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) < ... 338 339 340 341 342 [343] 344 345 346 347 348 ... >

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2014,19:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,20:40) Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,19:00) Nowak, Evolutionary Dynamics, has a voluminous treatment of the mathematics of evolution: Gary would benefit from learning some of that as well (including Nowak's section on Learning Theory!). No offense to their theory but I am only interested in cleanly shaven by Occam's razor cognitive models that apply to the origin of intelligent living things, can qualify and quantify intelligence, can model "intelligent cause" and easily leads to models that are of interest to other areas of science such as AI like the "Grid Cell Attractor Network for place avoidance spatial navigation". Pity you don't have any of those things. You are unable to 'qualify' intelligence. You are unable to quantify it. You appear unable to even see the circularity in using intelligence as a cause for the origination of intelligence. You continue to misuse the term 'learning' when you apply it indiscriminately to any change over time. You wouldn't recognize Occams razor while it was slitting your throat.  It has already sliced and diced your "theory" without raising a sweat. You can't seem to make up your mind as to whether or not you are working in or with AI or if it represents one of your 'enemies'. Nothing you do is of even the remotest interest to science -- other than perhaps that branch of psychology dealing with severe cognitive derangement. 342 pages of epic fail.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2014,19:54    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,19:09)   Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,19:00) John Endler, 1986, Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton, is another nice book on the topic that provides long-existing answers to Gary's criticisms and concerns, from back before Gary raised them. Apparently you did not even notice that I copy/pasted what NoName said then inserted "natural selection" in place of "molecular intelligence". Say what? Of course I noticed that.  I was going to throw in an additional insult about your frequent pitiful inability to do anything but try to mirror complaints levelled at your nonsense, but it seemed like NoName had covered that nicely with his comment about your clueless reach for parallelism, so I left it alone and just gave you citations to cover your ignorance about natural selection.  However, consider it reinstated. I reiterate that you would benefit by reading Nowak's discussion of Learning Theory (theory about learning, not how to learn a theory).

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2014,20:39    In case anyone is interested in a prediction from the Theory of Intelligent Design: This paragraph from the Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells article needs to change from   Quote "I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life," says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for. to   Quote It hints at how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed, [he says,] because of this complimenting existing evidence for a corresponding producer in a reciprocal producer/consumer relationship that is required for long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems. -------------- 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: April 26 2014,20:41    Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,09:06)   Quote (NoName @ Aug. 24 2013,07:25)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2013,02:44)       Quote (didymos @ Aug. 24 2013,02:35)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2013,23:21)         Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 22 2013,09:16) Seemingly Mentally Ill Internet Commenter Presumably Functions In Outside World Why did you post that? C'mon, Gary.  You're not that clueless, are you? Explain it to me please. How about we get right on that -- right after you take care of some of the outstanding explanations you owe us. Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective? What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified? How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics? How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics? Those will do for starters. Gee, from August of last year. Gary sure has moved on, having already answered and explained all the outstanding issues raised here. In some alternate universe that apparently only exists inside his head -- gods know there's plenty of space for one. These questions remain, Gary.  You have not addressed them, you have not shown them to be irrelevant to your "theory", you have not disqualified them in any respect. They follow directly from the claims you make and the terms in which you chose to make them. If you believe we are misconstruing your meaning or intent, it is incumbent on you to rectify your failure to communicate.  If we do not misconstrue them, then it is incumbent on you to elaborate and justify the claims we find to be unsupported by logic or evidence. We have provided evidence for our claims and directed you to massive amounts of additional evidence and reasoning, almost always with specific references.  You have provided less than nothing comparable. As I have already pointed out once today, it's your "theory" -- deal with it.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 26 2014,21:40    Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,19:54)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,19:09)     Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,19:00) John Endler, 1986, Natural Selection in the Wild, Princeton, is another nice book on the topic that provides long-existing answers to Gary's criticisms and concerns, from back before Gary raised them. Apparently you did not even notice that I copy/pasted what NoName said then inserted "natural selection" in place of "molecular intelligence". Say what? Of course I noticed that.  I was going to throw in an additional insult about your frequent pitiful inability to do anything but try to mirror complaints levelled at your nonsense, but it seemed like NoName had covered that nicely with his comment about your clueless reach for parallelism, so I left it alone and just gave you citations to cover your ignorance about natural selection.  