Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (N.Wells @ May 15 2018,10:47)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2018,01:13)|
|Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2018,19:12)|
|I've always likened your stuff to Neato rather than Roomba. Roomba is way more random in its navigation.|
The more I think about what you said the more it seems like you are trying to get yourself a lucritive advertising gig going with Neato Robotics.
If true then go N.Wells go! That would certainly help make the expected "weird story" even weirder.
Oh and in neuroscience news is this new evidence for what the model/theory predicts is at least somehow possible:
Since Darwinian theory accounts for this and more with a (still lacking better word) generalization stated like "inheritable morphological change over time" news like this is no problem at all. That though is not true for neuroscientific theories that now have to ultimately model in once unimaginable (more than generalization) specific detail that must now include both RNA and DNA networks of genetic systems. That's where science action pertaining to "intelligent cause" is happening. Neuroscience must follow the evidence into the area Darwinian theory explained from an outside view type perspective. They have entirely different tools and required vocabulary therefore one never replaces the other. For example: physics never replaced astronomy.
The future is in emerging areas of science where there are few experts, still at the ground floor and all that. In context of the "Weird Science" series requiring an obligatory Lisa: what we got is (as they say for human development) "coming of age" while DI's little junior he's still all in a rage. But did you notice he was come come coming of age too? At least in the video anyway.
1) Re Neato: No, and I don't see how you reach that conclusion.
2) Re the possibility of "acquired memories" becoming encoded into RNA. Well, maybe, but I don't see how "Darwinian theory" predicts this at all, since Darwin knew nothing about RNA or DNA. Evolutionary theory predicts that if a new strip of DNA or RNA does something that confers an advantage to its owner, it will likely become more common in succeeding generations, but it doesn't predict that RNA should develop the ability to encode new memories and appropriate responses. (It doesn't predict that this wouldn't occur either.)
3) Similarly, I don't see how your model necessarily entails any predictions anywhere close to what the Guardian article is suggesting.
He's using his well-worn copy of the creationist playbook again.
1. Something is discovered.
2. Current theory didn't explicitly predict it.
3. Therefore current theory is completely wrong.
4. Therefore our alternative (which makes no predictions at all) wins by default and supplants current theory.
5. Therefore Jesus.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers
There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"... The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG