Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 483 484 485 486 487 [488] 489 490 491 492 493 ... >

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,18:36    As if.  You pathetic attention whore. roflmao

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,18:50    Quote [From Cordova's thread at Skeptical Zone] Steve Schaffner on July 12, 2015 at 2:41 am said:     Quote [From Sal] You don’t think methylation marking and positioning of the is important to regulation? Of course I think it’s important. What I said was that methylation, like other regulatory systems, ultimately depends on DNA sequence. DNA methylation occurs at specific sites because of specific DNA sequence motifs; for example, see this paper on how the transcription factor Myc establishes methylation patterns by recruiting a methyltransferase. Transcription factors work by binding to specific DNA motifs, not to arbitrarily chosen and interchangeable pieces of DNA. There is no known mechanism for picking out randomly chosen repeats for methylation and then using the results for regulating specific genes. Real epigenetic modification regulates a gene by interacting mechanistically with the DNA needed to transcribe that gene, not by carrying out computation in an arbitrary scratch space of repeats. Why you’re appealing to ENCODE results is not clear to me, since their studies find epigenetic modifications that happen consistently at the same sequence location for particular cell types. That approach would never find the kind of RAM-like behavior you’re suggesting. Meanwhile, over at Sandwalk, http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......nt-form , Gary throws a snit because John Avise defined ID as   Quote Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. rather than using the Gaulin / Luskin - favored vapid prose that   Quote 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. , which Gary has just promoted from a premise to a definition.  Warren Johnson makes a point we've all heard (and said) before:   Quote I say that your definition of ID theory is too vague, and requires elaboration to even understand it, let alone use it. Gary then plugs his not-a-theory and his site: Larry bites, checks it out and is not impressed:  "Oops! My apologies. This is the first time I've looked at your website.  I won't be bothering you again."  Gary thinks he's scored a point:   Quote At least you have the honesty to admit that after all these years you did not even look at what you claim to be an expert in.  Your critical thinking score is now zero. Gary, your rubbish is not published, has not been presented at a meeting, and has not had any meaningful peer review.  To all intents and purposes, it does not exist as serious science, and for a scientist not to know about is not a shortcoming.  Until you follow scientific procedures and get your work formally presented, no one in science has any responsibility to take any notice of it.  Effectively, it does not yet exist as something that requires being noticed.  Scientists can pay attention to your rubbish if they wish, if they were to find any value in it and thought it might pan out, but until ideas, data, and theories have had formal presentation, taking them into account is strictly optional, and not knowing about them or ignoring them does not merit the label of "not knowing about the subject".   For example, you have yet to say anything about Edgar Postrado's stuff.  His ideas are more recent, more expansive, and more voluminous than yours, and he has actually published them (well, self-published, without bothering with peer review).  Applying what seem to be your standards, why doesn't your failing to address him mean that you don't know enough about ID to talk about it?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,19:04    Gary Gaulin - Friday, July 10, 2015 6:37:00 PM John Avise could not get the premise/definition of the Theory of Intelligent Design right either, and fabricated a whole new one: Footprints of nonsentient design inside the human genome John C. Avise Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine, CA, 92697 Abstract Intelligent design (ID)—the latest incarnation of religious creationism—posits that complex biological features did not accrue gradually via natural evolutionary forces but, instead, were crafted ex nihilo by a cognitive agent. http://www.pnas.org/content....bstract The real definition/premise is: 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. Replies Warren Johnson - Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:49:00 AM I say that your definition of ID theory is too vague, and requires elaboration to even understand it, let alone use it. Stephen Meyer has removed that ambiguity by 'explaining' the Cambrian explosion. Didn't Avise make a clear restatement of Stephen Meyer's explanation?. Do you have a statement that better represents Meyer's hypothesis? Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 9:12:00 AM Source: http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php John Harshman - Saturday, July 11, 2015 11:57:00 AM I don't think Meyer actually explained anything. You will search Darwin's Doubt in vain for a clear hypothesis of what actually happened in the Cambrian. All you will find is a list of things that are wrong with evolution. Dazz - Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:57:00 PM The problem with IDiots like Gaulin is they don't understand what "best explained" means. Their non-theory doesn't explain anything about the design process (and no, GG. your stupid cockroach simulator is not the answer). It has zero predictive power and essentially is all about the "not an undirected process" part. A (failed) negative argument is not an explanation, let alone the best one. "Best explained" in a scientific theory is redundant anyway. It's already implicit in the scientific framework that the theory that provides the best explanation is the accepted one. We all know they will never have a proper theory because that would imply figuring out the designer itself, but of course it's a well known fact that he works in mysterious ways. But crooks like Meyer, Luskin & Co. don't really target scientists or educated people. They target the simpletons that will believe any crap thrown at them disguised in science to keep them from quitting religion and make a living out of these gullible minions. Gaulin must be so mad at the DI for ignoring him completely. They don't want to share the income with you, deal with it GG Laurence A. Moran - Saturday, July 11, 2015 2:17:00 PM @John Hashman You are right. Intelligent Design Creationism explains nothing. It is essentially a series of attacks on evolution, assuming a false dichotomy. The proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism can't even agree on some basic facts. For example, Stephen Meyer seems to accept the basic idea of common descent and the fact that Cambrian fossils are more than 500 million years old and look nothing like modern species. Here's his explanation (p 412) ... Unlike the theistic evolution of Francis Collins, however, the theory of intelligent design does not seek to confine the activity of such an agency to the beginning of the universe, conveying the impression of a decidedly remote and impersonal deistic entity. Nor does the theory of intelligent design merely assert the existence of a creative intelligence behind life. It identifies and detects activity of the designer of life, and does so at different points in the history of life, including the explosive show of creativity on display in the Cambrian event. The ability to detect design makes belief in an intelligent designer (or a creator, or God) not only a tenet of faith, but something to which the evidence of nature now bears witness. In short, it brings science and faith into real harmony. Now, I've looked really hard at the latest reconstructions of Hallucigenia and I really don't see the evidence of design, let alone intelligent design. I'm guessing that Stephen Meyer sees it differently but forgot to explain why god made such a strange animal. . Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:20:00 PM The problem with IDiots like Gaulin is they don't understand what "best explained" means. Apparently, with enough mental masturbation even the phrase "best explained" becomes incomprehensible. Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 3:37:00 PM Larry says: Intelligent Design Creationism explains nothing. Then what does "Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins." explain? DazzSaturday, July 11, 2015 3:53:00 PM Gee Gee, nice projection, as usual. Dazz - Saturday, July 11, 2015 4:08:00 PM Then what does "Evolutionary Creationism (EC) viewpoint on origins." explain? The same as Evolutionary Alienfartism, that posits evolution is true but there's a mutation only when an alien farts, and life was created when an alien took a big dump long ago Gary Gaulin - Saturday, July 11, 2015 4:20:00 PM It's all about critical thinking—something that seems to be in short supply these days. Laurence A. Moran - Saturday, July 11, 2015 7:20:00 PM @Gary Gaulin There are many naturalistic explanations of the Cambrian explosion. They all conform to the available evidence including the molecular evidence that shows a common origin for all those fauna. None of the explanations are so convincing that scientists universally accept them but they are, at least, plausible. Now, put on your critical thinking cap and give me an explanation that's consistent with all the data but requires gods. Tell me which species were "designed" and when, and why you think your explanation is more reasonable than the scientific ones. I bet you can't do that. You have nothing worth saying beyond "gods did it." John Harshman - Saturday, July 11, 2015 8:39:00 PM Larry, Stephen Meyer seems to accept the basic idea of common descent and the fact that Cambrian fossils are more than 500 million years old and look nothing like modern species. He clearly accepts the age of the Cambrian, but I don't know that he accepts common descent at all. There's a whole chapter in Darwin's Doubt that attempts to cast doubt on phylogenetic analysis. And if you assemble all his little hints, his hypothesis about the explosion appears to be that all the phyla, at least, appeared instantly and without ancestors. He has elsewhere denied that there is any good evidence that humans are related to chimpanzees. All told, the best guess is that he's an old-earth, progressive creationist. Granted, due to his skill in concealing his ideas, this is at best tentative. Gary Gaulin - Sunday, July 12, 2015 6:09:00 AM Well Larry, seeing that you asked I went over the grammar and composition for that section of the theory, at: https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf Cambrian Explosion Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after our planet formed a solid crust molecular level intelligence was already thriving, over 3,000 million years ago. There is next expected to have been a proliferation of cellular level intelligence including plants and eukaryotic cells (single cell animals) which have a nucleus and specialized organelles. Then next, roughly 600 million years ago, there was the well documented “Cambrian Explosion” where a large biodiversity of multicellular intelligence (animals with brain made of neurons) rapidly proliferated. Relatively complex eyes suddenly appeared and are still here in much the same form as in the beginning. JoeMeertTimeline.jpg Chart supplied by Professor Joseph Meert Since the Intelligence Design Lab models the mechanism that is expected to produce these three exponential biological diversification rates we can use it to demonstrate the mechanism that caused the most recent, the Cambrian Explosion. In the run shown below a two lobe compound eye critter is kept busy chasing a feeder for one million memory (write/read) cycles. The green foraging success line shows how well (on average) it is foraging on its own, keeping its stomach full. When using the model for the Cambrian Explosion the foraging success relates to the survival rate of species, which would rapidly decline during mass extinction events then quickly recover. The blue line shows average confidence level, their brain's proficiency at acquiring useful knowledge. The black line shows total memory locations used, which relates to the overall brain capacity of animals. Taken together these show the variables associated with a learning rate which takes into account how much can be learned during its lifetime, and on average how much of that knowledge