However, consider it reinstated. I reiterate that you would benefit by reading Nowak's discussion of Learning Theory (theory about learning, not how to learn a theory). I'm not excited by math based AI type statistical methods that I earlier saw after looking up what they teach. It's easily possible I missed something, but in neuroscience the "HMAX" is now the most popular object recognition model: Allen Institute - Lecture 10: Learning in the cortex Have you studied this yet? -------------- 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: April 26 2014,22:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,20:39) In case anyone is interested in a prediction from the Theory of Intelligent Design: This paragraph from the Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells article needs to change from       Quote "I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life," says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for. to       Quote It hints at how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed, [he says,] because of this complimenting existing evidence for a corresponding producer in a reciprocal producer/consumer relationship that is required for long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems. Why should that be changed from what Powner said to the version that you wrote? First, the version that Powner said makes eminent sense, while your version is not readily decipherable. What does "this" refer to?  I presume you meant "complementing" rather that complimenting (although I'm getting distracted by a vision of an ATP telling an RNA, "Oh sugar, I just love what you did with pyruvate.  Could you help me redo my pentose next?").  And is "because this complements existing evidence" what you meant by the more awkward "because of this complimenting existing evidence"?  It's unclear what the existing evidence is or why whatever "this" is is complementary to it.  You don't appear to be using "consumer / producer" in their normal biological senses, so I'm guessing that you mean products and reactants in chemical reactions, but that still doesn't clarify the rest of the sentence.  By the last part, I presume that you mean that bidirectional reactions are needed if metabolic systems are going to be sustained over the long term, but how does that offer hints about how metabolic pathways could have developed? - the 'because' comes across as a non sequitur.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,01:14    Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,20:39) In case anyone is interested in a prediction from the Theory of Intelligent Design: This paragraph from the Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells article needs to change from Quote "I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life," says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for. to Quote It hints at how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed, [he says,] because of this complimenting existing evidence for a corresponding producer in a reciprocal producer/consumer relationship that is required for long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems. Why should that be changed from what Powner said to the version that you wrote? For Darwinian theory: It's fine the way it is. For the more predictive Theory of Intelligent Design: The word "evolved" becomes a banal and misleading generalization (Do molecules have genes that control their atomic structure?) and needs to be replaced with "developed" as well as include the detail "sustainable metabolic pathways". The phrase "selected for" suggests that "substances that made these early processes more efficient" are superior to "long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems" that is necessary or else the cycle ends after the available carbohydrate/food has been consumed. Being more efficient only consumes even faster. Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21) First, the version that Powner said makes eminent sense, while your version is not readily decipherable. At least what I wrote far more complete, and predictive. Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21) What does "this" refer to?   This = The information in the paper explaining how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21) I presume you meant "complementing" rather that complimenting (although I'm getting distracted by a vision of an ATP telling an RNA, "Oh sugar, I just love what you did with pyruvate.  Could you help me redo my pentose next?"). Yes, complement would be the proper spelling. You got me that time!   Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21)  And is "because this complements existing evidence" what you meant by the more awkward "because of this complimenting existing evidence"?  It's unclear what the existing evidence is or why whatever "this" is is complementary to it.   And yes "because this complements existing evidence" would be another way of saying the same thing.   Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21) You don't appear to be using "consumer / producer" in their normal biological senses, so I'm guessing that you mean products and reactants in chemical reactions, but that still doesn't clarify the rest of the sentence.  By the last part, I presume that you mean that bidirectional reactions are needed if metabolic systems are going to be sustained over the long term, but how does that offer hints about how metabolic pathways could have developed? - the 'because' comes across as a non sequitur. I did my best to keep the sentence worded like it was in the article, which used the word "because". I was able to leave that word where it was. The metabolic producer/consumer relationship is now grade school science. In this case it's much more specific than "bidirectional reactions". My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. -------------- 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: April 27 2014,01:17    Typo, the above should read: At least what I wrote is far more complete, and predictive. I was in a hurry again. -------------- 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.

