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) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,18:24    Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2012,17:36) actual taste/smell sensors, or virtual ones? I am adding signals which exist (in biological reality) to a circuit to most simply model biological reality. Your throwing cold water on the model, just adds another example of how science slackers justify their slacking. -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,18:36    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,23:21) Your need to stop a new theory from being developed is clear evidence that your scientific method is not working. Our need to instead develop exciting new theory is clear evidence that our scientific method is working, very well. Who we are does not matter. What matters is our plan.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,18:37    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,19:24) Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2012,17:36) actual taste/smell sensors, or virtual ones? I am adding signals which exist (in biological reality) to a circuit to most simply model biological reality. Your throwing cold water on the model, just adds another example of how science slackers justify their slacking. Actually I'm throwing cold water on your basic understanding of words.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,18:47    Quote (Quack @ Dec. 31 2012,18:05) I am a hound for details, what about a detailed schematic of the tongue and nose with all sensors in place? You got any plans for the stomach, gut and intestine, the circulatory system, you are not going to skip the details, are you? My body is very dependent on all its details, no circuit diagram of your can cover all that. Unles you have failed in explaing WTF kind of theory you are creating. Why cant you wait till you have a working theory? You certainly are no Darwin! Yes I have plans for all that. But not being able to afford proper help for such a large project is a real problem produced by your crusade to stop all scientific progress you possibly can, in theory which does not serve your unscientific politics. -------------- 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.

olegt Posts: 1405 Joined: Dec. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,18:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,18:47) Yes I have plans for all that. But not being able to afford proper help for such a large project is a real problem produced by your crusade to stop all scientific progress you possibly can, in theory which does not serve your unscientific politics. Hey Gary, you hilarious nutter, You voluntarily came to this forum. You spent a month trying to explain (unsuccessfully, I might add) your WTF theory. You slammed the door and returned the same day, several times already. And you are accusing people in this forum of "crusading to stop all scientific progress?" You know how much this weighs on the crackpot scale? 40 points, my friend. See number 33 here. We don't do crusades here, Gary. We laugh at your cargo cult science. You are free to develop it. We are free to laugh at it. It's a free world, buddy. -------------- If you are not: Galapagos Finch please Logout »

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,21:11    Go here, then search for "karyotype". -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,22:02    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". See the reply in the Biology Online forum that mentions the Chromotype listbox used in the fusion illustration software: http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146195 The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Terminology I used is more precise, less confusing, even though you are not used to using it. -------------- 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: Dec. 31 2012,22:23    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". This is speculation which does not work where the fusion spreads in a population.   Quote From: Wesley R. Elsberry Author of: Punctuated Equilibria Response: Another relatively common mechanism of speciation in sexually reproducing species is through change of karyotype. This mode of speciational change does pretty much arise through a single individual having some sort of change in karyotype. (One will find two groups, "fusionists" who hold that most such speciation events are due to "Robertsonian translocations" or other means of fusing chromosomes, and "fissionists" who hold that fission of chromosomes is more common. The weight of evidence appears to give the "fusionists" the edge currently.) OK, let's say some individual has such a change in karyotype. (In humans, the species from which we have the most data, such changes appear to be at about 1 in 1000.) How, then, can such an individual propagate. The answer is, "With a bit more difficulty than usual." Such changes may reduce but not eliminate fertility with individuals having an unmodified chromosome complement. To produce individuals with a stable karyotype in the new mode just requires a bit of incest, not necessarily two individuals changing in the same manner at the same time and location. Dr. Kurt Benirschke gave an interesting presentation recently which touched on the pattern of karyotype differences in swine and peccaries. Such patterns support the view that karyotype change as described above is an important mechanism of speciational change in sexually reproducing organisms. Wesley 47's and 46's can easily come from different families. Loading your answer with incest is in my opinion highly uncalled for. -------------- 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.