is actually useful to their overall confidence (well being) and survival success. https://sites.google.com/site.......art.png The lines seen here are representative of the development of multicellular level intelligence during the predicted period of time known as the Cambrian Explosion. There are also two earlier predicted events of the same magnitude (for molecular and cellular level intelligence), where due to not leaving behind much fossil evidence are harder to detect but none the less await future paleontological discovery. Laurence A. Moran - Sunday, July 12, 2015 7:40:00 AM @Gary Gaulin Oops! My apologies. This is the first time I've looked at your website. I won't be bothering you again. Keep taking your meds. Sceptical Mind - Sunday, July 12, 2015 8:32:00 AM Larry I think you may have meant "start taking your meds" haven't you? Gary Gaulin - Sunday, July 12, 2015 12:28:00 PM Larry says: Oops! My apologies. This is the first time I've looked at your website. At least you have the honesty to admit that after all these years you did not even look at what you claim to be an expert in. Your critical thinking score is now zero. -------------- 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: July 12 2015,19:16    Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". -------------- 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: July 12 2015,19:23    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:16) Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". Your incompetence at doing science (and publishing it, and posting to websites, and writing English) does not demonstrate the existence of a publishing and funding scam that does not allow you to participate in science.  Your non-participation in science is entirely your own doing.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,19:32    Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,19:23) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:16) Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". Your incompetence at doing science (and publishing it, and posting to websites, and writing English) does not demonstrate the existence of a publishing and funding scam that does not allow you to participate in science.  Your non-participation in science is entirely your own doing. The problem of not even bothering to read I wrote is not my fault. That's just the way it is when know-it-alls have a reputation to maintain. -------------- 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: July 12 2015,19:34    I needed help and what did this sick in the head forum give me other than nightmares? -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,19:45    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 12 2015,18:53) HaHa, GG's stuff in a nutshell: "Your suggestion appears to invoke an unknown process to explain nothing in particular." it's all of ID in a nutshell I think.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,19:47    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 12 2015,18:53) Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2015,16:22) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,06:45) Here is some exciting news relating to biological RAM, from Sal Cordova! http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....p....p=28378 first comment on that site:   Quote Steve Schaffner on July 11, 2015 at 6:52 pm said: This conjecture seems wholly divorced from any known biological mechanisms. There is no analogue in biology for an operating system’s ability to access arbitrary sites in memory by address; all regulatory systems involving DNA ultimately depend on features of the DNA sequence itself. Quite a lot is known about many regulatory pathways, including developmental pathways, and none of them involve the kind of mechanism proposed here. Your suggestion appears to invoke an unknown process to explain nothing in particular. Moreover, under this proposal, the specific sequence of repetitive DNA is critically important, since it only functions if it’s identical to other elements. But most repetitive DNA shows no signs of selective constraint, as would be the case if this were true. I don’t see any justification for taking this idea seriously. HaHa, GG's stuff in a nutshell: "Your suggestion appears to invoke an unknown process to explain nothing in particular." last comment at the moment, at that TSZ link: Quote Steve Schaffner on July 12, 2015 at 7:14 pm said: Quote Everything I said in the OP is supported by these basics. The only novel thing in your OP — your proposal that repetitive DNA acts like RAM — is completely unsupported by these basics. As I pointed out previously, it’s actually contradicted by them, since every result from ENCODE and from the Roadmap is based on finding the same epigenetic changes at the same loci in the same type of cell. Basically, your proposal runs counter to everything that has been learned about genetic regulation in the last 50 years.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,19:55    Larry Moran did a good job of explaining the "requires gods" scientific requirement that I must meet: Quote Now, put on your critical thinking cap and give me an explanation that's consistent with all the data but requires gods. Tell me which species were "designed" and when, and why you think your explanation is more reasonable than the scientific ones. This is all bullshit from a bunch of assholes who are too busy bashing religion to give a shit about scientific ethics. -------------- 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: July 12 2015,20:06    Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2015,19:47) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 12 2015,18:53) Quote (stevestory @ July 12 2015,16:22)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,06:45) Here is some exciting news relating to biological RAM, from Sal Cordova! http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....p....p=28378 first comment on that site:   Quote Steve Schaffner on July 11, 2015 at 6:52 pm said: This conjecture seems wholly divorced from any known biological mechanisms. There is no analogue in biology for an operating system’s ability to access arbitrary sites in memory by address; all regulatory systems involving DNA ultimately depend on features of the DNA