RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 575 576 577 578 579 [580] 581 582 583 584 585 ... >   
  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: Oct. 15 2016,15:43   

This is what I ended up working with, in regards to the signal mechanics:

 
Quote
[/b]Backlash[b]

Main article: Backlash (engineering)

In mechanical engineering, backlash is the striking back of connected wheels in a piece of mechanism when pressure is applied. Another source defines it as the maximum distance through which one part of something can be moved without moving a connected part. It is also called lash or play. In the context of gears, backlash is clearance between mating components, or the amount of lost motion due to clearance or slackness when movement is reversed and contact is re-established. In a pair of gears, backlash is the amount of clearance between mated gear teeth.

Backlash is unavoidable for nearly all reversing mechanical couplings, although its effects can be negated. Depending on the application it may or may not be desirable. Reasons for requiring backlash include allowing for lubrication and thermal expansion, and to prevent jamming. Backlash may also result from manufacturing errors and deflection under load.


I'm next going to go from 6 to 12 sectors per place.  That makes it possible to have 7/12 = 58% open space, in the one toothed gears. I'm currently deriving that by switching between 3/6 and 4/6. It works OK, but when full range of motion is allowed there is too much play (lash or backlash) in the system for it to achieve maximum angular resolution. That is when the critter should be most able to (without line or path as reference) travel in a straight line between two points.

-

And in paleo/geo related news: yesterday's Holyoke Community College field work (here at the tracksite) went extremely well. Professors in our region are having wonderful success with this type of curriculum, also applicable to criminal justice type scene reconstruction science and other fields:

www.hcc.edu/courses-and-programs/college-catalog/course-index/the-natural-history-of-new-england-e

A science prerequisite with some dinosaur hunting in it has become popular with college students who will become our next criminologists, lawyers, judges, entertainers, politicians, business leaders, as well as scientists and engineers. For ideas implementing something similar where you live contact Steven Winters at HCC, Patrick Getty at UConn and James Farlow at Indiana University. All credit for the concept goes to them.

Trace fossils I have at this site were great for piecing together events that occurred over a matter of days or even hours. For example depth of prints around a lake that is drying up become more shallow with time, while prints on top of each other can help confirm which way the water saturation level was changing. At least one student expected the course to only be able to explain what happened over millions of years of time. It instead pieces together a crime scene of sorts where there is a large concentration of carnivores either feeding on each other, or something else. Then in the shallows were found fish traces, most likely from the unfortunate who were washed into the lake by the swollen streams.

What is being pieced together using evidence from Gaulin Tracksite is showing a flood related event that made the fish easy prey to the local carnivores. The accepted hypothesis dating back to the 1800's (they were just herding through during migration to somewhere else) is being squashed by new evidence, earlier investigators did not have.

This was not a museum type field trip to see what people long ago studied and concluded. The students instead became involved in the piecing together of evidence that museums are changing in response to, local science history in the making. Science is then a verb requiring them to take action in response to.

A religion based ID controversy is something else that changes over time in response to science changing events. Controversial issues are not something one starts with, they are something settled along the way that they are best to not waste their time with right now. Our minds were too busy following the stream of evidence being followed to have time to think about much else. What Ken Ham and others chose to believe is not even relevant to the science work. Such opinions prove to be totally scientifically useless but not by having mentioned them, it's from not ever having to. They on their own just go away.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2016,18:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 15 2016,15:43)
They on their own just go away.

You're living proof that this Yoda-esque statement is false.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2016,18:51   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 15 2016,18:26)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 15 2016,15:43)
They on their own just go away.

You're living proof that this Yoda-esque statement is false.


Now I feel like I'm stuck in a star wars movie:
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Yodaesque
   
Quote
Yodaesque
English
Etymology
Yoda +‎ -esque

Adjective
Yodaesque ‎(comparative more Yodaesque, superlative most Yodaesque)

Reminiscent of Yoda, the wise mentor from the Star Wars film franchise, who dispenses mystical advice in ungrammatical English.


And in this new day and age the mystical advice starts at YouTube:
www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/57ky8t/brain_virtual_reality/d8tnj6h

Even the Discovery Institute went plaid. Theme video explains all the rest of the details:
Space Truckin' - Deep Purple
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zGJ9N7c6pE

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2016,20:24   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 15 2016,16:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 15 2016,15:43)
They on their own just go away.

You're living proof that this Yoda-esque statement is false.

Nice. Now he'll strut around thinking someone called him some kind of guru. smh

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2016,20:45   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 15 2016,20:24)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 15 2016,16:26)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 15 2016,15:43)
They on their own just go away.

You're living proof that this Yoda-esque statement is false.

Nice. Now he'll strut around thinking someone called him some kind of guru. smh


10 points for what this one is about!

Rainbow - Man On The Silver Mountain / Lyrics
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUMLfjrIO9o

Hint; flame/fire looks more like this:

heatherandlittle.com/shingles-and-tiles/decorative/library-of-congress/

I doubt Barry Arrington can make me holy again. But Methodist  leaders can!

--------------
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: Oct. 17 2016,02:08   

Wake me up when you have anything relevant to say in any field of science, Gaulin

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2016,02:14   

Quote
I doubt Barry Arrington can make me holy again. But Methodist  leaders can!


Pastor

Just don't walk over the lawn, Gaulin, or you will be holey.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2016,21:07   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 17 2016,02:14)
     
Quote
I doubt Barry Arrington can make me holy again. But Methodist  leaders can!


Pastor

Just don't walk over the lawn, Gaulin, or you will be holey.

That's a Protestant church. And all the insulting election year fear mongering has caused such a major backlash against religious "conservatives" that the US in now on the brink of civil war. The nude picture of the maybe future first lady with stars on her nipples that the "religious right" helped nominate to represent the values of this great nation is making even me want to vomit. Over the weekend was this too:

www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/video/fbi-investigating-republican-party-office-firebombing-787824707975

Even the kids seem to be gearing up for major civil disobedience. Along with the vandalism of his church this pastor might actually have good reason to be very fearful right now. But I doubt that his situation will help him get his gun back.

The US is now experiencing very serious chaos that at least makes this an excellent time for another classic Dio song with the "evil or divine" theme:

Dio - The Last in line - With lyrics (subtitled)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VOEIvJm6d0

Maybe I will now be able to focus on the science work, I mentioned here:
www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/57ky8t/brain_virtual_reality/d8ur5nt

--------------
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: Oct. 18 2016,02:45   

Quote (fnxtr @ Sep. 27 2016,18:23)
Ocular dominance column. Thanks for the new band name.

I just drew out the signal dynamics where all places face in the same direction and check this out! Six places can also circle around an attractor at the center, without losing grip at the ends of their two outward facing arms of the signal.



I started a topic for it in the neuroscience forum:
https://www.reddit.com/r....re....related

--------------
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: Oct. 18 2016,03:03   

Stick to making patterns, Gaulin. You can make some pretty CGI patterns.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2016,03:05   

Quote
That's a Protestant church.


No True Scotsman!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2016,11:04   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 18 2016,03:05)
 
Quote
That's a Protestant church.


No True Scotsman!

In regards to standing the test of time; only Methodists have a lesson this valuable included in their church history:
 
Quote
"Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Even Slower to get Angry"

Bishop Michael Coyner, January 19, 2016

My inbox has been full lately with dozens of angry messages from people I do not know. Most have accused me of false belief, intolerance, and close-mindedness. It took a while for me to understand the source of all this anger – and ironically it is for a decision that I did not make or know about until the last few days. Sometimes people are angry with me for things I have done or decided (and sometimes their anger is justified) but it is intriguing to see how dozens of people who don't know me (or the facts) can so quickly become angry with me

Here is what happened: the General Commission on the General Conference decides which vendors are allowed to have displays during General Conference. They do so on the basis of our Social Principles and of course give priority to official United Methodist groups and institutions. Evidently a group called Discovery Institute wanted to have a display at General Conference to promote the concept of "intelligent design" – the understanding that the evolution of life was guided by God or some other force of "intelligent design" rather than by random action or unguided evolution. The General Conference Commission turned down their request for a variety of reasons, mostly because they are not a UM group or a mission project, nor does the concept of "intelligent design" fully correspond to our UM faith in the God of Creation.

So the supporters of Discovery Institute have launched a campaign of emails to the UMC officials they believe have wronged them. Someone has accidentally or intentionally confused that list and included the General Council on Finance and Administration (of which I serve as Chair of the Board of Directors). So my inbox is being "spammed" with angry messages accusing me of all kinds of evil and injustice.

I can live with that (thanks to my Delete button), but it reminds me that the admonition of James in Chapter 1, verse 19, is a word for our culture: "be quick to listen, slow to speak, and even slower to get angry." By contrast, in our culture today people are unwilling to listen, quick to speak, and speedy in their move to feel angry and offended. Of course social media and email speeds up that process.

And so I am reminded that our Christian response to this age of "everyone feeling offended" is to LISTEN before speaking, to UNDERSTAND before jumping to conclusions, and to ENGAGE in meaningful discussion rather than one-way messages. May God help me – and all of us – to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and even slower to yield to anger.

www.inumc.org/postdetail/quick-to-listen-slow-to-speak-and-even-slower-to-get-angry-3699368

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

   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2016,11:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 22 2016,11:04)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 18 2016,03:05)
   
Quote
That's a Protestant church.


No True Scotsman!

In regards to standing the test of time; only Methodists have a lesson this valuable included in their church history:
   
Quote
"Quick to Listen, Slow to Speak, and Even Slower to get Angry"

Bishop Michael Coyner, January 19, 2016

My inbox has been full lately with dozens of angry messages from people I do not know. Most have accused me of false belief, intolerance, and close-mindedness. It took a while for me to understand the source of all this anger – and ironically it is for a decision that I did not make or know about until the last few days. Sometimes people are angry with me for things I have done or decided (and sometimes their anger is justified) but it is intriguing to see how dozens of people who don't know me (or the facts) can so quickly become angry with me

Here is what happened: the General Commission on the General Conference decides which vendors are allowed to have displays during General Conference. They do so on the basis of our Social Principles and of course give priority to official United Methodist groups and institutions. Evidently a group called Discovery Institute wanted to have a display at General Conference to promote the concept of "intelligent design" – the understanding that the evolution of life was guided by God or some other force of "intelligent design" rather than by random action or unguided evolution. The General Conference Commission turned down their request for a variety of reasons, mostly because they are not a UM group or a mission project, nor does the concept of "intelligent design" fully correspond to our UM faith in the God of Creation.

So the supporters of Discovery Institute have launched a campaign of emails to the UMC officials they believe have wronged them. Someone has accidentally or intentionally confused that list and included the General Council on Finance and Administration (of which I serve as Chair of the Board of Directors). So my inbox is being "spammed" with angry messages accusing me of all kinds of evil and injustice.

I can live with that (thanks to my Delete button), but it reminds me that the admonition of James in Chapter 1, verse 19, is a word for our culture: "be quick to listen, slow to speak, and even slower to get angry." By contrast, in our culture today people are unwilling to listen, quick to speak, and speedy in their move to feel angry and offended. Of course social media and email speeds up that process.

And so I am reminded that our Christian response to this age of "everyone feeling offended" is to LISTEN before speaking, to UNDERSTAND before jumping to conclusions, and to ENGAGE in meaningful discussion rather than one-way messages. May God help me – and all of us – to be quick to listen, slow to speak, and even slower to yield to anger.

www.inumc.org/postdetail/quick-to-listen-slow-to-speak-and-even-slower-to-get-angry-3699368

So when will you begin to listen?

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2016,12:14   

He's neither slow to speak nor slower to anger.
Listening he basically doesn't do at all.
Once upon a time he paid minor attention to suggestions that his English was appalling by rewriting the first paragraph of his magnum crapus.  Now it is apparently declared to be perfect and without need of modification of any sort.
How nice for him.

But as an attention whore of the worst sort, he can't be slow to speak, or people might pay him all the attention he deserves.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2016,12:28   

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 22 2016,11:36)
So when will you begin to listen?


Hopefully you are asking that question to those who are now showing what "scientific misconduct" looks like:

---------------------------------------
Submitted to one of my subs: "God made everything because word salad and Salmon don't have sex before marriage" (self.badscience)
submitted 1 day ago by justahomosexual
I'm not joking. It's here
Some gems:
>whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar
>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".
>marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious loving "spirit" our multicellular intelligence level may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels
That's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm not even going to go into rule #1 because holy shit, the whole thing applies to R1. I thought everyone would get a laugh at this because even for the internets it's insane.
---------------------------------------

[–]GaryGaulin -20 points 1 day ago*
I'm standing by for anyone who thinks they have scientific evidence against the model and its theory.
You will first though need to familiarize yourself with how the core model works. This introduction (written for a talented 16 year old) should be simple enough:
www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/57ky8t/brain_virtual_reality/d8tnj6h/

[–]justahomosexual[S] 15 points 1 day ago
You don't seem to understand how science works. If you want evidence for/against something do some actual research and publish it and scientists will critique it. The blog entries of a mentally ill person don't count. You seem to think that if no one has said anything against your claims they must be true. That's just stupid.
Secondly, if you want people to critique your work you should start with something that isn't entirely meaningless. You're asking people to argue about a jabberwocky. A random collection of sentences about a random collection of stuff (salmon, RAM, marriage, even zombies. Zombies! There is no explanation of how any of this is related) is not a "theory". A meaningless hodgepodge of ravings cannot be scientifically tested because there is nothing to test. Besides, you would be the one to test it. Just making a bunch of wild ass claims and then being like "no one has tested this, I'm a genius!" is not science. If you want tests, then why haven't you published an account of the laboratory experiments you have done on your "model"? Oh yeah, it's probably because no one will give a laboratory to unmedicated schizophrenics.

