RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 553 554 555 556 557 [558] 559 560 561 562 563 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2016,20:37   

[quote=GaryGaulin,May 12 2016,20:47][/quote]
So, Gary's original text claimed that HIV was "unimolecular":
 
Quote
  With little known about how self-replicating RNA works we will use the example of unimolecular viruses such as HIV where there is molecular group behavior.  


To this, a critic responded  
Quote
HIV is unimolecular? Really? Pardon me while I sadly shake my head at wrong headedness unworthy of even the most diffident undergraduate. HIV has 9 genes which encode for 16 proteins, it is one of the most complex viruses known.


Gary's latest text has dropped mention of HIV:
 
Quote
Unimolecular Intelligence

Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of “Unimolecular Intelligence”, as opposed to “Molecular Intelligence”, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

The motor muscles RNA are molecular actuators, which use the force of molecular attraction to grab and release other molecules. The catalytic ability (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where these bases are properly combined into strands they become a mobile molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment


Despite cleaning up after the HIV debacle (and setting aside the problem that Gary asserts but has not yet demonstrated "intelligence" and "learning" at his supposed unimolecular and molecular levels), note that "Unimolecular Intelligence" begins with a reference to "molecular systems", and follows shortly thereafter with descriptions of RNA grabbing and releasing other molecules and reacting with other molecules and controlling other molecules, which rather makes nonsense of this system being unimolecular.

Beyond that, Gary remains sensitive to the old criticism because he responds by mentioning a Wikipedia article on single-strand RNA viruses.
 
Quote
And see:
single strand RNA virus
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative-sense_single_strand_RNA_virus


This is irrelevant to the original criticism, because no one doubted that there are such things, and because HIV is more complex.  Nonetheless, it is instructive to see what Gary was willing to hold up as a shining example of "unimolecular intelligence", in his general ignorance of all things chemical, up until he got called on it.

 
Quote
HIV is different in structure from other retroviruses. It is around 120 nm in diameter (around 60 times smaller than a red blood cell) and roughly spherical.

HIV-1 is composed of two copies of noncovalently linked, unspliced, positive-sense single-stranded RNA enclosed by a conical capsid composed of the viral protein p24, typical of lentiviruses. The RNA component is 9749 nucleotides long and bears a 5’ cap (Gppp), a 3’ poly(A) tail, and many open reading frames (ORFs). Viral structural proteins are encoded by long ORFs, whereas smaller ORFs encode regulators of the viral life cycle: attachment, membrane fusion, replication, and assembly. ..... The single-strand RNA is tightly bound to p7 nucleocapsid proteins, late assembly protein p6, and enzymes essential to the development of the virion, such as reverse transcriptase and integrase. Lysine tRNA is the primer of the magnesium-dependent reverse transcriptase. The nucleocapsid associates with the genomic RNA (one molecule per hexamer) and protects the RNA from digestion by nucleases. Also enclosed within the virion particle are Vif, Vpr, Nef, and viral protease. A matrix composed of an association of the viral protein p17 surrounds the capsid, ensuring the integrity of the virion particle. This is in turn surrounded by an envelope of host-cell origin. The envelope is formed when the capsid buds from the host cell, taking some of the host-cell membrane with it. The envelope includes the glycoproteins gp120 and gp41, which are responsible for binding to and entering the host cell.

The virus envelope spike consists of a trimer of three gp120–gp41 heterodimers. The first model of its structure was compiled in 2006 using cryo-electron tomography. An atomic level crystal structure was solved in 2014, which for the first time revealed many functionally important details and will aid in designing a successful HIV vaccine.


Remember, Gary wanted to present this as "unimolecular".  This is a pattern: assert and blather, in blissful ignorance, as long as Gary thinks that it sounds like it ought to support his preconceptions.  Then, when corrected, evade and tapdance, and then finally, long after his position has become untenable, remove the offending words, but continue with the previous assertions and preconceptions otherwise unchanged.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2016,23:47   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2016,20:37)
Gary's latest text has dropped mention of HIV:

Mention of HIV was dropped relatively soon after writing it. At the time I was working with information that assumed a single strand of DNA was inserted into the host genome.