sequence itself. Quite a lot is known about many regulatory pathways, including developmental pathways, and none of them involve the kind of mechanism proposed here. Your suggestion appears to invoke an unknown process to explain nothing in particular. Moreover, under this proposal, the specific sequence of repetitive DNA is critically important, since it only functions if it’s identical to other elements. But most repetitive DNA shows no signs of selective constraint, as would be the case if this were true. I don’t see any justification for taking this idea seriously. HaHa, GG's stuff in a nutshell: "Your suggestion appears to invoke an unknown process to explain nothing in particular." last comment at the moment, at that TSZ link: Quote Steve Schaffner on July 12, 2015 at 7:14 pm said: Quote Everything I said in the OP is supported by these basics. The only novel thing in your OP — your proposal that repetitive DNA acts like RAM — is completely unsupported by these basics. As I pointed out previously, it’s actually contradicted by them, since every result from ENCODE and from the Roadmap is based on finding the same epigenetic changes at the same loci in the same type of cell. Basically, your proposal runs counter to everything that has been learned about genetic regulation in the last 50 years. Due to my having given up on the hypocritical "science defenders" the only one who needed to be impressed by the RAM based explanation of the genetic mechanism is Sal Cordova. Your reply is a scientifically useless strawman argument. -------------- 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.

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,20:12    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,02:06) Due to my having given up on the hypocritical "science defenders" the only one who needed to be impressed by the RAM based explanation of the genetic mechanism is Sal Cordova. You're trying to impress Sal Cordova? Jesus.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,20:31    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:32)     Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,19:23)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:16) Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". Your incompetence at doing science (and publishing it, and posting to websites, and writing English) does not demonstrate the existence of a publishing and funding scam that does not allow you to participate in science.  Your non-participation in science is entirely your own doing. The problem of not even bothering to read I wrote is not my fault. That's just the way it is when know-it-alls have a reputation to maintain. I read it.  Trying to figure out what you were saying was not worth the bother.  It's largely garbage, written and thought out incompetently, lacking definitions, operational definitions, logical conclusions, supporting evidence, posing and testing of hypotheses, decent reviews of previous pertinent literature, command of the fundamentals of ideas being criticized, and so forth and so on.  It does however have more than its fair share of hideous mistakes.  If you had any scientific ethics, you would correct the problems.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 12 2015,20:31    Quote (Woodbine @ July 12 2015,20:12) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,02:06) Due to my having given up on the hypocritical "science defenders" the only one who needed to be impressed by the RAM based explanation of the genetic mechanism is Sal Cordova. You're trying to impress Sal Cordova? Jesus. Quote One thing the ENCODE consortium drove home is that DNA acts like a Dynamic Random Access memory for methylation marks. That is to say, even though the DNA sequence isn’t changed, like computer RAM which isn’t physically removed, it’s electronic state can be modified. The repetitive DNA acts like physical hardware so even if the repetitive sequences aren’t changed, they can still act as memory storage devices for regulatory information. ENCODE collects huge amounts of data on methylation marks during various stages of the cell. This is like trying to take a few snapshots of a computer memory to figure out how Windows 8 works. The complexity of the task is beyond description. -------------- 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: July 12 2015,20:41    Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,20:31) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:32)   Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,19:23)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:16) Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". Your incompetence at doing science (and publishing it, and posting to websites, and writing English) does not demonstrate the existence of a publishing and funding scam that does not allow you to participate in science.  Your non-participation in science is entirely your own doing. The problem of not even bothering to read I wrote is not my fault. That's just the way it is when know-it-alls have a reputation to maintain. I read it.  Trying to figure out what you were saying was not worth the bother.  It's largely garbage, written and thought out incompetently. I know, it's not worth the bother. Strawman arguments and preaching to the choir is much easier to understand because they require zero critical thinking skills. -------------- 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: July 12 2015,21:15    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,20:31) Quote (Woodbine @ July 12 2015,20:12) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,02:06) Due to my having given up on the hypocritical "science defenders" the only one who needed to be impressed by the RAM based explanation of the genetic mechanism is Sal Cordova. You're trying to impress Sal Cordova? Jesus. Quote One thing the ENCODE consortium drove home is that DNA acts like a Dynamic Random Access memory for methylation marks. That is to say, even though the DNA sequence isn’t changed, like computer RAM which isn’t physically removed, it’s electronic state can be modified. The repetitive DNA acts like physical hardware so even if the repetitive sequences aren’t changed, they can still act as memory storage devices for regulatory information. ENCODE collects huge amounts of data on methylation marks during various stages of the cell. This is like trying to take a few snapshots of a computer memory to figure out how Windows 8 works. The complexity of the task is beyond description. Or to better answer your question: I am thrilled to see that Sal is impressed by this. But I am not "trying to impress Sal Cordova" it's something that just happened on its own. So is this: http://www.uncommondescent.com/genetic....