RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 490 491 492 493 494 [495] 496 497 498 499 500 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2015,21:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2015,17:10)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 04 2015,16:41)
So enlighten us, oh Great Gary, fount of all science knowledge.

If molecules "learn" with their little brains, have you investigated reaction energies within chemical reactions to see if they decrease as they learn. A paper on this would not only support your "theory" but blow every objection to it out of the water.

You would then be top of the science tree and feted by all.

That is what you want isn't it?

Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?

Gary, you wouldn't get as many insults if you didn't try to stump people with questions about things every college (and some clever high school) chemistry/physics student knows better than you.

Seriously, I've taught this stuff at an intro level to teenagers. You really should take a class to relieve some of your ignorance.  Or, you know, read something more than an abstract.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2015,23:31   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2015,17:10)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 04 2015,16:41)
So enlighten us, oh Great Gary, fount of all science knowledge.

If molecules "learn" with their little brains, have you investigated reaction energies within chemical reactions to see if they decrease as they learn. A paper on this would not only support your "theory" but blow every objection to it out of the water.

You would then be top of the science tree and feted by all.

That is what you want isn't it?

Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?

That is just spectacularly bizarre, even for Gary.

Commentators have summarized the problems, but let's pull it all together.

1)  An obviously correct point was made about Gary's work (that if he actually deigned to support the concept of molecules learning and possessing intelligence, he would win all the scientific acclaim he could desire, as opposed to being ridiculed by everyone).  Gary met this with a non sequitur that any critic would have to be an expert in molecular evolution.  As his work does not seem to involve molecules evolving, why this expertise should be required is unclear.

2) "please provide evidence", asked by a guy who never provides any for his own ideas, and even demands others to do the rest of his own work.

3) "evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?"

A) No scientist has a theory that boron "evolves" into carbon, because it doesn't do that.  Carbon is formed by a nearly simultaneous trio of collisions (the triple-alpha process) in nucleosynthesis (not involving boron) within the core of a giant or supergiant star, or in the CNO cycle, while boron is formed by cosmic ray spallation.

B) Boron and Carbon aren't molecules.

C)  This thread is about biological evolution and the evolution of intelligence.  Nucleosynthesis has nothing to do with that, and is not a form of biological evolution or intelligence or intelligent design or anything related to the matters under discussion.

D) Stellar nucleosynthesis is a great theory, well-supported by evidence and potentially falsifiable tests that it has passed, and is not a "hahahah 'theory'", unlike Gary's Tower of Babble (which qualifies for at least six more "ha's").

E) The triple-alpha process has two heliums colliding to make a beryllium-8, which has a half-life of 2.8 x 10^-16 secs, which in turn has to be hit by another helium before it decays.  This is an improbable event, so it has to happen in a situation with very high temperatures and very high concentrations and numbers of He  & Be ions, i.e. in giant and supergiant stars.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rocess.  Thus the short-lived beryllium ions are de facto "transitional forms".

F) Fred Hoyle predicted that 8-Be and 4-He would have a resonance close to an excited 12-C.  This was later found to be case (hypothesis testing, prediction, EVIDENCE!), providing convincing proof for the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis.  Gamow's hypothesis of formation of all elements during the Big Bang was disproved by measurements of rates of neutron capture and decay, thus moving discussion to stellar nucleosynthesis.  Variations in cosmic abundances of elements provides additional confirmatory evidence.

Conlcusion: Gary is so ignorant of many areas of science that he can't even competently distract attention from his own failings.  He wouldn't recognize evidence if it bit him, and does not know the difference between a valid theory (such as the Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis and the Theory of Evolution) and rubbish such as his own not-a-theory.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 04 2015,23:56   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 04 2015,21:31)
Conlcusion: Gary is so ignorant of many areas of science that he can't even competently distract attention from his own failings.  He wouldn't recognize evidence if it bit him, and does not know the difference between a valid theory (such as the Theory of Stellar Nucleosynthesis and the Theory of Evolution) and rubbish such as his own not-a-theory.

As we speak, he's adding intelligent stars to That Fucking Diagram.

--------------
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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,00:39   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 05 2015,05:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 04 2015,17:10)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 04 2015,16:41)
So enlighten us, oh Great Gary, fount of all science knowledge.

If molecules "learn" with their little brains, have you investigated reaction energies within chemical reactions to see if they decrease as they learn. A paper on this would not only support your "theory" but blow every objection to it out of the water.

You would then be top of the science tree and feted by all.

That is what you want isn't it?

Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?

Gary, you wouldn't get as many insults if you didn't try to stump people with questions about things every college (and some clever high school) chemistry/physics student knows better than you.

Seriously, I've taught this stuff at an intro level to teenagers. You really should take a class to relieve some of your ignorance.  Or, you know, read something more than an abstract.

Oh he's already done that and failed! He must be around 55 years old now so he's been flailing all over the place now at least 40 years give or take. I can only guess he spent his days in class doodling shop signs and dreaming of climbing ladders to nowhere. To Gary learning means his (crazy) ideas are better. Can you imagine the stunned silences he caused with his bone headedness in class? He's only here because he gets attention. Everywhere else he gets a wide berth.

--------------
"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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,02:30   

Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


Gaulin, your ignorance of science is showing. Zip it!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,03:59   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 05 2015,02:30)
Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


Gaulin, your ignorance of science is showing. Zip it!

The "(hahahah!)" should have made it obvious that I was mocking you and the others.

Now you know what YOU look like, ignorant of science.

--------------
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: Aug. 05 2015,04:12   

Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).

(2) Cellular Level Intelligence: Molecular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular level intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and cellular level social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity). At our conception we were only at the cellular intelligence level. Two molecular intelligence systems (egg and sperm) which are on their own unable to self-replicate combined into a single self-replicating cell, a zygote. The zygote then divided to become a colony of cells, an embryo. Later during fetal development we made it to the multicellular intelligence level which requires a self-learning neural brain to control motor muscle movements1 (also sweat gland motor muscles).

(3) Multicellular Level Intelligence: Cellular level intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular level intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and multicellular level social differentiation (i.e. occupation). Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life where in our case not all individuals must reproduce for the human lineage to benefit from all in society.

Reciprocal cause/causation goes in both the forward and reverse direction. These behavioral pathways cause all of our complex intelligence related behaviors to connect back to the behavior of matter, which does not necessarily need to be intelligent to be the fundamental source of consciousness.

A behavior from any system qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] something to control (body or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen), [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess mechanism for a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. The result is more of a zombie that may at first appear to be a fully functional intelligence but they are missing something necessary, a RAM in the circuit, not a ROM. Behavior of matter does not need to be intelligent, a fully trained (all knowing) ROM could be used to produce atomic/molecular behavior. But a ROM would not work where intelligent behavior is needed. Unless the ROM contains all-knowing knowledge of the future and all the humans it will ever meet in its lifetime it can never recall memories of meeting them, or their name and what they look like.

For machine intelligence the IBM Watson system that won at Jeopardy qualifies as intelligent. Word combinations for hypotheses were guessed then tested against memory for confidence in each being a hypothesis that is true and whether confident enough in its best answer to push a button/buzzer. The Watson platform had a speaker (for vocal muscles) and muscles guiding a pen was simulated by an electric powered writing device.

For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses. A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in memory and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence. Memory contents then never changes. Only a GUESS can write new data to memory and GUESS must here be taken out of the algorithm. But it is possible to leave the CONFIDENCE in the algorithm, it will still work the exact same way. Where this in time proves to be true for real matter it would be a valuable clue as to how consciousness works and possibly how to model it, which may in turn help answer the “big questions” including those pertaining to afterlife.

We are part of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, for our children. The resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

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". Merciless alligators will lovingly protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and they will scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level may sense but cannot directly experience. It is possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

--------------
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: Aug. 05 2015,07:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2015,04:59)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 05 2015,02:30)
Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


Gaulin, your ignorance of science is showing. Zip it!

The "(hahahah!)" should have made it obvious that I was mocking you and the others.

Now you know what YOU look like, ignorant of science.

The only one here who is ignorant of science is you -- as you continue to demonstrate and we continue to point out.

You pathetic buffoon.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,07:10   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2015,05:12)
 
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).
...

...

Congratulations, you have reduced your absurdist notion of 'molecular intelligence' to the banal "insight" that all intelligence arises out of molecular assemblies.
Not that you are capable of putting it either clearly or succinctly, but you're making progress.
We've only been correcting you on this point for years.

RNA and DNA are not memory systems.  Instinctual behaviors are not directly linked to DNA/RNA.  Instinctual behaviors arise out of the interacting activities of systems of systems of systems (...) that are initially generated by the activities of DNA/RNA within complex molecular systems with which they interact.

You've blown your story of 'emergence' out of the water here.
You've also hidden the hard problems of within your casual "behavior of matter causes ... molecular intelligence...".
HOW do some, but only some, assemblages of molecules into systems and systems of systems (etc) become such as to display 'intelligence'?
THAT'S the HARD question, and one you don't come within mega-parsecs of addressing.

But we do see, once again, the benefits you reap by not having your "theory" under a version control system.  It allows you to make changes, such as those quoted above, without ever having to acknowledge that changes were made.
Contemptible.  Which, for you, is an improvement in behavior.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,07:54   

Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


The maniacal laughter looks as though you are mocking "theory" not me. But I should realise by now that your grasp of language is as lacking as your grasp of science.

Quote
The "(hahahah!)" should have made it obvious that I was mocking you and the others.


Who's the fool now? Call for Igor to raise the lightning rod!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,08:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 05 2015,12:12)
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).


https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

Oh really? No Gary that's complete tosh. Your mumblings never were and never will be the cause of speciation.

--------------
"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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,08:57   

Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 05 2015,06:24)
Your mumblings never were and never will be the cause of speciation.

Expectoration, maybe. Expostulation, exasperation...

--------------
"[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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,09:23   

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 05 2015,16:57)
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 05 2015,06:24)
Your mumblings never were and never will be the cause of speciation.

Expectoration, maybe. Expostulation, exasperation...

Is it too much to expect exspiration? Probably.....he's a mouth respirationist.

--------------
"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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,10:30   

Quote
For computer modeling purposes the behavior of matter can be thought of as being “all-knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses.


Hahahah!

(Now, that's the proper use of "hahahah".  You put it as close as is reasonable to the thing that is utterly ridiculous.)  

Incidentally, arguing in effect that you were not wrong because you were too incompetent to write a sentence that expressed your thoughts properly is not exactly a winning argument.  However, your lie about what you intended is obvious and pitiful: you gave yourself away with the scare quotes around "theory".

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 05 2015,10:42   

'Twas croaked somewhere:  
Quote
The "(hahahah!;)" should have made it obvious that I was mocking you and the others.


Ya ya, we could tell.  ;)

Jeez, whatta hoot!  :)  :)  :)

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,06:00   

Quote
Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence,


So no "Intelligent cause" necessary then, Gaulin. Just add time.....hmmm, sounds like evolution.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,06:44   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 06 2015,06:00)
 
Quote
Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence,


So no "Intelligent cause" necessary then, Gaulin. Just add time.....hmmm, sounds like evolution.


Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.



--------------
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: Aug. 06 2015,07:16   

Quote
Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.


But your quote from your "theory" which I copied does not mention evolution of species. Nor does it explain whatever you mean by "intelligent cause". Reading for comprehension is another of your many weaknesses. All you have said is that intelligence evolves over time. No Designer (peace be unto her), no ID cause, no theory, nothing remotely resembling science.

Sorry folks, I don't know what spell I used to invoke "The Diagram" but I'll try to be more careful in future.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,07:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2015,07:44)
...
Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.
...

How on earth would you know?
Your ignorance of the theory of evolution, from Darwin's work on to 'the modern synthesis' and beyond remains limitless.  You have been wrong about every single assertion you have made about 'what evolution claims'.

You are, without a doubt, the least trustworthy source of information on the topic.  Just as you are on every other topic, of course.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,09:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2015,14:44)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 06 2015,06:00)
   
Quote
Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence,


So no "Intelligent cause" necessary then, Gaulin. Just add time.....hmmm, sounds like evolution.


Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.


Not that old cartoon again?


--------------
"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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,09:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2015,06:44)
   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 06 2015,06:00)
     
Quote
Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence,


So no "Intelligent cause" necessary then, Gaulin. Just add time.....hmmm, sounds like evolution.


Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.