[–]SnapshillBot 3 points 1 day ago
Snapshots:
This Post - 1, 2, 3, 4
It's here - 1, 2, 3
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]yoshiK 1 point 15 hours ago
Well,
>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".
This is basically a correct description of the live cycle of salmons, albeit with some poetic license.
For the next, let me quote your supposed "quote" in full:
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".
marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from a conscious loving "spirit" our multicellular intelligence level may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels
Well, if we compare this to the website in question we discover that you just removed the context, in order to produce the bad science in question.
>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". Motherly alligators and crocodiles gently carry their well guarded hatchlings to the water. 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 loving "spirit" our multicellular intelligence level may be able to sense coming from the other intelligence levels, though we cannot directly experience being a single one of our cells or the intelligent cause that created all cells, which has for billions of years been alive and a part inside us too. [Italics: your quote; bold: emphasis mine]
I did not read the source in full, so I can't speak about its merrits. But fabricating quotes is most assuredly scientific misconduct.

[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 14 hours ago*
>This is basically a correct description of the live cycle of salmons, albeit with some poetic license.
Thanks for noticing! And I can add:
Male Salmon guarding its nest
www.youtube.com/watch?v=czCLYdwcIuk
Sockeye Salmon guarding Redd in Fishhook Creek
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kSruiqqmpk
Coho Salmon Guards Her Nest
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDPUkbOcgMI

[–]HoboOfDoooooom -1 points 15 hours ago
It's probably someone who is mentally ill, how about respecting that possibility and not mocking them?

[–]takishan -16 points 1 day ago
The dude is obviously educated and writes much better than you so just because you obviously disagree with his premise, he's politely answering questions and if you actually read what he's typing it's fucking loopy but he's obviously put thought into this and the bit about the salmon makes sense.. he's talking about instincts.
I guess this technically is bad science, but if we're gonna be douchey holier-than-thou types to polite people, I don't want to participate.

[–]justahomosexual[S] 7 points 23 hours ago
writes much better than you
what he's typing it's fucking loopy
How do you not understand that these two things contradict each other? Either he's writing well or he's writing loopy. And he hasn't answered questions. He's spouted a bunch of meaningless (literally meaningless) non-sequiturs. And the part about salmon makes no sense whatsoever. It makes no fucking sense. He says salmon migration is the result of "The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels", one of those "intelligence levels" being "molecular level intelligence" which he defines as "Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time". WTF. He goes on to say: "molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation)." Literally none of those words have anything to do with each other. It means nothing. It literally means nothing. This is a guy who is so bat shit insane that he repeatedly has to assure reddit that he is not a bot. Think about that. When you genuinely have to worry about people confusing your writings with that of poorly programmed bots you are not writing well. You are not even really writing. And you are certainly not putting thought into it. I don't know how you can call what this guy does "thought" when he can't pass a fucking Turing test. That's the whole point of a Turing test. But yeah he's polite, but who cares since I can't tell if he's a human or a random word generator.

[–]GaryGaulin -1 points 20 hours ago
>He goes on to say: "molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation)." Literally none of those words have anything to do with each other.
From the theory that you obviously did not even study:
In chemistry there is molecular/chemical speciation that causes recognizable behavioral change. For example, before adding many fish to a newly made aquarium it has to first be cycled with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the molecular speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling, the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

[–]ANEPICLIE 3 points 20 hours ago
Chemical species are wholly distinct from the notion of biological species.
What the example you post is saying is that the fish change the chemical makeup of the water, and talks about how the nitrogen cycle turns ammonia into other nitrogen compounds. They could replace fish with just a tube feeding in ammonia and the result would be the same.

[–]GaryGaulin 0 points 19 hours ago
Chemical species are wholly distinct from the notion of biological species.
This is the paragraph that follows the one for molecular/chemical speciation:
In biology there is biological speciation, where biological behavior establishes a new species. Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others. Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species). Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.
simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_species_concept
If you have a more precise way of operationally defining and explaining how these concepts relate to each other then let me see what you have. Suggesting that there is no similarity at all only indicates that you did not spend a hundred or more hours following links for all of the following species related concepts:
sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/Origin3Cau3Gen1600.png
The theory is simply extremely good at showing how biological concepts and systems relate to each other.