Nomad Posts: 311 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,05:41    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,11:56) You didn't even provide a circuit diagram, and I could not find one on the internet. Go ahead.  I challenge you.  Come up with a way to have the autofocus sensor wired directly to the autofocus motor in such a way that the camera is able to stop when focus has been achieved without the CPU knowing what the sensor is reading.  How can the CPU control what it has no knowledge of?  ANY camera using phase detect autofocus can stop once it's achieved focus.  None could if they were wired the way you demand they must be. We've been here before, Gary.  You can't answer this question.  You have to go off in a huff and then come back pretending that you have no memory of what we were just talking about.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:24    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,21:39) In case anyone is interested in a prediction from the Theory of Intelligent Design: This paragraph from the Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells article needs to change from   Quote "I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life," says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for. to   Quote It hints at how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed, [he says,] because of this complimenting existing evidence for a corresponding producer in a reciprocal producer/consumer relationship that is required for long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems. The need for sustainable metabolic pathways is hardly a prediction of the "theory" of 'intelligent design'. It is widely known and is a prediction of basic biology, regardless of the mechanisms by which life arose or by which life generates and proliferates species. Your "theory" makes no predictions that are unique to it, that follow logically from its content, that inspire any research tasks or are likely to be fruitful in generating new and useful ideas.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:29    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) Quote (N.Wells @ April 26 2014,22:21)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 26 2014,20:39) In case anyone is interested in a prediction from the Theory of Intelligent Design: This paragraph from the Spark of life: Metabolism appears in lab without cells article needs to change from   Quote "I think this paper has really interesting connotations for the origins of life," says Matthew Powner at University College London. It hints at how more complex enzymes could have evolved, he says, because substances that made these early processes more efficient would have been selected for. to   Quote It hints at how sustainable metabolic pathways could have developed, [he says,] because of this complimenting existing evidence for a corresponding producer in a reciprocal producer/consumer relationship that is required for long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems. Why should that be changed from what Powner said to the version that you wrote? For Darwinian theory: It's fine the way it is. For the more predictive Theory of Intelligent Design: The word "evolved" becomes a banal and misleading generalization (Do molecules have genes that control their atomic structure?) and needs to be replaced with "developed" as well as include the detail "sustainable metabolic pathways". The phrase "selected for" suggests that "substances that made these early processes more efficient" are superior to "long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems" that is necessary or else the cycle ends after the available carbohydrate/food has been consumed. Being more efficient only consumes even faster. Yes, that represents an extension of "evolution" and "development" is fine in its stead.  However, it is comprehensible without being "banal and misleading", and in this case once we get to RNA although the molecules don't have genes, effectively they are genes.  Moreover, there is tremendous irony in you objecting to evolution because molecules don't have genes when you want to replace that with the whole unevidenced concept of molecules having intelligence.   I note that you just tossed in the completely laughable assertion that your not-a-theory of intelligent design is more predictive.  Back that up: predict something from it.  All of your previous attempts have been empty assertions that are not logically derivable from your ideas. "Sustainable metabolic pathways" was an improvement, but "selected for" was superior to "long-term perpetuation of metabolic systems" as your wording around that phrase suggests a teleology for which you have no evidence. What you wrote is not more predictive.   Quote My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious.  Yes, that's the obvious question, but I'm not seeing that you are contributing toward a solution here.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:30    Goldangit, beaten to the post again. :)

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:33    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,02:17) Typo, the above should read: At least what I wrote is far more complete, and predictive. I was in a hurry again. More correctly, you were wrong again. Same as it ever was,  you're a self-assembled laughing stock.  'Sewn together wrong.'

