N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Gary, ongoing at Sandwalk, demonstrates a pattern in his "thinking"
https://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016.......nt-form
| Quote | | In comparison to the models I have been developing the Darwinian models are obsolete 18'th century generalization based antiques. |
A reader points out: | Quote | | Charles Darwin wasn't born until 1809. He published the first draft of The Origin of Species in 1859. The 1800's were the *nineteenth* century. If you're having this much trouble with basic arithmetic, Gary, could that explain some of your problems getting grant money? |
Gary reassesses and revises, but doubles down on his original mistake that Natural Selection is obsolete:
| Quote | | Word has it that Charles Darwin was not the first to describe "selection" and where Arab naturalists are considered it's 6'th century thinking. But 19'th century is back enough it time to get my point across. |
Finally he decides to check the facts | Quote | Just to be on the safe side I just checked dates and it looks like at least 9'th century thinking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......l-Jahiz
and/or:
[URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit%C4%81b_al-Hayaw%C4%81n |
And then he goes ahead and screws up his own source, changing 9th century to 1st century: | Quote | | With all the controversy over the exact date and who was really first just pick a number from 0 to 19 and I'm OK with it. |
In short, facts, schmacts. Details don't matter, because the point that Gary pulled them out of his rear to support is going to survive no matter what. And damnit, Gary is going to stick with his idee fixe that Darwin / natural selection has to be looked down upon as antiquated / obsolete / non-original / whatever even though the cited details are wrong and the overall argument has morphed into a something completely bogus in an attempt to bolster the original error. (Specifically, al-Jahiz mentioned the struggle for existence, but did not lay out anything like the theory of evolution in general or natural selection in particular.)
| Quote | | But it seems as though you would have had to model both to know why the methodology I now use antiquates what academia regularly gets millions of dollars to develop and teach. Darwinian algorithms cannot even predict whether the system being modeled is intelligent or not, which makes all the "evolving intelligence" with then a waste of time and money. |
You can't predict that either. You'd need acceptable and usable definitions, a valid operational definition, and a logical basis for making a prediction, none of which you have.
|