You have not demonstrated the necessity for intelligence.  You have merely misused the term "intelligence" to cover the concepts of the origin of life through the evolution of organisms, but you have yet to demonstrate that anything beyond thermodynamics and standard chemical reactions (albeit complex ones that are still not understood) are involved in the early steps, or that anything beyond evolution is needed for the later stages. The evolutionary stages could be viewed as involving the collective accumulation of information about what works for survival and reproduction and the storage of that information in DNA and RNA, but since initial nucleic acids are likely to have been tools, catalysts, templates, data storage, and building materials all at the same time, reducing them to "information" is an unjustified oversimplification.  Moreover, by evolutionary theory (which is well supported by evidence), this information is accumulated essentially by trial and error, as far as the organisms are concerned: individual organisms below the level of animals with brains are not out there learning how the world works, and what works and what doesn't, and modifying their behavior accordingly.  No organisms, not even us yet, are modifying their own DNA to better meet the challenges of life.  This passive accumulation of information could be metaphorically be described as a "learning" process by the lineage (although it really isn't, and it is totally divorced from standard concepts of learning, intelligence, and decision-making).  You jump wrong-headedly into the analogy and try to make it real by talking about learning and intelligence.  Worse, even if you were to provide and adequately justify a new definition of "intelligence" and we were to agree with you, you would still not have demonstrated one iota of design.  So at the moment, all you have achieved is demonstrating that you are massively confused in your thinking.

Furthermore, as NoName said, "Your ignorance of the theory of evolution, from Darwin's work on to 'the modern synthesis' and beyond remains limitless.  You have been wrong about every single assertion you have made about 'what evolution claims'."

Edited to clarify: 'individual organisms'

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,10:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2015,17:37)

...Moreover, by evolutionary theory (which is well supported by evidence), this information is accumulated essentially by trial and error, as far as the organisms are concerned: organisms below the level of animals with brains are not out there learning how the world works, and what works and what doesn't, and modifying their behavior accordingly.


By god you've described Gary's learning faculties perfectly. ....golf clap

--------------
"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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,18:06   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2015,09:37)
You have not demonstrated the necessity for intelligence.

Billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out how "intelligence" works. It's serious business, where leaving out vital detail is not an option. And in this case you need to demonstrate that "reciprocal cause/causation" from an intelligent action is not "intelligent cause/causation" it's instead a religious entity you fabricated by religious stereotyping.

You do not have special rights allowing your religious definitions be used in science. The only scientifically viable operational definition for "intelligent cause/causation" is what is in the ID theory.

What you are complaining about is so outside the real scientific arena I never even mentioned the "intelligent cause" related concepts or the theory to Andre of Edvard. For someone like that it's easily enough summed up in the last four lines of what I did send once already, from program comments:

Quote
'Calculate Concordant Pairs at each Place in the Network.
'For a biological example see "Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames"
'For the code below a "Concordant Pair" is two neighboring sectors between different places staying in time, one on other off.
'Both signaling at the same time or not at all makes it a "Discordant Pair" that is not staying in proper time with the other.
'In this model there is a "tendency for an excess of concordant cell pairs" of 60% when an information rich map is doing well.
'When the program is first started the up to 82% concordance indicates that an attract location exists but no map information.
'Much below 60% indicates that the network is having a hard time resolving useful information, it's then more often shocked.
'What most lowers concordance are too many silent map locations (room+arena avoids) blocking the attractor location signal.
'At 60% is an ideal amount of map information and condant pairs for the network to solve the spatial logic problem given.
'Click the Vector Option "0 and 1" to see readings for both frames/cycles, "1 only" is normally the greater of the two.
'This cordance can be used to gauge confidence for another system that adds the cellular behavior that controls timing.
'Outer two places in the network are not included in the total shown on the screen, only fully active center is used.
'In the ID Lab-5 default cell behavior is set by the TrainBehaviorRAM subroutine below, runtime changed by Data list.
'If the cell level behavior were included then that system would intelligently take care of all the tweaking, for us.
'In biology the cell level behavior is from a millions of year old genetic level behavior system, which can be added.
'The Design form stands in for what would be regulated by growth hormones and other factors influencing a morphology.


Only someone like yourself would obsess over the religious implications that go with this science territory, on account of the ID controversy you like dedicated your whole life to. I only have to demonstrate to the leaders of the cognitive science field that the computer model is useful for explaining how our intelligence works. What you find important would only waste their time, which would in turn slow down the scientific progress they are making, which would in turn slow down mine.

--------------
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: Aug. 06 2015,18:36   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 06 2015,07:16)
 
Quote
Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.


