she will be quick to come to their aid and let them ride on her head and body, as they learn what they need to know to succeed in life.
I notice in passing that you have "evolved" a new error in your comments about crocodilians.  Specifically, as far as I've read in the literature, mother crocodilians do not feed their young, except incidentally as infants snap up any bits that may fall off her prey (in most cases, crocodilians swallow their prey whole, so they leave few left-overs). Fathers do not "learn" to forego this (non-existent) food source - a crocodilian mother simply drives off all males lest the males eat her babies.  The state of knowledge is that crocodilian infants are left to find their own food.  Also, your "and" in the second sentence still implies that the mother lets the young ride on her at times when she comes to their aid.  This is wrong: she protects them by charging the threat and counterattacking it, driving it off.   If you want to provide examples of parental care, why not provide good ones?  However, even more importantly, what does showing examples of parental care do for your argument when there are so many creatures that have no parental care whatsoever?  Using the definition of parental care that it starts after the young separate from the mother/parent, there is no parental care in prokaryotes, basically in all protists, fungi, and plants, most lower invertebrates (sponges, cnidarians, clams), many reptiles (think sea turtles as an example), and quite a lot of fish.

Edited to add: Over at Sandwalk, bwilson tells Gary,  
Quote
GG wrote, "I need to see what your "guided evolution" looks like." Guided evolution is not my hypothesis. It's not my job to say what predictions it makes. The people who think guided evolution happens should not only make the predictions, but also WANT to make them so that we advocates of unguided evolution don't make the wrong predictions.  Of course, some people have made relevant predictions, as John Harshman points out. Tests have been made. And how did that turn out? Perhaps you have some newer, better predictions that can be tested?
 
So Gary, how many times have people explained the wrong-headedness of your demand that your opponents tell you what your own hypothesis should look like or how it should be tested?  I've lost count, but it seems to be a weekly occurrence.  Yet you persist in this nonsense.  Your ignorance is exceeded only by your imperviosity.  Normal religious faith pales in comparison.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,10:28   

Like I (and others) have written, you spout off about science when you don't even know what it means.  Going to another room and watching you screw things up there doesn't seem very productive to me.  Oh, and I was pumping gas at an elderly relative's gas station when I was 8 - and the paper route I had in my small town qualified me as a small business owner back when I was 9.  I could have set type back then, too, but there weren't any nearby print businesses.  

Jeez what a hoot!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,12:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2016,06:56)
Judmarc could not provide a scientifically testable answer. They forfeited the game. I better give the others another 10 hours of thinking time.

Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

Just exactly how uninformed do you have to be to get your backside handed to you on a platter and not realize that you are humiliating yourself.  

Fortunately, Gary has stepped forward to answer that pressing question.

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,16:04   

Quote (jeffox @ May 24 2016,10:28)
Like I (and others) have written, you spout off about science when you don't even know what it means.  Going to another room and watching you screw things up there doesn't seem very productive to me.  Oh, and I was pumping gas at an elderly relative's gas station when I was 8 - and the paper route I had in my small town qualified me as a small business owner back when I was 9.  I could have set type back then, too, but there weren't any nearby print businesses.  

Jeez what a hoot!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

Apparently a ten year old could do Gary's job.  A ten year old  certainly knows more about science.

--------------
"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: May 24 2016,17:29   

The goalposts needed to be wheeled back to where they are supposed to be.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/05/research-for-book.html?showComment=1464128359390#c3243251355566205636

Another ten hour countdown will be needed:
Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

--------------
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: May 24 2016,18:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2016,18:29)
The goalposts needed to be wheeled back to where they are supposed to be.
...

I don't know Gary, the wheel is way too advanced a technology for one of your, ahem, limited, abilities.
Let it roll away lest you hurt yourself, there's a good lad.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,18:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 24 2016,17:29)
The goalposts needed to be wheeled back to where they are supposed to be.
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/05/research-for-book.html?showComment=1464128359390#c3243251355566205636

Another ten hour countdown will be needed:
Jeopardy theme song [10 hours]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkdmOVejUlI

Doubling down on falsehoods, yet again.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,21:29   

Larry Moran just posted a detailed discussion of the Blencowe paper.  You should read it in its entirety, Gary: it does not support your earlier challenges.

Here are some highlights, from http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016....ml#more :
Quote
The authors looked at RNA-RNA interactions (hybrid formation) by mapping different RNA molecules that bound to each other. The idea is to map as many of these interactions as possible in order to get a handle on which of the RNAs have a significant biological function. The presence of an interaction does not prove that the RNA molecule(s) have a function since there are many cases where spurious transcripts could be complementary to an existing RNA. Only one of the RNAs might have a function or maybe neither has a function. However, it's one way of detecting possible functional RNAs.



Quote
A large fraction of the interactions involve associations between well-known functional RNA classes such as ribosomal RNAs (rRNAs), transfer RNAs (tRNAs), spliceosomal RNAs (snRNAs), snoRNAs, and messenger RNAs (mRNAs). These interactions don't make a significant contribution to our understanding of which genes in the genome are functional since even if every interaction proved there was a function it would still only amount to a very tiny amount of the genome.

The authors did detect a few interactions involving long noncoding RNAs (lincRNAs) but this was only a small percentage of the total. There are thousands of lincRNAs but currently there are only about 200 that have known functions and not all of these are even human. .....  If all of those RNAs were functional they would occupy about 1% of the genome so this has has very little to do with whether 90% of our genome is junk.



Quote
This paper does not make any significant contribution to our understanding of pervasive transcription and whether most of the transcripts are functional (hint: they aren't). It does not make a contribution to the debate over junk DNA since most of the RNAs that were detected were already in the functional category or strongly suspected of being functional. The authors make no claims about junk DNA in the paper because the paper is not about junk DNA.


Quote
........ The press release grossly distorts the actual content of the paper in order to sensationalize the results and promote the Donnelly Centre. ........  The press release makes it sound as though we are just learning about the existence of noncoding RNAs.  



Quote
It's true that we would like to know how many of the RNAs are functional but it's not true that we are completely clueless. There's plenty of evidence supporting the idea that only 10% of our genome is functional. It's very likely that the vast majority of transcripts are spurious and nonfunctional.


Quote
..... My colleagues Alex Pallazzo and his student Eliza Lee have addressed the issue of noncoding RNAs. They conclude that the default hypothesis has to be that most are nonfunctional unless there's solid evidence of function. Right now it looks like this evidence won't be found so most of these RNAs are spurious, they are junk RNA.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 24 2016,22:54   

N.Wells my challenges were based upon the press release from the University of Toronto, not the Blencowe paper.

It's sad that the best you can do is misrepresent what was being discussed.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 558 559 560 561 562 [563] 564 565 566 567 568 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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