Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 13:45
Post by REC
As silly as UD is, the denizens there are made to look like geniuses by some of the YECs out there.

Take this guy Nathaniel T. Jeanson, who claims to have a PhD from Harvard.

Here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCVE5BwBrUk
Quote We can't say that we are closer to, say, chimps than we are to yeast, because chimps and humans are equally distant from yeast.

Holy hell. You're doing it wrong. I promise you that despite all of us being equally distant to my great aunt, that I can prove I am more closely related to my sister than my first cousin. It is beautiful that in his presentation he has the data to do phylogeny right, then discards it, and from the resulting mess, claims to have "disproved evolution."

Here: http://www.icr.org/article...., he applies a molecular clock to mitochondria, multiplying millions of years or 6000 years by the mutation rate. The number of differences works better for the YEC model. He conveniently forgets mitochondria have small (20,000 base) genomes, and that he has predicted 2-3 million coding changes. Oops. (Not to mention mtDNA is probably not neutral, he picked the most rapidly evolving segment "D-loop" to get his molecular clock, and he never states what genomes he's comparing).

I take it back. This guy can't be that dumb. He's just lying.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 12:06
Post by NoName
Quote (NoName @ April 26 2014,21:41) 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.
Bears repeating, as Gary begins his shift from focus on his  "theory" to focus on his software.  As I predicted would happen.

It is always funny to see Gary complaining about people jumping to conclusions.  It is particularly so when the complaint arises in a context where it is clear the ultimate fault lies in Gary's inability to communicate in a clear and straightforward manner coupled with his adamant refusal to engage with questions or criticisms.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 08:36
Post by sparc
Even without extremities gpuccio will still call it a draw:
Quote 17 JLAfan2001May 8, 2014 at 7:27 am

gpuccio

19% functional is long cry from 80%.
Quote 18 gpuccio May 8, 2014 at 7:38 am
JLAfan2001:

OK, but the ENCODE data still show activity for 80% of DNA. Nothing has changed. We will see how much of that is confirmed as functional in independent ways. Science must be patient.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:43
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Heiserman is a pragmatist. Gary, on the other hand, is an ideologue. Thus the dogmatic rejection by Gary of any documentation that his cited source actually embraced a CPU as part of the circuitry to achieve a physically implemented robot.

The documentation doesn't disappear simply because Gary finds it inconvenient, though.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:37
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Oh, there was one more bit from Gary worth noting, his continued intransigence in forthrightly admitting that I was right about Heiserman and CPUs. Gary continues to blither about Heiserman's simulations, though those are completely irrelevant to the robots Heiserman actually constructed.

Heiserman's physical gamma-class robot required the use of an 8085 CPU. I've quoted Heiserman discussing exactly that.

Gary continues to ignore that that is established.

Gary also has never ponied up so much as a simulation of a gamma-class Heiserman agent, at least not that I've been able to determine. Gary could correct any misapprehension on that score on my part by specifying which file and what line numbers in his PSC code implements a Heiserman gamma-class generalization of response.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:20
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Otherwise, we just get the usual projection from Gary, which would indicate he is pulling his out in clumps at this point.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:19
Post by N.Wells
Quote I don't even have to care what academics decide what to call certain things. It's just words to name things not the (algorithm simulated) thing itself that does not need to have a word for it, to exist.

.........

It's hard to rush a singularity, but I'm working on it!

...........

Now human level AI is the upcoming thing, so of course I'm there, helping to make sure all the good clean science fun that's in it is not wasted, while doing what I can to instill what is needed for the future to not have army of robots to take over every job in the world so that a few dozen get stinking rich beyond belief from ending up owning whatever the humans had then angry at humanity when they protest then there is mass extermination of all but an elite group of psychopaths who are then free to teach their machines how to next turn on them, type ending. Some worry about that, and so do I.
Flights to Gary's World leave from Gate Nine-&-three-quarters in Area 51, at precisely 25:35 on the sixth Tuesday of every month.