But your quote from your "theory" which I copied does not mention evolution of species.

The proper word is "speciation" and your "evo" qualifiers cannot be accepted due to not working with a "devo" only theory that includes the origin of life as well. You just end up dancing in a gray zone where all waste time arguing whether enough change over time has happened for something to have "evolved" or not. My keeping the warm and fuzzy generalizations completely out of this theory eliminates the ambiguity problems that are only inherent to Darwinian theory.

From the ID theory:

 
Quote
Species and Speciation (Molecular and Biological)

Generally, a molecular/chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.

A molecular species changes into a new species by chemical reaction.  Each have their own similar but unique name such as biologically important “Ammonium Nitrate” and “Ammonium Nitrite”.

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

Behavioral speciation happens in both chemistry and biology.

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.

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.


--------------
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: Aug. 06 2015,19:16   

Consider ancient aliens, Gary.

There's no reason for you to restrict your delusions, you know, since it's all just stupidity that you believe and "model."

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 06 2015,21:28   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 06 2015,18:06)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 06 2015,09:37)
You have not demonstrated the necessity for intelligence.

Billions of dollars have been spent trying to figure out how "intelligence" works. It's serious business, where leaving out vital detail is not an option. And in this case you need to demonstrate that "reciprocal cause/causation" from an intelligent action is not "intelligent cause/causation" it's instead a religious entity you fabricated by religious stereotyping.

You do not have special rights allowing your religious definitions be used in science. The only scientifically viable operational definition for "intelligent cause/causation" is what is in the ID theory.

What you are complaining about is so outside the real scientific arena I never even mentioned the "intelligent cause" related concepts or the theory to Andre of Edvard. For someone like that it's easily enough summed up in the last four lines of what I did send once already, from program comments:

 
Quote
'Calculate Concordant Pairs at each Place in the Network.
'For a biological example see "Dynamic Grouping of Hippocampal Neural Activity During Cognitive Control of Two Spatial Frames"
'For the code below a "Concordant Pair" is two neighboring sectors between different places staying in time, one on other off.
'Both signaling at the same time or not at all makes it a "Discordant Pair" that is not staying in proper time with the other.
'In this model there is a "tendency for an excess of concordant cell pairs" of 60% when an information rich map is doing well.
'When the program is first started the up to 82% concordance indicates that an attract location exists but no map information.
'Much below 60% indicates that the network is having a hard time resolving useful information, it's then more often shocked.
'What most lowers concordance are too many silent map locations (room+arena avoids) blocking the attractor location signal.
'At 60% is an ideal amount of map information and condant pairs for the network to solve the spatial logic problem given.
'Click the Vector Option "0 and 1" to see readings for both frames/cycles, "1 only" is normally the greater of the two.
'This cordance can be used to gauge confidence for another system that adds the cellular behavior that controls timing.
'Outer two places in the network are not included in the total shown on the screen, only fully active center is used.
'In the ID Lab-5 default cell behavior is set by the TrainBehaviorRAM subroutine below, runtime changed by Data list.
'If the cell level behavior were included then that system would intelligently take care of all the tweaking, for us.
'In biology the cell level behavior is from a millions of year old genetic level behavior system, which can be added.
'The Design form stands in for what would be regulated by growth hormones and other factors influencing a morphology.


Only someone like yourself would obsess over the religious implications that go with this science territory, on account of the ID controversy you like dedicated your whole life to. I only have to demonstrate to the leaders of the cognitive science field that the computer model is useful for explaining how our intelligence works. What you find important would only waste their time, which would in turn slow down the scientific progress they are making, which would in turn slow down mine.

That is completely bass-ackwards BS.  I am not claiming sppecial rights, nor I have religious definitions.  You are the one with religious overtones.  I merely want you to define your terms adequately and logically, understand the basics of the science you claim to be improving upon, and present some actual evidence supporting your delusions.  You do not have a viable operational definition for intelligence or for intelligent causation, scientific or otherwise.

Leaving out vital details is what you do, from one end of your nonsense to the other.

Your text does little to clarify matters.  What is a condance pair and a cordance?  I presume you meant concordance in both cases?  Genetic systems (depending on what you mean by them) are billions of years old (the younger ones hundreds of millions), not "millions" (David and Alm, 2011, http://www.nature.com/nature.....49.html ).