In regard to "systems" it's like saying "clues to the origin of a modern day smartphone can be found in early computer systems". It ends up needing to be pluralized because there is more than one early computer system needing to be discussed. And in this case it's a molecule made of molecules, which further complicates things. If I make it singular then I right away end up with even worse grammar. When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously. You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out 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.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,02:42   

Quote
I already visited the "Artificial muscles, molecular actuator design, microscopic theory of nanotube and conjugated polymer actuation" webpage several times, while researching molecular actuators. There are other good ones on the web too.


And you didn't understand a word of it, Gaulin baby.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,02:52   

Quote
When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously. You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out of science."


Or you could cure this yourself by getting an education in physics, chemistry, molecular biology or even just an education. Your BS shows no signs of any research just a mish-mash of buzzwords that you have tried to force in to your religious presuppositions. It is not, by any stretch of the word, science.

Nobody takes you seriously on any of the forums you pollute, Gaulin baby.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,02:57   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 14 2016,02:42)
Quote
I already visited the "Artificial muscles, molecular actuator design, microscopic theory of nanotube and conjugated polymer actuation" webpage several times, while researching molecular actuators. There are other good ones on the web too.


And you didn't understand a word of it, Gaulin baby.

If you're attempting to argue that molecular motors/actuators do not exist in biology then you're on your own with that myth. RNA based propulsion is well known to exist.

--------------
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: May 14 2016,06:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2016,23:47)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ May 13 2016,20:37)
Gary's latest text has dropped mention of HIV:

Mention of HIV was dropped relatively soon after writing it. At the time I was working with information that assumed a single strand of DNA was inserted into the host genome.

In regard to "systems" it's like saying "clues to the origin of a modern day smartphone can be found in early computer systems". It ends up needing to be pluralized because there is more than one early computer system needing to be discussed. And in this case it's a molecule made of molecules, which further complicates things. If I make it singular then I right away end up with even worse grammar. When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously. You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out of science."

Yes, I said explicitly that you dropped it, but note that you didn't drop it until you had your error pointed out and became embarrassed by it.

The crime was that you included it in the first place, without knowing any better or bothering to do your homework.  You do this ALL THE TIME: something sounds good to you, so you say it, in complete ignorance of whether it is actually correct.  Your entire not-a-theory is chock-full of this sort of thing, leaving you looking like a complete idiot.  Giraffe larynx, salmon parenting, insect hippocampi, molecular intelligence, things supposedly being both emergent and self-similar all the way down, "something to control", actuators, the Krebs cycle, your criticisms of natural selection, "Darwinian", ......  The list just goes on and on and on.
 
Heck, "looking like" is being far too kind.


       
Quote
And in this case it's a molecule made of molecules, which further complicates things. If I make it singular then I right away end up with even worse grammar.
 So find another way of saying it, and don't call it unimolecular.

       
Quote
When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously.


Oh boo-effing-hoo.  You ask for comments, you get some, at least some of which are initially not insulting, and you respond by counter-attacking, ignoring the comments, doubling down on your errors, and tossing out insults, so you rapidly reap what you sow.  

However, the suggestions that you do something more suggestive are sincere and have your best interests at heart.

 
Quote
You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out of science."


If corrected for grammar, that's not too far from what you actually do.  Your very first impression on anyone scientifically minded who encounters you comes across as a deliberate insult.  Your stuff is poorly written and incoherent, which suggests (wrongly but nonetheless strongly) that you don't care about it and (correctly) that you figure that it is up to others to do your work.  It comes with a sig that is semantically empty while simultaneously implying that you are assuming your conclusions, which is an insult to scientific practice.  You call it a theory when it clearly isn't.  You abuse standard terminology without bothering to offer and justify alternate definitions (precision in writing and thinking is front and center in science).  You introduce your stuff as "intelligent design" when (a) it clearly doesn't involve design (quite apart from having fatal problems with intelligence), and (b) "intelligent design" is a gigantic scam to lie creationism and religion into science, which is extremely offensive to all scientists.  You might as well tie a "kick me" sign to your rear and put a swastika on your shirt pocket.