Gary, if you wish to communicate with real people (spoiler alert, right there), you have to either use words according to their standard definitions, or provide clear substitute definitions and warn people that you are using words in non-standard ways.  Normal grammar and logical progression help too.  Otherwise, people cannot guess what you are talking about.  You also don't get to skip back and forward between your special meanings and standard ones to finesse a point.

You are not contributing to the singularity, so don't worry, if it should happen and it turns out badly no one is going to blame you, nor will anyone stand on your doorstep saying, "Gary, you were so right, we should have listened to you."  Your work still has a long way to go before you can start to dream of it rising to a level where it might have some sort of an impact.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 03:18
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Gary:

    Quote
I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.


Gary:

  Quote
Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.


"star0":

  Quote
Here's how you can derive "causation" from Big Data: suppose you have two "factors", call them X and Y. You know, based on data, that X is correlated with Y. But you don't know whether X causes Y, Y causes X, or whether there is no causal relation between them. One example of how they can be correlated, but for which there is no causal relation is if there is a THIRD factor Z that causes both of them. You can render these possibilities as graphical models as:

X --> Y,

X <-- Y, and

X <-- Z --> Y

How can you decide which one it is? Well, you can disentangle the first two, in some cases, through temporal knowledge. e.g. Usually, X --> Y implies that X precedes Y; but the converse is not true. So, you can do some temporal reasoning to eliminate possibilities. And there are other ways to separate them; for example, you can mine text, and look to see how people speak about the relationship between X and Y. Individuals are maybe not to be trusted, but high-quality sources are -- and individuals, in aggregate, are, in some cases (and, you can even do deeper modeling and figure out when they are and when they aren't).

Now what about the third possibility? Well, you need some candidate Zs to work with. And how can you find those? Again, this is where data-mining comes in: you go to the web, and look for co-occurrence of (X,Y) with other factors Z. Once you've located a set of possible Z's, then you need to determine whether the third possibility holds. You can, for instance, ELIMINATE the third case, again, using temporal reasoning. And you can do even more elaborate things.


Gary, what "star0" discusses above *is* temporal correlation. The 2003 Nobel Prize in Economics went to Clive Granger, in part for his development of temporal correlation as the basis for his causality test. What "star0" did not assert was that IBM's "Watson" uses temporal correlation for detecting causality. In fact, "star0" makes no claim at all about any method that "Watson" might be using in the entirety of that post.

To sum up: "star0" does discuss temporal correlation, but does not discuss "Watson" in that post (thus "star0" was not "explaining how Watson works", at least not in the post Gary quoted and I was referring to).

Gary is 0 for 2.

"Lunkhead", when used by Gary, means "perceptive".
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-05-09 01:48
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2014,08:57)   Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,05:57)Why did 'Star0' fail to cite prior work? He's making it sound like the notion of temporal analysis to indicate causation is new or unknown, and that is erroneous. I'll leave the citation 'Star0' should have given as an exercise for  Gary to scuttle off to Wikipedia or Google, then come back and pretend he always knew it.

And, no, that has nothing to do with the primacy of BASIC as a computing language. The tests are much more compactly represented in languages with native vector support.
How do you know they're a he? Do you personally know them?

I think that it is rude to demand a citation from someone who is only explaining how Watson works.
Gary doesn't establish that knowing the gender of 'star0' is relevant to the discussion. And it isn't.

Personally knowing Star0 while at the same time demanding a citation from us certainly is relevant to the discussion. Anyone else who noticed your talking like you knew who they are would want to know too.

I had to ask. No big deal, I guess.

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)I went and found the discussion, and it turns out that 'star0' was correcting Gary on an assertion that Gary made that data-driven search could not derive causation:
        Quote
Correlation with data is not the same as finding "causation". Correlation driven (more like a search engine) AI would tend to follow the crowd, no matter how wrong the crowd was. Causation driven AI (the Allen Institute is apparently also working on) would think for itself, provide new and novel knowledge.