[–]justahomosexual[S] 2 points 18 hours ago
>theory that you obviously did not even study:
For the umpteenth time, it is not a theory because what you said is literally devoid of meaning. There is nothing there to study because the words you use do not mean anything like what you think they mean.
To whit:
Speciation Chemicals do not speciate. Chemical speciation is entirely different and not even called the same thing.
Species species is entirely different than Chemical species that is why everyone uses the qualifier 'chemical' in 'chemical species'.
Behavior Chemicals do not have behavior.
Social differentiation has absolutely nothing to do with speciation or chemistry. It's a sociological term. I don't think you have ever heard that term because you abuse it so badly. I think you just randomly put the two words together and just happened to stumble on a social psychology term.
Stop saying that I didn't 'study' your theory. That's a cop-out and you know it. What you have said is insane. It's word salad. There is nothing to study. There is nothing to 'study' in the blog ramblings of someone who can't seem to use wikipedia. There is nothing to 'study' in the jabberwocky of an obviously mentally ill person. There is nothing to 'study' in a blog post in which no evidence, data, or predictions are presented. There is nothing to 'study' in the ravings of someone who can't even speak fucking English. There is nothing to 'study' in a hodgepodge of assertions so insane that it's author has to repeatedly insist that he is not a bot and yet no one believes you. Everyone in /r/neurology thinks you are a bot. A fucking bot. But sure, we should all 'study' your word salad.

[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 18 hours ago
For the umpteenth time, it is not a theory.........
It is standard practice for a model of a system or systems to include a theory of operation (how it works) in documentation.
More here:
sites.google.com/site/intelligencedesignlab/home/ScientificMethod.pdf

[–]justahomosexual[S] 1 point 17 hours ago
From the first sentence of the Wikipedia definition of Scientific Theory:
>A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed
Please cite even a single published independent scientific test that confirms your "theory".

[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 16 hours ago
>Please cite even a single published independent scientific test that confirms your "theory".
Your total lack of evidence against the system (the theory had to be written for) is confirmation enough that this is in fact a very real scientific model. You are as scientifically powerless against it as the Discovery Institute is. But look on the bright side:
Judas Priest - Turbo Lover (Official Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhY9GOhFwN4

[–]GaryGaulin -1 points 20 hours ago*
>This is a guy who is so bat shit insane that he repeatedly has to assure reddit that he is not a bot.
And, LOL!!!!!
www.reddit.com/r/popheads/comments/54elvu/katy_perrys_website_updated_with_stay_tuned_for/d83ob47/
www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7420;st=17310#entry255075

[–]justahomosexual[S] 2 points 18 hours ago
From two weeks ago:
www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/56g9tj/new_cognitive_model_now_online_id_lab_60_for/d8jaacb/

[–]GaryGaulin 0 points 18 hours ago
>From two weeks ago:
Your hypothesis that "This is a guy who is so bat shit insane that he repeatedly has to assure reddit that he is not a bot." just proved to be false. In the example you just provided it was like I was purposely making it seem like I am a bot!
It is not a good sign for you to not be able to tell the difference between paranoia, and a shameless plug for my models and theory.

[–]justahomosexual[S] 3 points 18 hours ago
>I was purposely making it seem like I am a bot!
LMFAO that you think anyone would believe that. I meant to do that! Holy shit even that perv Peewee Herman would be ashamed of you using that line in that way.
This is brilliant. It's just fucking brilliant.

[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 17 hours ago*
>LMFAO that you think anyone would believe that. I meant to do that! Holy shit even that perv Peewee Herman would be ashamed of you using that line in that way.
Yes! We've got thrills and shocks, supersonic fighting cocks. Leave your hammers at the box. Come inside! Come inside!!
Karn Evil 9 - Emerson, Lake & Palmer - Brain Salad Surgery - full 29:35
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLS0Med0s6E

[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 15 hours ago
>The dude is obviously educated and writes much better than you so just because you obviously disagree with his premise, he's politely answering questions and if you actually read what he's typing it's fucking loopy but he's obviously put thought into this and the bit about the salmon makes sense.. he's talking about instincts. I guess this technically is bad science, but if we're gonna be douchey holier-than-thou types to polite people, I don't want to participate.
Thanks for the kind words, takishan.
As you can now see the model and theory is very well thought out. And it all has a way of becoming scientifically entertaining too.
The real issue boils down to the premise that the Discovery Institute proposed, which is precisely:
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.
A scientific model pertaining to "intelligent cause" with a core algorithm that does not require another theory's "natural selection" variable proves that the above hypothesis is (in the context of that model/theory) true. Critics who have religious or antireligious philosophical theories to explain how "intelligent cause" works are all equally out of bounds of science, irrelevant. The ID debate is ended, with a novel new theory to show for it.

www.reddit.com/r/badscience/comments/58l1uf/submitted_to_one_of_my_subs_god_made_everything/

--------------
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: Oct. 22 2016,13:53   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 18 2016,03:03)
Stick to making patterns, Gaulin. You can make some pretty CGI patterns.