     
Quote
If you're attempting to argue that molecular motors/actuators do not exist in biology then you're on your own with that myth. RNA based propulsion is well known to exist.

No, he's arguing that you didn't understand it and misapplied it to your own stuff.  You also have a huge propensity for jumping to ridiculous counter-arguments without understanding the original criticism.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,08:38   

Quote
If you're attempting to argue that molecular motors/actuators do not exist in biology then you're on your own with that myth. RNA based propulsion is well known to exist.


Yet again your reading comprehension lets you down. As N.Wells has eloquently replied above, I said that you do not understand the paper at your link. Just because it uses words you think support you the actual paper refutes your not-a-theory. Again you just pick out buzzwords to add to your BS.

Either drop your religion or drop your attempts at science. You obviously don't have the capacity for both.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,08:54   

Here's a link for you, Gaulin;

John Oliver

"In science you don't get to cherry-pick the parts that justify what you were going to anyway. That's religion. You're thinking of religion."

Now misread that, Gaulin.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,11:06   

But, Goo Goo, before you do that, here's something you wrote:  
Quote
I might have had to endure years of insults for not following the crowd, but at least I'm getting the last laugh!


To which I reply:

BWHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Back to you, you hootster!

:p

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,11:09   

Quote
I might have had to endure years of insults for not following the crowd, but at least I'm getting the last laugh!


The insane usually do.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,11:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,06:37)
       
Quote
And in this case it's a molecule made of molecules, which further complicates things. If I make it singular then I right away end up with even worse grammar.
 So find another way of saying it, and don't call it unimolecular.

I will reword the first sentence when I find something better that says the same thing. But removing the section for single/uni molecule intelligence systems makes the theory easily dismissed by arguing that all sorts of irreducibly complex genes inside a special environment are required to produce an intelligent entity of any kind. Raising the bar as high as it goes makes the theory a far more sporting challenge, for both sides.

--------------
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: May 14 2016,12:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,11:41)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,06:37)
         
Quote
And in this case it's a molecule made of molecules, which further complicates things. If I make it singular then I right away end up with even worse grammar.
 So find another way of saying it, and don't call it unimolecular.

I will reword the first sentence when I find something better that says the same thing. But removing the section for single/uni molecule intelligence systems makes the theory easily dismissed by arguing that all sorts of irreducibly complex genes inside a special environment are required to produce an intelligent entity of any kind. Raising the bar as high as it goes makes the theory a far more sporting challenge, for both sides.

How about writing it well first, and then releasing it for public consumption?  Also, if it says the same thing it will remain wrong.

How about removing the section BECAUSE IT IS WRONG?  Your concern that it becomes easily dismissed is misplaced, because your not-a-theory is easily dismissed anyway - EVERYBODY has been doing that for ages. Your concern that removing "unimolecular" somehow immediately means that you have to start with irreducibly complex genes inside special environments is wrong-headed.  You can simply start by discussing single-strands of RNA, without having to lard it up with inappropriate jargon just to beg your preconceptions.   You haven't yet documented molecular level intelligence of any sort, but even if you had, your own words describe and require complex systems with intricate relationships between multiple molecules, making them something other than single-molecule systems.

Quote
Raising the bar as high as it goes makes the theory a far more sporting challenge, for both sides.
That's just downright delusional.  You are not raising any bar and nothing you offer is much of a challenge, sporting or otherwise.  Larding on a layer of garbage does not make your stuff more valuable or interesting.  Quite the opposite, in fact.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,12:38   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 14 2016,02:52)
 
Quote
When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously. You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out of science."


Or you could cure this yourself by getting an education in physics, chemistry, molecular biology or even just an education. Your BS shows no signs of any research just a mish-mash of buzzwords that you have tried to force in to your religious presuppositions. It is not, by any stretch of the word, science.

Nobody takes you seriously on any of the forums you pollute, Gaulin baby.

The following is a reply by me that is found in the Reddit Creationism and Intelligent Design forum:
www.reddit.com/r/Creation/comments/4itf1w/theory_of_intelligent_design_coauthors_and_coders/
Quote
Thanks for the clarification. Normally that type of reasoning leads to science bashing. It's like you said "Where did the first living thing come from? This one's a challenge for science, and is certainly one where a model as you are describing it would be useful."

Without this the ID movement only has God in the gaps arguments instead of a scientific theory that is said to exist but otherwise really does not, which is a bait-and-switch type scam where as in Dover it ends up having very serious legal repercussions. But where a model/theory starts with a self-learning (intelligent) system it's expected that complex organisms will develop, which in turn scientifically explains the "intelligent cause".

You certainly understand all the work that is ahead. This could be the most interdisciplinary theory in history. So of course I ended up here too, asking for help, instead of attempting to go it alone.


--------------
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: May 14 2016,13:03   

And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

Consider this your first warning. According to their rules this is all that should be needed for trouble makers from this forum to be made immediately gone.

--------------
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: May 14 2016,13:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,14:03)
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

Consider this your first warning. According to their rules this is all that should be needed for trouble makers from this forum to be made immediately gone.

Why are you bothering?
Their rules don't apply here.
The notion that anyone here would follow you to reddit to 'disrupt' a discussion that is already ruined simply by the fact of your participation is ludicrous.

This is attention whoring taken to a new low.
But then, that's usually where you hang out.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,13:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,13:03)
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

Consider this your first warning. According to their rules this is all that should be needed for trouble makers from this forum to be made immediately gone.

So you are going to retreat to a closed forum that is only open to creationists?  Who in science wants to go somewhere without open and on-the-record discussion?  This move doesn't speak well to the quality of your work.  Sounds like you've found the ideal place for it: safe from mean and nasty scientists, safely hidden away from the public, no longer pretending to be science, in short the next best thing to your removing all your stuff from the internet.

So interdisciplinary and so revolutionary that it has to be kept safe from scientists, carefully hidden away in a closed forum?  Right.

Allow me to recommend that if you simply kept it hidden a sealed envelope in your basement and never again showed it to anyone, then it could remain completely safe from all future disparagement.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,14:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,13:16)
So you are going to retreat to a closed forum that is only open to creationists?

If you need a forum that favors snobs and bullies then you are getting what you deserve. And with my topic for the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water" paper having turned into a short but surprisingly useful and constructive discussion I'm impressed.

--------------
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: May 14 2016,14:47   

Quote
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.


So you have joined a forum of like-minded morons, whoop-e-doo! Now you can slap each other on the back and crow about how you beat those Darwinian Evilutionist scientists to a pulp.

Your not-a-theory should go down well with the other not-a-scientists.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,14:50   

Quote
If you need a forum that favors snobs and bullies then you are getting what you deserve. And with my topic for the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water" paper having turned into a short but surprisingly useful and constructive discussion I'm impressed.


No need to read this rubbish as it fails with the first word, Spontaneous" and can only go downhill from there on.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,14:54   

So, the abstract for that paper says,  
Quote
The RNA World hypothesis presupposes that abiotic reactions originally produced nucleotides, the monomers of RNA and universal constituents of metabolism. However, compatible prebiotic reactions for the synthesis of complementary (that is, base pairing) nucleotides and mechanisms for their mutual selection within a complex chemical environment have not been reported. Here we show that two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields. Even without purification, these nucleotides base pair in aqueous solution to create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides. Nucleotide anomerization and supramolecular assemblies favour the biologically relevant β-anomer form of these ribonucleotides, revealing abiotic mechanisms by which nucleotide structure and configuration could have been originally favoured. These findings indicate that nucleotide formation and selection may have been robust processes on the prebiotic Earth, if other nucleobases preceded those of extant life.


Let's focus on some of those words.
"originally produced nucleotides, the monomers or RNA..."
"prebiotic reactions .... in a complex chemical environment..."
" two plausible prebiotic heterocycles, melamine and barbituric acid, form glycosidic linkages with ribose and ribose-5-phosphate in water to produce nucleosides and nucleotides in good yields."
"..... create linear supramolecular assemblies containing thousands of ordered nucleotides."

Those linear supramolecular assemblies, SOME of which, yes, can indeed be described as single molecules or macromolecules, are what you insist on describing as "unimolecular" "as opposed to a number of molecules working together as a system".  And somehow you fail to see a problem here because you are bound and determined to fit everything into your pet not-a-theory.  You absolutely belong in a forum dedicated to keeping creationists safe from being criticized.  Go there and stay there.  They won't like you either, but that's certainly where you belong because what you are doing IS NOT SCIENCE. You are simply force-fitting everything you can (and much that you cannot) into your desired conclusions.  That's got more in common with religion than science, Gary.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,14:54   

To make that clearer, I'm referring to your contribution, Gaulin, not the original paper

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,14:58   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 14 2016,14:50)
Quote
If you need a forum that favors snobs and bullies then you are getting what you deserve. And with my topic for the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water" paper having turned into a short but surprisingly useful and constructive discussion I'm impressed.


No need to read this rubbish as it fails with the first word, Spontaneous" and can only go downhill from there on.

No, the original paper in Nature seems very interesting.  What Gary and the choir are saying about it in their cloistered religious retreat, I have no idea, however.

Edited to add: sorry, you beat me to it, while I was off looking at the paper.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,15:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,19:03)
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

We are already on the inside, Gary.

We have been there for years.

See if you can find us.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,15:56   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 14 2016,15:17)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,19:03)
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

We are already on the inside, Gary.

We have been there for years.

See if you can find us.


Oh no! What the choir and I are saying in the cloistered religious retreat is no secret anymore!

Just when I thought I was safe from scientists, by being carefully hidden away in a closed forum, I find out that it has been infiltrated by a spy on the inside!

LOL!!!

Oh my, I'm not sure whether to laugh some more or roll my eyes until I start getting dizzy.

--------------
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: May 14 2016,16:29   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,16:56)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 14 2016,15:17)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,19:03)
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.

We are already on the inside, Gary.

We have been there for years.

See if you can find us.


Oh no! What the choir and I are saying in the cloistered religious retreat is no secret anymore!

Just when I thought I was safe from scientists, by being carefully hidden away in a closed forum, I find out that it has been infiltrated by a spy on the inside!

LOL!!!

Oh my, I'm not sure whether to laugh some more or roll my eyes until I start getting dizzy.

Weren't you going away?

And, just for the record, you're pretty damn dizzy as it is.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,18:34   

Quote
[From Gary at Sandwalk] Oh stop your whining N.Wells. I just wanted to make absolutely sure that the word "unimolecular" applies to a RNA polymer.

And stop misrepresenting the model and theory that does NOT qualify all RNA's as "intelligent" (as per machine intelligence and cognitive science found in the IBM Watson system, intelligent models from David Heiserman, and basics of human cognition from Arnold Trehub).

One thing for sure is all the hype about scientists rushing to help investigate new insights was a pile of bullshit. The only time that happens is when it feeds biased vested interests. It's no wonder why soon after he arrived for a proper education young Galileo's professors tried to get him kicked out the university.

I do have to thank everyone for their opinions. I'm now 100% confident that I am using the proper word to describe a single RNA molecule, though I'm still not certain whether the need to replicate previous contents of its code/memory for it to learn new tricks changes things. In either case I'm at least striving to find the proper terminology for scientific concepts that have never been explained before.


Let's do this here to avoid polluting the rest of the internet.

You are nothing like Galileo.

"Unimolecular" "as opposed to a number of molecules working together as a system"  are not good words for describing RNA systems, but go right ahead: what do I care if you look like an idiot - it's your funeral.

Which RNAs do you not wish to classify as intelligent, and what's your justification for distinguishing intelligent and non-intelligent RNA?

Whatever gave you the impression that scientists are supposed to "rush to help investigate new insights"?  That's you misunderstanding science again.  Science is and always has been highly competitive as well as collaborative.  Scientists will rush to investigate interesting insights (not "help to investigate"), but your stuff is neither interesting nor insightful.  If you think it is, then it is up to you to get people interested, which involves such things as publishing in peer-reviewed scientific venues, providing documented evidence, following scientific methods, showing that you understand prior work, writing it up coherently, not making unsupported claims, and so on and so forth.