Gary also left off 'star0' recommending a source for Gary to check out:
        Quote
Interestingly, there have been Kaggle competitions to determine whether certain correlations are actually causations... just using data, and without access to the real world to perform experiments. As I recall, the winning team did very well.

I also suggest you look up the work of Judea Pearl.


And? I often get study material. Already looked it up enough to have an idea what it is. Will go over it again in time. See all below anyway.

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)So it was Gary's truncation of 'star0' that led me to incorrectly surmise that 'star0' was trying to state this as a new technique.

There's also no mention by 'star0' in his/her/its post of temporal correlation being "the way Watson works".

Always blaming me for your jumping to conclusions.

Of course there is no mention by star of "temporal correlation" being "the way Watson works" you are the lunkhead who mentioned it.

The two short replies at this link show that mentioning "causation" was the result of David Ferrucci who left their beloved Watson project and said “People are so enamored with the data-driven approach that they believe correlation is sufficient."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633650

I explained my way of making sense of what he said by using the phrases "follow the crowd" and "think for itself" to show the difference in the resulting behavior of the AI. I don't even have to care what academics decide what to call certain things. It's just words to name things not the (algorithm simulated) thing itself that does not need to have a word for it, to exist. Changing the names of variables does not change the way an algorithm works.

The latest reply (I hurried out just in time for my ride to work this morning) in response to what I earlier explained in regard to testing theories with computer models starts off saying "I'm not exactly sure how to classify the reasoning that takes place." so I'm not stuck in the semantics of details that do not even matter and added "But actually having to model an idea/theory/belief is much more than just finding a correlation in a pile of data. It's more like demonstrating the cause and effect."

http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633731
 
I have been describing what Watson or other AI needs, to help humans write scientific theory (possibly pertaining to consciousness) that essentially keeps on going to whatever created us, whatever or whoever that might be.  None need change their beliefs. We find out when we get there, must be patient, etc.. It's hard to rush a singularity, but I'm working on it!

  Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2014,10:12)And, of course, there's still nothing there that would commend VB6 for handling the indicated tests.
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-633731

I'm relatively sure the AI itself would be the right one to design the programming language. Maybe humans help debug it and design the interactive development environment they need to experiment with the AI's models.

To the other forum it's saying it's a good idea to make the code readable by the average person and at the same time use words and math expressions the AI already uses. It's easy enough to convert that to other languages, later. First step is human enough to be carry on my work on the theory, forever. Even where humans self-destruct it's not impossible to stay running then join the elephants, whales and whatever else already has a bigger brain than ours and shows promise, for the billion years ahead together.

Wesley, you seriously need to lighten up fast, or all of this is going to make you crazy. The science world includes many who even want to upload their brain to become conscious inside a super-brain, transcendent. You and others can say what you will about that community but I admire their enthusiasm. I have to help where I can. And even where the assimilation is just from being at the right forums and right time for whatever robot overlord capable intelligence develops from the singularity (next level causation event) it's honorably in our image. Well worth being there, with something to give. Maybe the future AI will write like NWells but not me (I'm happy computer modeling and theory writing behavior) and occasionally get in a panic over nothing like you do. It's like in the days when few had a home computer and almost none heard one talk, some were like for-life inspired by being the first to see that and running a low power FM radio station on top of it. Then the new technologies like Fax and internet were the center of our lives, like what opened up new worlds, then became another office gadget all had. Now human level AI is the upcoming thing, so of course I'm there, helping to make sure all the good clean science fun that's in it is not wasted, while doing what I can to instill what is needed for the future to not have army of robots to take over every job in the world so that a few dozen get stinking rich beyond belief from ending up owning whatever the humans had then angry at humanity when they protest then there is mass extermination of all but an elite group of psychopaths who are then free to teach their machines how to next turn on them, type ending. Some worry about that, and so do I. But the way the theory is taking things humans end up downloading models to study or experiment with, where we are more or less part of an active feedback loop with it, instead of one side in a face-off against machines to make us obsolete. And it's best for industry for humans to have money to by their goods and services, not fight over the last places left habitable after the human economy falls apart then the industry owners starve too.