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,22:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,22:02)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". See the reply in the Biology Online forum that mentions the Chromotype listbox used in the fusion illustration software: http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146195 The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Terminology I used is more precise, less confusing, even though you are not used to using it. There's nothing ambiguous about the word karyotype. At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it. It is interesting that Gary thinks that karyotypes have to do with something other than chromosomes. I do agree with something Gary asserted: I am definitely not used to using gibberish. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,22:53    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,22:50) I do agree with something Gary asserted: I am definitely not used to using gibberish. Persecutor! Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,23:12    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,22:23)     Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". This is speculation which does not work where the fusion spreads in a population.         Quote From: Wesley R. Elsberry Author of: Punctuated Equilibria Response: Another relatively common mechanism of speciation in sexually reproducing species is through change of karyotype. This mode of speciational change does pretty much arise through a single individual having some sort of change in karyotype. (One will find two groups, "fusionists" who hold that most such speciation events are due to "Robertsonian translocations" or other means of fusing chromosomes, and "fissionists" who hold that fission of chromosomes is more common. The weight of evidence appears to give the "fusionists" the edge currently.) OK, let's say some individual has such a change in karyotype. (In humans, the species from which we have the most data, such changes appear to be at about 1 in 1000.) How, then, can such an individual propagate. The answer is, "With a bit more difficulty than usual." Such changes may reduce but not eliminate fertility with individuals having an unmodified chromosome complement. To produce individuals with a stable karyotype in the new mode just requires a bit of incest, not necessarily two individuals changing in the same manner at the same time and location. Dr. Kurt Benirschke gave an interesting presentation recently which touched on the pattern of karyotype differences in swine and peccaries. Such patterns support the view that karyotype change as described above is an important mechanism of speciational change in sexually reproducing organisms. Wesley 47's and 46's can easily come from different families. Loading your answer with incest is in my opinion highly uncalled for. Gary seems (more than usually) confused. He's been going on about cladogenesis, but now objects that a scenario about cladogenesis is not anagenetic. Line-breeding is more likely to pair individuals with an altered karyotype with compatible partners. Yes, "incest" was provocative language, but the point stands. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,23:18    Quote (olegt @ Dec. 31 2012,18:56)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,18:47) Yes I have plans for all that. But not being able to afford proper help for such a large project is a real problem produced by your crusade to stop all scientific progress you possibly can, in theory which does not serve your unscientific politics. Hey Gary, you hilarious nutter, You voluntarily came to this forum. You spent a month trying to explain (unsuccessfully, I might add) your WTF theory. You slammed the door and returned the same day, several times already. And you are accusing people in this forum of "crusading to stop all scientific progress?" You know how much this weighs on the crackpot scale? 40 points, my friend. See number 33 here. We don't do crusades here, Gary. We laugh at your cargo cult science. You are free to develop it. We are free to laugh at it. It's a free world, buddy. I have the right to come here with what we so-far have for theory. And you have the right to see what you want to see. Where public education needs are concerned your tactics are tragic. Regardless of how they got there, the public statements/policies now in place to not allow this theory to be considered “science” really became a throwback to Stalinism. Calling me a crackpot for mentioning that fact, while making it seem it's so fair, is just more of the usual unscientific tactics to continue justifying historic levels of scientific unfairness in order to unfairly stop a scientific theory from being developed. Very serious situation here, brought on by jumping to conclusions. Only proper scientific tactic, is to right away self-correct. The anti-ID movement is still a political menace, but it's now scientifically powerless against scientific reason which does in fact allow the Theory of Intelligent Design to be scientifically challenged. Only thing I have to do is keep the theory building going, while what you called a scientific method increasingly proves to have been a scientific disgrace. So now that you know what you need to do in 2013 I will just say "Happy New Year!" to all, then get back to my work on the new and improved Intelligence Design Lab! -------------- 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.