Speaking of CGI - Wow to this awesome new Goo Goo Dolls video!

Goo Goo Dolls - Over & Over [Official Lyric Video]
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH0Ab0AzF-w

Hopefully that makes contextual sense to everyone.

--------------
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: Oct. 22 2016,16:10   

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y255388
     
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 21 2016,21:16)

Columbine film actually addresses Darwinism as the mass murderers’ motive

This article covers what Eric Harris wrote in his journal, and what that indicates in regards to motives:
www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/assessment/2004/04/the_depressive_and_the_psychopath.html

In my opinion Uncommon Descent did not help their reputation by posting another self-serving misinterpretation of the evidence. If I were them then I would worry about the social ramifications of their own world-view, which holds that genetic mutations are all harmful therefore God needs them to (by rhetoric of more severe means) get rid of those who they believe God wants destroyed. That already proved to be a very psychopathic thought. But for some reason those who believe this way are not worried about the consequences of another such "culture war".

--------------
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: Oct. 22 2016,16:59   

Quote
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".


Frankly, you are being foolish.  You have at least gone from "defending nests full of young" to defending their nests, but you are still mostly not correct, and for reasons that defy comprehension you keep insisting on talking about salmon in a section about parental behavior and love and marriage. Excepting steelhead trout, in other salmon species most salmon die after spawning (all Pacific and most Atlantic salmon), and they all do little if anything that qualifies as parental care.  You might as well claim that humans are instinctively monogamous and cite Donald Trump and Wilt Chamberlain as examples.
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....SPpMciU

More specifically, in all species, the males arrive first and most stake out and defend prime spawning real estate (coarse gravel bars, with currents that are neither too rapid nor too slow, so that the eggs will be oxygenated but not swept away).   Some males hang out on the periphery and hope to take over later or steal a quick fertilization at some point.  When the females arrive, they pick out good places to lay eggs (thereby choosing their mates in large part by default according to whomever controls the area or is in the vicinity, but there is some courtship and females may drive away some unacceptable males), dig their redds (nests), up to seven, until they run out of eggs.  As the females lay their eggs, one or more males approach and start dumping milt (sperm) over the eggs as the female lays them and buries them (she stirs up the gravel at the upstream end of the redd to make another redd, causing gravel to drift over the eggs in the first depression).  

Depending on the species and the environment, the female may defend her redd for a while, chasing off other females and other predatory fish species, although she mostly has only two days to (in some species) two weeks to live, and the eggs are going to be developing over the next two to six months, so the mother is mostly not around to defend the nest or protect the young.  Mostly the mother hovers over the redd while fanning the water.  This may send oxygenated water down to the eggs, which would seem beneficial in early development.  The parents are going to die long before the embryoes hatch, but once the embryoes have developed eyes they don't need very much oxygen.  

Salmon that spawn on beaches aren't territorial, do no redd defense whatsoever, and tend to mix eggs and spawn from multiple adults all at the same time.

All NW Pacific salmon die after spawning, and about 90% of Atlantic salmon die, although the remaining 10%, nearly all females, head back to the ocean soon after spawning, and may survive through a second spawning run.

In streams, the males defend their territory and thus mating access to females, and will try to chase other males away, although how close the male is to dying, how many other males are around, and local stream conditions may limit his ability to monopolize one or more females.  Most commonly, male salmon fertilize the eggs of a few females, and most females get their eggs fertilized by just one male.  There is no "til death do they part": nothing approaching marriage, little approaching monogamy, and even less relating to parental care of young, other than the males trying to ensure that they get to be the father.  Quite often, after finishing spawning a bunch of males will gather quietly in a quiet pool downstream, and basically wait to die.  (They aren't gathering to be social, but because low-velocity water requires less swimming.  Notably, those males aren't out defending their nests or hanging out with their womenfolk.)

The young are not at risk of being eaten by other adult salmon (as always, excepting steelhead trout, neither gender eats after entering the stream, and in the Pacific salmon their stomachs have decayed away already).