-encode -------------- 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: July 12 2015,23:06    Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,18:50) ..... the Gaulin / Luskin - favored vapid prose that   Quote 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. , which Gary has just promoted from a premise to a definition.   And by the way, Casey Luskin uses the word "definition" therefore (according to your belief) I actually demoted it to a "premise". Since either word works just fine (though scientific theories are supposed to have a short "premise" like that) I often use both, so that there is no conflict with what Casey has said. This forum is like misinformation central. Everything gets misrepresented. I just waste my time having to defend myself against bullshit artists. -------------- 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: July 13 2015,00:16    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,23:06) Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,18:50) ..... the Gaulin / Luskin - favored vapid prose that     Quote 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. , which Gary has just promoted from a premise to a definition.   And by the way, Casey Luskin uses the word "definition" therefore (according to your belief) I actually demoted it to a "premise". Since either word works just fine (though scientific theories are supposed to have a short "premise" like that) I often use both, so that there is no conflict with what Casey has said. This forum is like misinformation central. Everything gets misrepresented. I just waste my time having to defend myself against bullshit artists. Doesn't matter: it is inadequate as either a definition or a premise. Good to confirm that you didn't know the difference, however.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,00:48    Quote (N.Wells @ July 13 2015,00:16) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,23:06)   Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,18:50) ..... the Gaulin / Luskin - favored vapid prose that       Quote 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. , which Gary has just promoted from a premise to a definition.   And by the way, Casey Luskin uses the word "definition" therefore (according to your belief) I actually demoted it to a "premise". Since either word works just fine (though scientific theories are supposed to have a short "premise" like that) I often use both, so that there is no conflict with what Casey has said. This forum is like misinformation central. Everything gets misrepresented. I just waste my time having to defend myself against bullshit artists. Doesn't matter: it is inadequate as either a definition or a premise. Good to confirm that you didn't know the difference, however. I was the one who had to correct you. And it's you who does not know the difference between the two. You do though make a good excuse maker for a money driven system that does NOT want science to become a free and open exchange of ideas. What now matters is how much research money you have to spend for a science journal media campaign "to get your ideas out there" and other discriminatory things like whether or not there is a .edu at the end of your email address. -------------- 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: July 13 2015,02:20    Quote The real definition/premise...... That should be "The real-definition" to go with your "real-science". Let's recap; 1) "Molecular level intelligence" - no evidence presented, a bald statement with no data to support it nor any experimental results listed. 2) " Cellular level intelligence" - again as above. A bald statement without any data to support the assertion. 3) "The real-definition/real-premise of 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." - So vague as to be meaningless, which features? Who/what is the "intelligent cause"? This is just an attempt to force a supernatural explanation into the equation. Gaulin, you have been given the methodology of scientific investigation on numerous occasions and nothing in your "real-science theory" follows that methodology. Excuse the shouting but..YOU ARE NOT DOING SCIENCE. You are paddling in the mud of ID, a religious concept to avoid calling it creationism. All of your unsupported claims point to this conclusion. Unless and until you can provide data and experiments to test your theory (no, your "bug" doesn't do that), make it falsifiable and remove all the assertions you are just another of the godbots trying to sound sciency without even the basic understanding of science. You have wasted many years of your life on a pile of rubbish.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,05:33    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:33) I need to go back to not bothering with the assholes in this forum. Followed by 11 posts in just over 6 1/2 hours. rofl Attention whore barely begins to cover it.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,06:49    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,21:41)   Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,20:31)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:32)     Quote (N.Wells @ July 12 2015,19:23)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 12 2015,19:16) Although I know I know many good scientists, all indications are that I am caught in the middle of a funding and publishing scam that does not allow people like myself to participate in the "scientific process". Your incompetence at doing science (and publishing it, and posting to websites, and writing English) does not demonstrate the existence of a publishing and funding scam that does not allow you to participate in science.  Your non-participation in science is entirely your own doing. The problem of not even bothering to read I wrote is not my fault. That's just the way it is when know-it-alls have a reputation to maintain. I read it.  