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:40    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,02:14) ... My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Bullshit. 'Evolved' and 'selected' are perfectly comprehensible terms.  Of course they are generalizations.  So are all of your pseudo-concepts like 'molecular intelligence', 'cellular intelligence' and 'intelligent cause'. Anyone with even a minimal understanding of what 'evolution' and 'selection' mean, what they involve, how they are used in biology, would not be misled by the terms nor would they 'overlook' the significance of what else remains to be looked for. These are not problems that are unknown to biology, these are not problems that you have a unique and useful approach to addressing.  As with all of your work, where it is unique it is false or incoherent.  Where it is in the same neighborhood as correct, it is far from unique. The claim that you have a "theory" that makes the source of complex sugars either excellent or 'somewhat obvious' is laughable.  And false on the face of it. Show us the specific prediction, show your work in deriving or extracting that 'prediction' from your "theory". Of course, we know you won't, because you can't.  You are all talk -- all hat, no cattle, all smoke, no barbecue, all cow-pies, no cows. Your "theory" can't even predict metabolism with waste production.  More precisely, you couldn't even predict shit from a goose.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:45    Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,08:30) Goldangit, beaten to the post again. :) Ah, but it's not a race, it's a long hard slog -- we've been at this for 340+ pages, and we're still on the same topics we've always been on. Multiple takedowns of Gary's logorrhea are necessary because Gary is very slow to take a point on board. He needs multiple answers, from multiple perspectives, multiple times, and odds are still astronomical that he won't get it.  Or better, that he will continue his pretense of not getting it so as to preserve his precious idee fixe. And who knows, the more we keep this up, the better the chances might become that Gary might finally recognize the need to respond to rather than avoid, evade, deflect or distract from the questions that rise directly from his incompetently expressed, incoherently structured, contradictory heap of abused verbiage he persists in mislabeling a 'theory'.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,07:59    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,00:58) Quote (N.Wells @ April 22 2014,23:50)   Quote Glorification of a non-cognitive model is just part of the scientific dishonesty. BS. Demonstrate that a cognitive model is necessary to explain molecular biochemistry, rather than just making your usual nonsensical and unsupported assertions.  Also, quit projecting your own shortcomings re honesty onto the rest of us. The "Intelligent Design" controversy pertains to "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" therefore it is up to you to explain how YOUR model explains both. I'm still waiting. Anyone? Going back a few pages to this little emission from our favorite moron. The challenge remains, Gary. You don't get to assume your conclusion, which is the clever little trick you play in your response. It is not up to our side to explain "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" because our side has already demonstrated that they play no role in biology as such. It is entirely non-controversial that intelligence emerges from biology, not least because intelligence is a property only found in living beings.  And not all living beings, only a subset. Further, 'intelligent cause' is only ever found as a result of the acts of intelligence, thus only found occurring in that subset of living beings that exhibit intelligence. You are the one claiming otherwise.  Note that I said 'claiming' -- you most certainly are not 'arguing' otherwise, because you are not participating in the discussion.  You are not arguing, you are merely asserting.  You present no evidence, you present no definitions, you present no chains of reasoning or logic, you merely assert claims.  Ambiguous generalities, assertion of facts not in evidence, assertions of evidence not factual, assertion of 'predictions' that are neither well-qualified nor unique to your "theory".  There's really no single aspect of science that you don't get entirely and completely wrong. So to reiterate the problem facing you -- demonstrate that a cognitive model is necessary to explain molecular biochemistry, that a cognitive model is necessary to explain cellular interactions and/or behavior. You won't because you can't, and we all know it.  Your constant attempts to shift the burden of proof, your constant theft of the arguments of others and the pathetic attempts to turn those arguments back on those who raise them are further proof, were it necessary, that even you know that your enterprise is hopeless.  And that it is hopeless because it is wrong.   Wrong.in.every.single.respect.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,10:06    cdk007's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FD6D7C9 is a very nice summary of standard ideas on the development of brains.   He said he intends to do a video on the origin of cognition, but I think he hasn't done it yet. In the meantime, What do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective? What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified? How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics? How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,12:49    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. The basic ID scam is (a) avoid all references to religion and miracles and (b) try to convince ignorant people that life is too complex to have formed without miracles.  