Nest-building by a female might dislodge previously laid eggs, but the females make a distinct mound and absent crowding other salmon appear to prefer fresh areas (it's less work to fin out a depression if you don't start with a mound: a depression is needed so that flow separation allows the eggs to settle rather than being washed downstream).  If there are a lot of females, some females may dislodge previously buried eggs: this can be prevented to a degree by females chasing off other females, but some species in some cases have "wave spawning" where new spawners arrive after the previous lot have finished and died, and re-excavation can be a distinct problem there.  

As far as I know, the males and females do not cooperate in building the nests, or defending the territory, or looking after the young.

You are building a fantasy.  You can't even be bothered to check out your facts properly.  You've gone as far as finding three videos on the internet that vary from ambiguously titled to wrongly titled, and you cite those in support!

Try reading some actual scientific literature before pontificating - something like Groot and Margolis, "Pacific salmon life strategies" would be fine.

Even if crocodilians and salmonids were great parents (although they aren't), the point of your paragraph is nonetheless discredited by the huge number of species that show absolutely no parental care whatsoever: even setting aside plants and fungi, corals, sponges, crinoids, and mollusks tend to be "fire and forget".  Octopodes die on spawning, mayflies die after dropping their eggs into rivers and lakes, and cecidomyian gall midges eat their way out of their mother, killing her in the process.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2016,23:36   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 22 2016,16:59)
You have at least gone from "defending nests full of young" to defending their nests, but you are still mostly not correct, and for reasons that defy comprehension you keep insisting on talking about salmon in a section about parental behavior and love and marriage.


I like the hard challenges. Classifying salmon as nothing more than meat robots best served baked or fried does not help explain the source of our most mysterious behaviors. I'm following the evidence wherever it leads, as opposed to looking for reasons to not have to.

--------------
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: Oct. 23 2016,06:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 22 2016,23:36)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 22 2016,16:59)
You have at least gone from "defending nests full of young" to defending their nests, but you are still mostly not correct, and for reasons that defy comprehension you keep insisting on talking about salmon in a section about parental behavior and love and marriage.


I like the hard challenges. Classifying salmon as nothing more than meat robots best served baked or fried does not help explain the source of our most mysterious behaviors. I'm following the evidence wherever it leads, as opposed to looking for reasons to not have to.

   
Quote
I like the hard challenges.

Good, then here's a challenge that you have been unable to meet so far - do some actual science, something that's actually worthwhile.

   
Quote
Classifying salmon as nothing more than meat robots best served baked or fried does not help explain the source of our most mysterious behaviors.

They are classified as salmonids.

Science does not think of them as "nothing more than meat robots best served baked or fried".  They are really good grilled or poached as well.  Seriously, large parts of science owe their success to reductionism, which treats components of complex systems as simply as possible in ways that are consistent with available evidence (not that you know anything about ground-truthing), but other parts of science are more holistic and deal with more complex contexts, emergent aspects, and synergistic interactions, such as looking at how they fit into the ecosystem, the effects and sources of plasticity in their behavior, and the astonishing physiological changes that they undergo through the course of their life.

The deep origins of behavior is indeed a difficult problem, but perpetuation and honing of the behaviors is not so mysterious.  They are best explained as adaptive, inherited (genetically based), responses honed by natural selection.  We measure how variations in behavior affect reproductive success and how the same behaviors fare in terms of reproductive success when circumstances change slightly.  People have even done some experiments on inheritance of behavior in salmon hybrids.

   
Quote
I'm following the evidence wherever it leads, as opposed to looking for reasons to not have to.
No, you aren't.  You are building a fantasy based on your delusions and on your wishes about the way you think things ought to be, and you aren't even taking the trouble to learn basic facts before fantasizing about supposed explanations. Your model is based on insects supposedly having hippocampi, for crying out loud.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2016,08:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 23 2016,00:36)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 22 2016,16:59)
You have at least gone from "defending nests full of young" to defending their nests, but you are still mostly not correct, and for reasons that defy comprehension you keep insisting on talking about salmon in a section about parental behavior and love and marriage.


I like the hard challenges.

Demonstrably false, as witnessed throughout this thread.
 
Quote
Classifying salmon as nothing more than meat robots best served baked or fried does not help explain the source of our most mysterious behaviors.

Non sequitur.  Not only is the premise false, as ably pointed out by N.Wells, it wouldn't matter in the slightest if it were true.  No failure of any purported explanation provides the slightest support for your absolute inability to explain, or 'help explain' the source of any of our behaviors, mysterious or not.
Your swill provides no framework within which, nor from which, any explanatory chain of evidence and reason can be found.
The vaunted 'premise' remains banal, strictly non-controversial, and untouched by your efforts.
Quote
I'm following the evidence wherever it leads, as opposed to looking for reasons to not have to.

