N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2015,17:39) | | Quote (Woodbine @ June 19 2015,16:14) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2015,21:45) | | Quote (Woodbine @ June 19 2015,14:39) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 19 2015,12:57) | | Quote (Woodbine @ June 18 2015,11:22) | In what way does your simulation answer any of the questions about the origin, diversity and geographical distribution of life on Earth?
Can you please explain the connection? |
The model and theory is for answering such questions, by modeling them. |
Show us your origin of life model.
Show us your speciation model.
Show us your geographical distribution model.
We are having difficulty finding them.
Many thanks. |
Someone such as yourself who has no model at all for any one of the above (Evolutionary Algorithm's don't model what the title suggests either) has no reason to complain about models that are not even allowed to be funded. |
I'm not complaining, Gary....I'm calling your bluff.
You made the claim, not me.
So, let's see these models.
You wouldn't be lying would you, Gary? I'm fairly sure that's frowned upon in real-science. |
Due to the causation model having multiple self-similar levels: I'm now working on all levels of biology, at the same time, even though only the network dynamics of neural systems are well enough scientifically understood for there to be enough information to model from.
I already way-beat the junk the critics have. It's not hard where the competition still does not have any viable origins model, only thought they did. |
The big mystery here, Gary is how come you haven't drowned in your own BS.
First, evolutionary algorithms are not models of anything, nor are they tests of evolution. They are tools. "Evolution" is in the title only because they were inspired by some of the processes involved in evolution by natural selection.
Second, models "are allowed to be funded". However, your model will never be funded because it will never pass peer review because it is obviously a pile of crap, not because it is not allowed to be funded. Being turned down as a result of the review process is different from "not allowed to be funded". Also, **you** (as opposed to your model) won't qualify for most funding (e.g. NSF funding) until you jump through some paperwork to create an organization that the NSF recognizes as being qualified to receive and disburse funding (for example, businesses and privately held research organizations can receive federal research grants), or until you get an appointment at such an organization, or until you get a collaborator who belongs to such an institution. Although researchers write proposals, proposals are submitted by organizations, not individuals, and grants are awarded to those organizations.
| Quote | | Due to the causation model having multiple self-similar levels: I'm now working on all levels of biology, at the same time, |
That's two fibs. The levels are not self-similar, and you are not working at all levels. You are making all sorts of assertions about all sorts of levels, but your model only deals with one individual, and your representations of what happens within that individual are symbolic only and have not been ground-truthed, so they are basically a fantasy as (among other things) you are assigning organisms organs that they do not have.
| Quote | | It's not hard where the competition still does not have any viable origins model, only thought they did. |
We claim that the origin of life is not yet understood (because it is complicated), so although specialists in the topic are devising, researching, and testing various hypotheses, modelling anything would be premature. You show no evidence of understanding anything in this area, and your model is clearly not relevant to it.
Modelling is extremely important in biology, and you give no evidence of understanding any of it, let alone even being aware of it. http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002017 provides a reasonable recent entry into the literature.
For example, just to contradict one of your claims there, | Quote | | Speciation is another research area that has benefitted from extensive proof-of-concept modeling. Even under the conditions most unfavorable to speciation (e.g., continuous contact between individuals from diverging types), one can weave plausible-sounding verbal speciation scenarios [22]. Verbal models, however, can easily underestimate the strength of biological factors that maintain species cohesion (e.g., gene flow and genetic constraints). Mathematical models have allowed scientists to explicitly outline the parameter space in which speciation can and cannot occur, highlighting many critical determinants of the speciation process that were previously unrecognized [31]. Felsenstein [32], for example, revolutionized our understanding of the difficulties of speciation with gene flow by using a proof-of-concept model to identify hitherto unconsidered genetic constraints. Speciation models in general have made it clear that the devil is in the details; there are many important biological conditions that combine to determine whether speciation is more or less likely to occur. Because speciation is exceedingly difficult to replicate experimentally, theoretical developments such as these have been particularly valuable. |
|