You are apparently promoting some form of front-loading--the source of intelligence has "seeded" something such that intelligence evolves emerges develops and somehow moves towards "targets."   This is your "powerful intuition." The problem is that you have no evidence to support the assertions you make.  You have a moderately interesting program that does some moderately interesting things, but it doesn't sync with either your own written "theory" or biological reality vis a vis your thesis.  The ID crowd is desperate for any form of anything that remotely resembles evidence, but they're not interested in what you're doing.  You don't even rise to the level of specious because you make no sense. At some undefined time, in an undefined place, using undefined methods, an undefined entity did things. That's all of ID in one sentence, and you've done nothing to advance the cause. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,12:58    Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) cdk007's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FD6D7C9 is a very nice summary of standard ideas on the development of brains.   There is no limit to what can be explained by chanting "mutation and natural selection". Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) He said he intends to do a video on the origin of cognition, but I think he hasn't done it yet. I can't wait to see how someone who does not know how "cognition" works (cognitive scientists are still not even sure yet) will explain its origin. I'll take a wild guess that it will be "mutation and natural selection". -------------- 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: April 27 2014,13:11    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,13:58)   Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) cdk007's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FD6D7C9 is a very nice summary of standard ideas on the development of brains.   There is no limit to what can be explained by chanting "mutation and natural selection".   Given that you are entirely ignorant about what either term means, I'm sure proper usage of them looks like chanting to you.  That is hardly dispositive for the rest of us. Quote       Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) He said he intends to do a video on the origin of cognition, but I think he hasn't done it yet. I can't wait to see how someone who does not know how "cognition" works (cognitive scientists are still not even sure yet) will explain its origin. I'll take a wild guess that it will be "mutation and natural selection". No doubt.  But how could you tell if something actually explained how 'cognition' works?  On the grounds of your own "theory", you do not count as being in possession of 'intelligence', you are not an 'intelligent agent' nor do you count as an 'intelligent cause'. We have all seen the practical results of your lack of 'intelligence' -- at the very least it has rendered you incapable of cognition, in any sense of the term. Now, instead of whining about the achievements of your betters (any other living entity on the planet, past, present or future), how about you tackle some of the tasks that fall to you?   You know, answer questions that follow directly from the claims in your 'theory'.   Or you might live up to your promise of last year, and last quarter, and last month, etc., and stop 'wasting time' here. Or you might live up to your promise to only engage with a certain subset of researchers in certain fields. But most likely you will do none of these things. How about that, Gary?  A prediction based on the theory that you are an ignorant attention whore with a desperate need for any attention, even negative attention, from others. The answer to the question of 'just how pathetic are you' lies just below the bottom of the hole you keep digging down trying to reach.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,13:17    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 27 2014,12:49) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. I have seen the light!!!!!!! The origin of metabolic systems is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of genetics is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of bacterial cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of plant cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of animal cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of multicellular organisms is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of brains is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of cognition is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of intelligence is through mutation and natural selection. How am I doing? Any errors yet? -------------- 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: April 27 2014,13:30    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,13:17) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 27 2014,12:49)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. I have seen the light!!!!!!! The origin of metabolic systems is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of genetics is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of bacterial cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of plant cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of animal cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of multicellular organisms is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of brains is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of cognition is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of intelligence is through mutation and natural selection. How am I doing? Any errors yet? Oh, you're just missing all of the knowledge and science involved with those. Like the dumbfuck you are. 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: April 27 2014,13:36    Hah, hah, hah.   You left out recombination and genetic drift.   Hah, hah. Seriously, that's not an explanation either, and that's not what's being done within the framework of evolutionary biology.   