Manifestly not true.
The output of your software is not evidence in the sense required.
Your willful ignorance of what is known about biology, awareness, consciousness, and intelligence is boundless.

Just for the lulz, how about you provide an actual path, a trail, a connected series, of evidence that you have followed.  You claim to have done, and to be doing, exactly this, yet there is no shred of evidence to support the truth or validity of the claim.

Not fantasies, not unsupported inferences, not confusion of map with territory, but actual evidence which you have followed by means of logic and reason to further evidence which you have followed by means of logic and reason to still further evidence.  Include the connections you have made between the points of evidence.
You won't because you can't because, as always, you're operating from unwarranted delusions of adequacy.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2016,12:39   

Twas 'writ above:  
Quote
Man On The Silver Mountain


If you listen closely to the song, (forwards AND backwards) you can plainly hear that he's actually saying, 'I'm the man with the silver Johnson'.  

He means the outboard motor on his fishing boat.

Just thought I'd help you out a little there, GooGoo.

(And the colored girls sing, HOOTDEHOOTDEHOOTDEHOOT)

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2016,13:51   

Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 24 2016,12:39)
Twas 'writ above:    
Quote
Man On The Silver Mountain


If you listen closely to the song, (forwards AND backwards) you can plainly hear that he's actually saying, 'I'm the man with the silver Johnson'.  

He means the outboard motor on his fishing boat.

Just thought I'd help you out a little there, GooGoo.

And for all this time I thought it was Devil Worship music..

What's this world coming to?!!     

--------------
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: Oct. 25 2016,16:26   

Here is a very educational debate:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/58aosj/falsifiability_not_a_requirement_of_science/d93rpmt/

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

   
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2016,18:22   

Devil?!?!  Which one?

Oh, and that would be HOO HOO, iffen you wanna send a little sympathy.  Just sayin'.

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2016,05:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 25 2016,16:26)
Here is a very educational debate:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/58aosj/falsifiability_not_a_requirement_of_science/d93rpmt/

So you jumped into a not-very-informed discussion in reddit and proved yourself to be an even-less-well-informed idiot.  Why exactly are you linking to that?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2016,06:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 26 2016,05:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 25 2016,16:26)
Here is a very educational debate:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/58aosj/falsifiability_not_a_requirement_of_science/d93rpmt/

So you jumped into a not-very-informed discussion in reddit and proved yourself to be an even-less-well-informed idiot.  Why exactly are you linking to that?

Scientific misconduct looks good on you too.

At this rate the Discovery Institute will have what it wants by Christmas.

--------------
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: Oct. 26 2016,06:33   

Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 25 2016,18:22)
Devil?!?!  Which one?

Oh, and that would be HOO HOO, iffen you wanna send a little sympathy.  Just sayin'.

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:)  :)  :)  :)  :)  :)

There is no sympathy for the devil here.
Quote
In a 1975 radio interview with Ritchie Blackmore and Ronnie James Dio, the vocalist said he would allow Ritchie to explain this song, "but you'd get completely lost in his explanation, so I'll do it for you".

It is he said, a semi-religious song, the man on the silver mountain is a kind of God figure everyone is crying out to.

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.....d=24813

--------------
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: Oct. 26 2016,06:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 26 2016,07:03)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 26 2016,05:46)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 25 2016,16:26)
Here is a very educational debate:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/58aosj/falsifiability_not_a_requirement_of_science/d93rpmt/

So you jumped into a not-very-informed discussion in reddit and proved yourself to be an even-less-well-informed idiot.  Why exactly are you linking to that?

Scientific misconduct looks good on you too.

At this rate the Discovery Institute will have what it wants by Christmas.

In your fondest fantasies you rise to the level of scientific mis-conduct.  The reality is that you know so little about science as to be unable to judge whether any particular conduct is scientific or not, or whether this or that is a requirement for science.

The closest you get to science is gatekeeper to a fossil track-site.
Your fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding.

Still waiting to hear a single explanation that follows from your "theory".

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2016,07:06   

Quote
Here is a very educational debate:


Obviously you learnt nothing from it , Gaulin.

We can add Reddit to YouTube as the go to sites for serious scientific research...NOT. Of course, anything with even a modicum of science to it goes straight over Gaulin's head at great height and speed.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 575 576 577 578 579 [580] 581 582 583 584 585 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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