 
Quote
In either case I'm at least striving to find the proper terminology for scientific concepts that have never been explained before.
That's multiple outright lies.  You have no interest in proper terminology until you get called on something, and then your only interest is back-justifying your original error.  Your concepts are not scientific, and either they have been explained before or you are still not explaining them now.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2016,19:57   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,18:34)
 
Quote
[From Gary at Sandwalk]One thing for sure is all the hype about scientists rushing to help investigate new insights was a pile of bullshit. The only time that happens is when it feeds biased vested interests. It's no wonder why soon after he arrived for a proper education young Galileo's professors tried to get him kicked out the university.

........
Whatever gave you the impression that scientists are supposed to "rush to help investigate new insights"?  That's you misunderstanding science again.  Science is and always has been highly competitive as well as collaborative.........

Oh it's just another one of those silly myths I picked up from schoolteachers who likewise had too much "trust" in the way the academic system works, in regard to new ideas.

At this point in time I have to say that this demonstration provides a useful example:

Beavis and Butt Head - Trust
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PhOMhbEhOw

--------------
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: May 15 2016,01:15   

Quote
...though I'm still not certain whether the need to replicate previous contents of its code/memory for it to learn new tricks changes things...


At last, something for you to test scientifically and come to a conclusion. Try and find out how RNA can 'learn new tricks'. Then discover which of the many RNA's can't 'learn new tricks'. Perhaps then you could 'programme' it to turn into a unimolecular molecule.

Have at it, Gaulin!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2016,06:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2016,19:57)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,18:34)
     
Quote
[From Gary at Sandwalk]One thing for sure is all the hype about scientists rushing to help investigate new insights was a pile of bullshit. The only time that happens is when it feeds biased vested interests. It's no wonder why soon after he arrived for a proper education young Galileo's professors tried to get him kicked out the university.

........
Whatever gave you the impression that scientists are supposed to "rush to help investigate new insights"?  That's you misunderstanding science again.  Science is and always has been highly competitive as well as collaborative.........

Oh it's just another one of those silly myths I picked up from schoolteachers who likewise had too much "trust" in the way the academic system works, in regard to new ideas.

At this point in time I have to say that this demonstration provides a useful example:

Beavis and Butt Head - Trust
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PhOMhbEhOw

And from Sandwalk:
 
Quote
.... are you saying that nowhere in all of academia there is not a single person who has ever received funding or is being paid for making sure that the general public and public schools are getting honest and accurate information needed to scientifically put an end to the ID controversy and related conflicts that millions of dollars a year are being thrown at?


Those are not the same thing.  Scientists will rush to investigate an interesting and fruitful idea.  They may well help someone with their ideas, if this looks like a fruitful thing to do, but there is no obligation to help.  If there is any obligation, it is to be effective, efficient, and honest, to ask answerable questions about how nature works.  

Your idea is not interesting and shows no signs of being fruitful.  You have not framed it in understandable English.  You have not used traditional definitions, nor provided new justifications for new definitions.  You haven't provided operational definitions, so so one, including you, knows what you are talking about.  Whenever you talk about stuff that people know anything about (such as the science that supposedly leads up to your stuff), you get it wrong, thus creating doubt that you know what you are talking about.  You haven't provided any documented evidence supporting your ideas.  You haven't provided any valid ways of testing your ideas.  You haven't published it in the standard venues where it might attract attention.  You've given it a misleading name that is guaranteed to raise opposition. Your most significant claims don't relate in any logical way to your computer program.  You are concluding your beliefs.

You are on the wrong side of the division between science and nonsense.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2016,12:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 14 2016,18:34)
Which RNAs do you not wish to classify as intelligent, and what's your justification for distinguishing intelligent and non-intelligent RNA?

Answered here:
sandwalk.blogspot.com/2016/05/research-for-book.html?showComment=1463333322338#c735562532888783046

--------------
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.

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

Pages: (622) < ... 553 554 555 556 557 [558] 559 560 561 562 563 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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