cdk's video does an excellent job of explaining plausible precursors, and shows how systems previously in existence can get coopted and subsequently modified for new and in many cases more complicated tasks.  A lot of effort gets put into finding plausible precursors and finding evidence that can corroborate or contradict such an origin, including intermediate stages, vestiges, similar changes in other organisms, similarities in DNA of developmental sequences, and so on.  See for example the work that went into looking at mitochondria and chloroplasts to find evidence of their prior existence as free-living bacteria and cyanobacteria, and their incorporation into cells via endosymbiosis.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,14:02    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,14:17)   Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 27 2014,12:49)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. I have seen the light!!!!!!! The origin of metabolic systems is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of genetics is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of bacterial cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of plant cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of animal cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of multicellular organisms is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of brains is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of cognition is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of intelligence is through mutation and natural selection. How am I doing? Any errors yet? You have it exactly as correct as a parrot reciting the same phrases. For exactly the same reason -- neither you nor the parrot comprehends the meanings of the statements. You cannot claim any knowledge in support of any of those statements, and without that, well, an African Gray is better behaved and has the same reasons to say these words as you apparently do. Pathetic, Gary, really pathetic. Although one is moved to wonder what you would claim in lieu of the science we have for explanations of these phenomena.  You still have to get from the standard laws of physics and chemistry to self-assembling, self-repairing, self-replicating entities.  We have a pretty good understanding of the problems and have made non-trivial progress on understanding the processes involved -- process of chemistry and physics (and scale and energy and time).  You've been pointed at references that cover a good deal of this, repeatedly, and by most of us who are still bothering with you. You do realize that using 'intelligence' as an explanation for the existence of 'intelligence' is circular and non-explanatory, right? No, you probably don't, given your track record of "words mean whatever I need for them to mean at the moment". And meanwhile, these remain unaddressed:     Quote Like what do you mean when you say natural selection is subjective? What do you mean when you say natural selection cannot be quantified? How does 'molecular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics? How does 'cellular intelligence' differ from, or go above and beyond, the standard laws of chemistry and physics?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,14:04    Quote (NoName @ April 27 2014,13:11)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,13:58)           Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) cdk007's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FD6D7C9 is a very nice summary of standard ideas on the development of brains.   There is no limit to what can be explained by chanting "mutation and natural selection".   Given that you are entirely ignorant about what either term means, I'm sure proper usage of them looks like chanting to you.  That is hardly dispositive for the rest of us. Yes I had a hard time with these: The origin of pet store fish is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial selection. The origin of the same pet store fish before they are caught and brought to the pet store is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural selection. The origin of the human body lice is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural artificial selection. The origin of canines is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial selection. The origin of turkeys is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural artificial selection unless they are the wild turkeys that native Americans bred that might now populate the US. -------------- 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: April 27 2014,14:07    Quote (NoName @ April 27 2014,14:02) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,14:17)     Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 27 2014,12:49)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. I have seen the light!!!!!!! The origin of metabolic systems is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of genetics is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of bacterial cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of plant cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of animal cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of multicellular organisms is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of brains is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of cognition is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of intelligence is through mutation and natural selection. How am I doing? Any errors yet? You have it exactly as correct as a parrot reciting the same phrases. Hooray! I got an A+ on my science test! -------------- 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: April 27 2014,14:23    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,15:07) Quote (NoName @ April 27 2014,14:02)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,14:17)     Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 27 2014,12:49)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,01:14) My way of wording the sentence shows what else to look for, which is easily missed by using "evolved" and "selected" generalizations. The article also mentioned "A related issue is that the reactions observed so far only go in one direction; from complex sugars to simpler molecules like pyruvate." What that source of complex sugars could be was immediately on my mind, because of theory that made an excellent answer somewhat obvious. Your wording of the sentence is indefensible on multiple levels.  