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2012,23:22    More mendacity and scurrilous projection from Gary in the new year. That's sad. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,03:17    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,18:47) Quote (Quack @ Dec. 31 2012,18:05) I am a hound for details, what about a detailed schematic of the tongue and nose with all sensors in place? You got any plans for the stomach, gut and intestine, the circulatory system, you are not going to skip the details, are you? My body is very dependent on all its details, no circuit diagram of your can cover all that. Unles you have failed in explaing WTF kind of theory you are creating. Why cant you wait till you have a working theory? You certainly are no Darwin! Yes I have plans for all that. But not being able to afford proper help for such a large project is a real problem produced by your crusade to stop all scientific progress you possibly can, in theory which does not serve your unscientific politics. Ambitions you do have! Money you don't have. Better join the Discovery Institute, team up with Behe and Dembski, there are lots of things you need to do if you want to see anything like a working theory in your lifetime, and it will take some big bucks! -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

RupertG Posts: 80 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,12:36    But the answer is simple and has already been pointed out. Gary says he can solve the travelling salesman problem. If he did that - and he needs nobody's agreement, support or belief - the financial and reputational rewards would be immense and swift. Easily enough to fund and staff a major research effort on nobody's terms but his own. A bit like Wolfram, say, who has used his undoubted brilliance in practical research to support his own theories despite their lack of peer support. If, on the other hand, he spends his time online behaving like an attention-seeking delusional fantasist, then no matter what lies behind his thinking, he will be treated as such. Entirely his call. -------------- Uncle Joe and Aunty Mabel Fainted at the breakfast table Children, let this be a warning Never do it in the morning -- Ralph Vaughan Williams

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,14:00    Quote Gary says he can solve the travelling salesman problem. Should be a piece of cake with a good guess generator. I'm itching to see how that works. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,17:15    Quote (RupertG @ Jan. 01 2013,12:36) But the answer is simple and has already been pointed out. Gary says he can solve the travelling salesman problem. If he did that - and he needs nobody's agreement, support or belief - the financial and reputational rewards would be immense and swift. Easily enough to fund and staff a major research effort on nobody's terms but his own. A bit like Wolfram, say, who has used his undoubted brilliance in practical research to support his own theories despite their lack of peer support. If, on the other hand, he spends his time online behaving like an attention-seeking delusional fantasist, then no matter what lies behind his thinking, he will be treated as such. Entirely his call. Google "solving traveling salesman problem" and see YouTube videos on the topic. -------------- 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.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,17:34    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 01 2013,17:15) Quote (RupertG @ Jan. 01 2013,12:36) But the answer is simple and has already been pointed out. Gary says he can solve the travelling salesman problem. If he did that - and he needs nobody's agreement, support or belief - the financial and reputational rewards would be immense and swift. Easily enough to fund and staff a major research effort on nobody's terms but his own. A bit like Wolfram, say, who has used his undoubted brilliance in practical research to support his own theories despite their lack of peer support. If, on the other hand, he spends his time online behaving like an attention-seeking delusional fantasist, then no matter what lies behind his thinking, he will be treated as such. Entirely his call. Google "solving traveling salesman problem" and see YouTube videos on the topic. Of your solution, from planet source code? You have honesty issues. -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 01 2013,23:09    I think I'll just hold my breath while I wait for Gary to explain how the good guess generator works. -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,03:28    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,23:22) More mendacity and scurrilous projection from Gary in the new year. That's sad. As history now goes, applying the usual scientific method to the Theory of Intelligent Design became incredibly educational. There was all along a scientific starting point, which simply required explaining the very basics of any intelligence system. The power of science was soon with those who searched for better ways to explain the evidence. Theory of Intelligent Design became something which makes a great Science Fair project, or something to bring to science class for the science teacher to figure out. You cannot stop all of that. Needing to help attack a new model which introduces a never before seen in science (programming) challenge at Planet Source Code is nothing less than scientifically dysfunctional, irresponsible. And science teachers are mandated to best they can meet the scientific education needs of all students. You are clearly over the line with what amounts to bullying. This is in serious conflict with US public school education laws and codes of ethics. Not that you have to follow these where you have your own set of rules and codes of ethics, which allow it. There are also public “statements” and more none want to have to self-correct, so there is no rush for your academic authority to get on the same page with a computer model and theory that is no big deal anymore in public how-to or K-12 education. Time is not on your side. More of the same tactic will only make things harder on yourself and others who are stuck in this very historic scientific dilemma. But it’s not hard to get on the same page with the rest of us. Choice is yours, don't be late. -------------- 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.

Soapy Sam Posts: 659 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,04:50    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 01 2013,03:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". I'm not so sure fission/fusion is a common mechanism of speciation per se. It's possible for both fission and fusion to spread entirely neutrally, with no mechanism to partition a population - in both instances, it's simply the presence or absence of a 'gap', and meiosis need have little problem aligning gap+ and gap- chromosomes in heterozygotes. You can end up with different numbers of centromeres, which can result in drive in female meiosis, as the polarity of division can reward greater or fewer as they avoid becoming polar bodies, but this is not a fitness effect. The main potential for fitness depression comes from a higher rate of aneuploid gametes, which might lower fitness in heterozygotes. This acts against the change while rare, but helps push it to fixation when common, if it can get there. But if hybrid fitness is significantly reduced, the likeliest result remains extinction, rather than reinforcement of isolating mechanisms to avoid hybridisation. In the tiny inbreeding population demanded in this circumstance, there is little variation to provide them, while the wider population is hardly likely to be troubled by occasional hybridisation.     If an effectively neutral change in chromosome number arises (say) every 1 in 10000 gametes, then fixation of a change in the species chromosome number will flip at the same rate. But if there is drive, this acts in tandem with drift to raise the rate, which can oppose a weak selective effect. If there is fitness depression in heterozygotes, fixation will occur less often; where it does there will be a nonlinear progression (slowed at first, accelerated later). But I think this mostly occurs after isolation, rather than driving it. Edited by Soapy Sam on Jan. 02 2013,11:03 -------------- SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,07:07    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2013,03:28) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,23:22) More mendacity and scurrilous projection from Gary in the new year. That's sad. As history now goes, applying the usual scientific method to the Theory of Intelligent Design became incredibly educational. There was all along a scientific starting point, which simply required explaining the very basics of any intelligence system. The power of science was soon with those who searched for better ways to explain the evidence. Theory of Intelligent Design became something which makes a great Science Fair project, or something to bring to science class for the science teacher to figure out. You cannot stop all of that. Needing to help attack a new model which introduces a never before seen in science (programming) challenge at Planet Source Code is nothing less than scientifically dysfunctional, irresponsible. And science teachers are mandated to best they can meet the scientific education needs of all students. You are clearly over the line with what amounts to bullying. This is in serious conflict with US public school education laws and codes of ethics. Not that you have to follow these where you have your own set of rules and codes of ethics, which allow it. There are also public “statements” and more none want to have to self-correct, so there is no rush for your academic authority to get on the same page with a computer model and theory that is no big deal anymore in public how-to or K-12 education. Time is not on your side. More of the same tactic will only make things harder on yourself and others who are stuck in this very historic scientific dilemma. But it’s not hard to get on the same page with the rest of us. Choice is yours, don't be late. You don't have to so forcefully confirm my observations. That is really sad. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,07:16    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 02 2013,04:50) Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 01 2013,03:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". I'm not so sure fission/fusion is a common mechanism of speciation per se. It's possible for both fission and fusion to spread entirely neutrally, with no mechanism to partition a population - in both instances, it's simply the presence or absence of a 'gap', and meiosis need have little problem aligning gap+ and gap- chromosomes in heterozygotes. You can end up with different numbers of centromeres, which can result in drive in female meiosis, as the polarity of division can reward greater or fewer as they avoid becoming polar bodies, but this is not a fitness effect. The main potential for fitness depression comes from a higher rate of aneuploid gametes, which might lower fitness in heterozygotes. This acts against the change while rare, but helps push it to fixation when common, if it can get there. But if hybrid fitness is significantly reduced, the likeliest result remains extinction, rather than reinforcement of isolating mechanisms to avoid hybridisation. In the tiny inbreeding population demanded in this circumstance, there is little variation to provide them, while the wider population is hardly likely to be troubled by occasional hybridisation.     If an effectively neutral change in chromosome number arises (say) every 1 in 10000 gametes, then fixation of a change in the species chromosome number will flip at the same rate. But if there is drive, this acts in tandem with drift to raise the rate, which can oppose a weak selective effect. If there is fitness depression in heterozygotes, fixation will occur less often; where it does there will be a nonlinear progression (slowed at first, accelerated later). But I think this mostly occurs after isolation, rather than driving it. Maybe change in karyotype is mostly incidental and secondary to other isolating mechanisms. If that's the case, what pattern of karyotype changes do you expect to see in taxa? Does it fit with the observed pattern in the taxa I mentioned of swine and peccaries? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,08:10    Quote There was all along a scientific starting point, which simply required explaining the very basics of any intelligence system I presume God is included among the intelligence systems. Maybe it would be easier to start with God and proceed to more subtle systems like guessing systems and intelligent molecules? -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,08:44    Oh, so now it's intelligence all the way down, apparently. Yawn. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,16:17    But of course, the molecules need intelligence to understand God's orders, obviously. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Doc Bill Posts: 1039 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,17:35    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,18:24) Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 31 2012,17:36) actual taste/smell sensors, or virtual ones? I am adding signals which exist (in biological reality) to a circuit to most simply model biological reality. You need to include this line of code in your model: canTaste = not (theAnimal == aDog);

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,17:37    Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,22:50) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2012,22:02)     Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 31 2012,21:11) Go here, then search for "karyotype". See the reply in the Biology Online forum that mentions the Chromotype listbox used in the fusion illustration software: http://www.biology-online.org/biology....p146195 The word "Karyotype" becomes ambiguous in a theory where the important thing is what happens to the chromosomes. Terminology I used is more precise, less confusing, even though you are not used to using it. There's nothing ambiguous about the word karyotype. At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it. It is interesting that Gary thinks that karyotypes have to do with something other than chromosomes. I do agree with something Gary asserted: I am definitely not used to using gibberish. In a computer program listbox for selecting DNA assemblies there can easily be more than one of the same Karyotype. Neanderthal is expected to have the same karyotype as we do. Therefore labeling the listbox "Karyotype" is simply wrong. The word "Chromotype" worked in the software. If there is a better word found then I will change it to that, but that's where it stands. I could also call the listbox "Assembly" but that only works for DNA data, not organisms which all have nonidentical chromosomes (even though the karyotype may still be the same). Your pompous scolding with "At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it." completely ignores the scientific issue you are supposed to be addressing. As a result, you don't even know what you're talking about, and are obviously just talking trash in order to shut down the scientific process. -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,18:06    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2013,18:37) Your pompous scolding with "At least, biologists don't have any such problem with it." completely ignores the scientific issue you are supposed to be addressing. As a result, you don't even know what you're talking about, and are obviously just talking trash in order to shut down the scientific process. Yeah! Jesus, Wes, you're so dumb, and ignorant. Get a clue about real science, so you can understand Gary.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Jan. 02 2013,18:34    Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2012,15:17) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,13:26)     Quote (Soapy Sam @ Dec. 30 2012,04:41)       Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 30 2012,04:58)         Quote (midwifetoad @ Dec. 29 2012,12:34) I was kind of hoping Gary would cite a specific instance where evolution has exhibited foresight or has gone straight to some major modification without futzing around with variation. Human chromosome speciation was the result of a "good guess" which likely led to almost immediate reproductive isolation (a new species). That doesn't fit either requirement. You haven't given any reason to invoke intelligence in what appears to be as much a mechanistic accident as any mutation, and you have picked something that leads to no great phenotypic distinction - a 'major modification' equivalent to moving a whole chunk of your code from one place to another, without changing the execution one bit. I doubt you'd expect to get paid for that. The main consequence of a rearrangement is a potential barrier to gene flow, which may be significant in some kinds of speciation contact, but there are many other, nonchromosomal, mechanisms. You think a chromosome rearrangement is 'intelligent' - how about, say, the expansion of an intervening body of water? In this cognitive model chromosome speciation becomes an example of a molecular level “good guess” mechanism creating a new species.  How you would rather it be explained, is simply irrelevant to discussion of this theory with an entirely different model which produces that for an answer. There is nothing I can even do about that, it’s in the way the model works. You just have to get used to it being this way. Why? One way to explain it is that "light" is covered in electronics theory, and theory of relativity. But which theory you use depends on whether you are trying to light a LED lamp, or detect black-holes with a telescope. The theoretical models each have their different way of explaining the same thing, that you just have to get used to (as opposed to expecting to light a LED lamp with theory of relativity just because light is covered there too).   Because of ID theory requiring a cognitive/intelligent model there is different terminology required, that requires getting used to. Instead have to explain how the self-learning system "learns" over time. Outside "selection forces" is just a fancy name for something added to the environment like a hole some fall into, or volcanic eruption that was programmed in to cause havoc. Otherwise models start off a perfect virtual world with no "selection" at all. Later when something you might call selection is added to the virtual world, the other paradigm has some pointing and parroting "selection" but all you then have are parrots who added nothing at all to the model but their ridiculousness. -------------- 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.

Pages: (622) < ... 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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