Your attempt to analogize chemical and biological species or speciation is sheer lunacy.  These are entirely different concepts in two different sciences.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2015,01:55   

Quote
Behavioral speciation happens in both chemistry and biology.


Are chemicals species now? If that is the case I seemed to have wasted six years of my life on further education! [sarcasm].

Tell us, O Great Polymath, God of all science, how and where "behavioural speciation" occurs in "chemistry" Or do we add chemistry and chemicals to the long list of Gaulin's fields of ignorance?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2015,07:14   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 07 2015,01:55)
 
Quote
Behavioral speciation happens in both chemistry and biology.


Are chemicals species now? If that is the case I seemed to have wasted six years of my life on further education! [sarcasm].

Tell us, O Great Polymath, God of all science, how and where "behavioural speciation" occurs in "chemistry" Or do we add chemistry and chemicals to the long list of Gaulin's fields of ignorance?

I am not writing a chemistry textbook.

In this case it's not too late to suggest a better phrase that works with chromosome/chromosomal speciation and similar phrases that are more specific than just saying "speciation". The theory needs to systematically sort these out into all possible kinds that pertain to the "system" not environmental detail.

And from footnotes of theory is this link (for those who would immediately brush off chemical/molecular speciation as not being scientific):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

--------------
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: Aug. 07 2015,07:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 07 2015,08:14)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 07 2015,01:55)
 
Quote
Behavioral speciation happens in both chemistry and biology.


Are chemicals species now? If that is the case I seemed to have wasted six years of my life on further education! [sarcasm].

Tell us, O Great Polymath, God of all science, how and where "behavioural speciation" occurs in "chemistry" Or do we add chemistry and chemicals to the long list of Gaulin's fields of ignorance?

I am not writing a chemistry textbook.

In this case it's not too late to suggest a better phrase that works with chromosome/chromosomal speciation and similar phrases that are more specific than just saying "speciation". The theory needs to systematically sort these out into all possible kinds that pertain to the "system" not environmental detail.

And from footnotes of theory is this link (for those who would immediately brush off chemical/molecular speciation as not being scientific):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species

You're not writing any kind of textbook.
You lack everything from the basic conceptual skills, basic writing skills, to basic understanding of any scientific, or other, endeavor.  Your ignorance is boundless, your knowledge non-existent.
You couldn't even write "The Dummies Guid to Being a Village Idiot".

Meanwhile, you still have not acknowledged that your "theory" and your "model" have failed in their purpose -- neither is capable of explaining intelligence in any normal sense of the term.
You are refuted by the adversity of facts -- by binding muscle control systems into a loop that, for you, constitutes the minimum requirements for 'intelligence', you have invalidated your work.
Countless examples of this have been provided.
You continue to flee from the examples.
Man up, deal with it.  You're already exposed as a total failure at everything except being a pompous fraud.
Were you more skilled, you might eventually rise the level of the 'Donald Trump of pseudo-science', but frankly, you're not good enough.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 07 2015,09:18   

Quote
In this case it's not too late to suggest a better phrase that works with chromosome/chromosomal speciation and similar phrases that are more specific than just saying "speciation". The theory needs to systematically sort these out into all possible kinds that pertain to the "system" not environmental detail.

And from footnotes of theory is this link (for those who would immediately brush off chemical/molecular speciation as not being scientific):
[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......species]

No one has said that chemical species are not a scientifically valid concept, but they are not in any way equivalent to biological species.  Ambiguous BS about biological species being measurable does NOT justify merging the concepts.  As I said, chemistry is a different science, and uses "species" for an entirely completely different concept.  You do yourself no favors by mixing up these concepts.  

You are welcome to propose new terminology, but you have to provide clear and logically valid definitions and justify the need for the new terminology.  For example, Roy Brewer in 1964 in Fabric and Mineral Analysis of Soils introduced a huge number of thoroughly complicated new terms at one go, but he defined them very clearly and justified their need and single-handedly and in one stroke created a vigorous new field of inquiry that revolutionized what had gone before.

With regard to "chromosomal speciation", we already have terms and categories and theory for this that you need to address before you hare off in new directions (M.J.D. White, 1978, Modes of Speciation)

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

Pages: (622) < ... 490 491 492 493 494 [495] 496 497 498 499 500 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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