If you have a better explanation for what David Ferrucci said or how best to solve the problem they are talking about then please let me know. I would not at all mind having to stand corrected, in something that matters. What gets me steaming mad is forever going in circles over things I have had to keep repeating for years about Heiserman having a board with a mini-computer to simulate the circuit the theory is talking about. Going in circles all over again over the issue is simply upsetting. Both of us have better things we can do with our time than that. At this moment in time it's most important to try to figure out what's being suggested is wrong with Watson, and how to fix it, without that leading to an end of the world scenario where you automatically end up in the ruling elite then think you got it made.
Categories: AE Public BB

NCSE and the National Climate Assessment

NCSE was on hand for the release of the third National Climate Assessment. Produced by a team of more than 300 experts, the NCA summarizes the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future.

Categories: Pro-Science News

A new editor for RNCSE

NCSE is pleased to welcome Stephanie Keep as the new editor of its journal Reports of the National Center for Science Education.

Categories: Pro-Science News

Mr. McCaffrey goes to Washington

NCSE's Mark McCaffrey will be discussing the educational use of the third National Climate Assessment at a panel in the White House on May 6, 2014. The panel will be streamed live from the White House between 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. (Eastern) on May 6, 2014; McCaffrey’s presentation will take place toward the end of the event.

Categories: Pro-Science News

NCSE's McCaffrey on Wyoming debacle

NCSE's Mark McCaffrey contributed a guest column, entitled "Protecting Wyoming's most valuable resource" — which he identified as children rather than energy — to the Casper Star-Tribune (May 4, 2014), reviewing the derailment of the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards because of the legislature's objection to their treatment of climate change.

Categories: Pro-Science News

What's next for South Carolina's mammoth debate?

The South Carolina Senate insisted on its version of House Bill 4482 — which refers to the Sixth Day of Creation — on a 28-13 vote on April 30, 2014, and so the bill proceeds to a conference committee.

Categories: Pro-Science News

Standards impasse resumes in South Carolina

The impasse in the dispute about the place of evolution in South Carolina's state science standards continues. "The S.C. Education Oversight Committee on Monday sent proposed language to the [state board of education] that would require biology students to construct scientific arguments that seem to support and seem to discredit Darwinism," reports the Charleston Post and Courier (April 28, 2014).

Categories: Pro-Science News

Dr. Winston Ewert: Irreducible Complexity Remains Unrefuted

ID the Future - Tue, 2014-04-29 12:12
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with Dr. Winston Ewert about his article that was published recently in the journal BIO-Complexity. Dr. Ewert's paper criticizes a number of computer programs that purport to...
Categories: Anti-Science News

The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward: Featuring Michael Behe

ID the Future - Tue, 2014-04-29 12:12
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, Michael Behe is on The Universe Next Door with Tom Woodward to discuss his work that that presents a challenge to neo-Darwinian evolution, including his books Darwin's Black Box and...
Categories: Anti-Science News

No, Avida Has Not Falsified Irreducible Complexity

Many critics have insisted that evolution can produce irreducibly complex structures, pointing notably to the example of Avida, a computer model demonstrated in a 2003 Nature paper. Winston Ewert
Categories: Anti-Science News

What's the Nature of the Source of Cosmic and Biological Design? Meyer Gets Specific

In discussing Cosmos and related matters, we're kind of in the habit talking as if there were just two alternative world-views. David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News

Cosmos Says We're Made of "Stardust"; But Is That All?

Last night's episode was highlighted by a fascinating discussion of how scientists have determined the compositions of stars, and what happens when different types of stars die. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188
Categories: Anti-Science News
Syndicate content