Nonetheless, you are entrapped in a web of ignorance that you constructed all by yourself.  You have yet to be able to extricate yourself, and that's because (other than your inability to communicate clearly) you're facing the same problems as all other ID advocates. I have seen the light!!!!!!! The origin of metabolic systems is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of genetics is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of bacterial cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of plant cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of animal cells is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of multicellular organisms is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of brains is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of cognition is through mutation and natural selection. The origin of intelligence is through mutation and natural selection. How am I doing? Any errors yet? You have it exactly as correct as a parrot reciting the same phrases. Hooray! I got an A+ on my science test! So did an African Gray parrot, so don't get a swelled head. You're already wasting most of the space in the one you have now. BTW, you've decisively failed the essay portion of the test.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,14:30    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,15:04)   Quote (NoName @ April 27 2014,13:11)           Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,13:58)               Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,10:06) cdk007's video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....FD6D7C9 is a very nice summary of standard ideas on the development of brains.   There is no limit to what can be explained by chanting "mutation and natural selection".   Given that you are entirely ignorant about what either term means, I'm sure proper usage of them looks like chanting to you.  That is hardly dispositive for the rest of us. Yes I had a hard time with these: The origin of pet store fish is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial selection.   Wrong.   Quote  The origin of the same pet store fish before they are caught and brought to the pet store is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural selection.   Half-credit.   Quote  The origin of the human body lice is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural artificial selection.   Wrong.   Quote  The origin of canines is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial selection.   Wrong.  Betrayed by the word 'origin' and the use of the family name.   Quote  The origin of turkeys is through mutation and natural artificial natural artificial natural artificial selection unless they are the wild turkeys that native Americans bred that might now populate the US. Quarter credit.  At most, as there are multiple varieties of bird called 'turkey'.  Mis-use of the word 'origin'. So, not an A+ after all.  A whole lot closer to a D-.  Have your parents come in for a conversation with the teacher -- you've been goofing off in class and have clearly failed to do the assigned reading.  Nor have you completed any of the homework assignments. Remedial assignments can be given for your parents to administer.  We recommend against promoting this student to the next grade and, on the merits, suggest he be dropped back a grade to repeat the grade below this one before repeating this one.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: April 27 2014,14:35    Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,13:36) Hah, hah, hah.   You left out recombination and genetic drift.   Hah, hah. That's not what cdk007 said in their video, which is precisely: Quote through gene duplication, mutations and natural selection http://youtu.be/6RbPQG9....t=2m55s Your argument is a good example of making things up as you go along. -------------- 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: April 27 2014,14:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2014,15:35) Quote (N.Wells @ April 27 2014,13:36) Hah, hah, hah.   You left out recombination and genetic drift.   Hah, hah. That's not what cdk007 said in their video, which is precisely:   Quote through gene duplication, mutations and natural selection http://youtu.be/6RbPQG9....t=2m55s Your argument is a good example of making things up as you go along. Did anyone assert that cdk700 was definitive and complete? No?  Then your objection is absurd. As to 'making things up as you go along', it's hard to beat some of the absurdities in your "theory".  My favorite is the way you waffle over whether molecular behavior counts as intelligent or not -- it doesn't meet the 4 criteria but it might turn out to be 'intelligent' anyway. But nothing tops your apparent belief that it is reasonable to explain intelligence by means of intelligence.  Quite clearly English is not your native language nor are concepts mental tools with which you have any experience. Meanwhile, you are starkly without explanations, as witness by your continued avoidance of questions that have been raised repeatedly and that come as direct consequences of claims in your own "theory".

Pages: (622) < ... 338 339 340 341 342 [343] 344 345 346 347 348 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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