Trying to figure out what you were saying was not worth the bother.  It's largely garbage, written and thought out incompetently. I know, it's not worth the bother. Strawman arguments and preaching to the choir is much easier to understand because they require zero critical thinking skills. Except, of course, for the pesky fact that when critical thinking skills are brought to bear, and the results presented, you completely ignore the criticisms raised, the questions asked, the issues pointed out. So really, it's as much a question of "why bother?" as one of "not worth the  effort." Apply your critical thinking "skills" to the problem of determining what motor skills are used in coming up with a theory.  Not recording the theory, not presenting the theory, creating it. No motor systems involved. Therefore, creation of a theory is not an occurrence of 'intelligent causation', nor of 'intelligence' at all. Which is certainly the case for your output, but then again, your output isn't a theory.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,06:51    And then there's the perennial avoidance of these results of the application of critical thinking to your effluent. Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31) You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary. As NoName said earlier,     Quote Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying.  Man up and deal with the facts on the ground: A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'.  And vice versa. Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise.  This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works." Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function. Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'.  Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning. Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all. Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues. Etc.     Quote What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line? Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort. What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line? Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product. Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed?  The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago.  So what are you talking about here? What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line? Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor?  Is it analog or digital?  What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make? What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’?  How is it manifested and how is it utilized when  an intelligence creates a theory?  a musical composition?  a plan?  a story plot line? What is a guess?  How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination?  Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess?  Is a guess random?  If not, what regularity does it exhibit?  Is it algorithmic?  What algorithm?  Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen? What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence?  How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology? (You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?) And questions from me:     Quote Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?     Quote It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not. Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why? ... Why do you keep running away from these clear and relevant issues raised by critically thinking about your swill?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,06:58    I'm not changing anything. -------------- 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: July 13 2015,07:20    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,06:58) I'm not changing anything. Which is why failure is guaranteed.  Your loss, but that's entirely up to you.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,07:47    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,07:58) I'm not changing anything. Of course you're not. Is the problem a) a failure in the muscle control system b) a failure in the 'guess' module c) a failure in the confidence evaluation module d) some other feature of 'intelligence' not addressed in your "theory" ? Lord knows the best change you could make would be to simply delete the 'work' in its entirety.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,08:03    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,06:58) I'm not changing anything. Why be right, after all? 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: July 13 2015,08:41    Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 13 2015,09:03) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,06:58) I'm not changing anything. Why be right, after all? Glen Davidson It seems pretty clear by now that Gary is far more interested in attention than correctness. This is, of course, aided and abetted by his virulent stupidity -- he cannot achieve correctness, so he has to settle for error.  But he can achieve attention by being vociferously and voluminously wrong. So he settles for that.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,08:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,14:58) I'm not changing anything. It wouldn't  make any difference Gary everyone knows you can't make a silk purse out of a creationist lawyer's sow's ear. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 13 2015,08:59    Quote (NoName @ July 13 2015,16:41) Quote (Glen Davidson @ July 13 2015,09:03) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 13 2015,06:58) I'm not changing anything. Why be right, after all? Glen Davidson It seems pretty clear by now that Gary is far more interested in attention than correctness. This is, of course, aided and abetted by his virulent stupidity -- he cannot achieve correctness, so he has to settle for error.  But he can achieve attention by being vociferously and voluminously wrong. So he settles for that. He loves the sound of his own nightmares. It make me wonder if his bug writes his shit for him from a random hash table. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 483 484 485 486 487 [488] 489 490 491 492 493 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard