Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 18:15
Post by REC
Quote (k.e.. @ Feb. 18 2014,09:48) Quote (Quack @ Feb. 18 2014,17:38)I wouldn't dare opening his fridge unless wearing a gas mask!
Yeah his fridge wants a lawyer so it can sue him for negligence.

Hey Barry the fifties called they want their Formica and contagious diseases  back.
BA77 follows up with a mined quote from a January 6, 1978 book review.

1978: 36 years ago. Before DNA sequencing.  

36 Years before that, and we've got 2 years to go DNA is clearly demonstrated to be genetic material.

36 Years before that, and Mendel's work has just been rediscovered, and 'vitalism' is a concept.

36 Years before that, and Darwin has yet to use the word "evolution" in print.

And there is a post up today asking why we're so dismissive when these types toss out stupid concepts and  outdated mis-cites from outdated sources and ask why we won't engage them on their merits. Lol. I'd rather debate vitalism.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 18:01
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,00:54) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 18 2014,00:50)   Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,00:38)How about you actually read and think about what N.Wells wrote, Gary?
Is it impossible for you to actually read and think about what I wrote?

    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,19:39)I must suggest that you try to gain the ability to know whether my work is biologically relevant and pertains to molecular self-assembly of (as per science) "intelligence" before trying to make it appear that you already are:

Brain jelly - design and construction of an organic, brain-like computer
Design and Construction of a Brain-Like Computer: A New Class of Frequency-Fractal Computing Using Wireless Communication in a Supramolecular Organic, Inorganic System
I did.

"Or in other words: You embraced and praised a paper that experts in the field could not even make sense of or confirm, simply because it seemed to serve your religious agenda to do so."

seems completely unrelated to the criticism.

Oh for goodness sake, on the previous page N.Wells was talking like this is a theory dreamed up at church on a whim after watching a Discovery Institute video:

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 16 2014,20:37)Gary, despite your claim to agnosticism, that only seems to hold for your opinions concerning a deity, but does not cover your distinctly religion-style approach to knowledge and argument.  You are continually making non-scientific belief statements along the lines of "I believe, too!".  You approach science by making assertions in the manner of religious pronouncements rather than scientific conclusions (statements that are clearly based on your personal beliefs, which you won't investigate objectively and which you can't and won't defend with evidence, and which often fly in the face of reality, such as your claims about salmon defending their young, etc.).  You are also constantly going out of your way to make statements that are supportive of DI-style camouflaged-religious ID but which are not justified by any evidence that you provide, such as your misrepresentation of scientific arguments in order to give support to a creationist misrepresentation of biology when you say "With science now going towards the Creation Science perspective, the old graphics are again useful".  (Both halves of that sentence are wrong; creationist diagrams of the sort that you show are usually provided in support of their concept of baramins rather than lateral gene transfer; the time and taxonomic levels dominated by comparatively unfettered lateral gene transfer principally happened in distant Precambrian prokaryotes rather than Ediacaran / Cambrian metazoa; the last two to three decades of research into Cambrian faunas have revealed much about the origin of phyla and other groups at high taxonomic levels that you are ignoring.)  You continually cite the DI statement about ID and keep claiming that it is worthwhile, without providing any evidence in its support.  You are clearly going out of your way to support a religious agenda, therefore you are clearly giving support to a religious agenda.
......

I am in fact trying to make the best of the Discovery Institute having come around in 1999 with an intelligence theory that was much like I was for years earlier working on, but without the "Creation Science" that the other theory (Theory of Intelligent Design) like a magnet attracted. The theory I was working on grew out of the low power W I Don't Know AI in an age where very few ever heard a computer talk before, where what would be our hymn was Rush-The Spirit Of Radio where it's really just a question of your honesty, yeah, your honesty.

In my case, I have to honestly say that the “Brain jelly” paper did not explain what I would consider to be a fractal. The problem was mentioned in the discussion at K-AI forum, so I'm at least not alone on that one.  Jumping to the conclusion that the paper was fine on that detail, while another that goes up in magnitude from at most self-replicating RNA up to at least the size of whales, and looks like this, is nothing in comparison:



In both of our cases, as far as evidence for our theories is concerned, I honestly think that Dr. Anirban Bandyopadhyay is describing what the components of cells electronically do together, and are all excited from discovering that biological molecular intelligence systems work so much like a human brain they can model one that way. The theory I defend predicted that eventually happening, from fractal similarity, in what I long ago illustrated (above). I also mentioned it making no sense for me to try to compete with what biology lab geniuses were essentially already working on and left the describing of that intelligence level up to them, while I focus on the level at the other end of that intelligence spectrum and the part where like Guenter their work makes them magnets attracting the ID movement, but not because of me. That just happens anyway, then they just have to make the best of the unexpected fanfare.

In any event, whether this is where it all starts or we have to wait a little longer the paper makes a good example of what the evidence coming together should look like: Someone all excited about being able to model human brains with cell parts.

In my honest opinion the expert discussion I found online (and searched for others but that's the best) is correct, which makes N.Wells the odd one out whether they explained a fractal and such. Also missed what something like this means for the Theory of Intelligent Design that connects across the scientific abyss to Creation Science where it's OK to talk about God/Allah/Creator all you want even scripture, for those who need that or else science is no fun, for them. As long as the two paradigms are kept separated and all stay learning towards something real there should be no complaints from anyone else about it existing, because it really can't be made to go away, anyhow. We're then back to it being important that the religious implications of what's happening in the biology/nanotech labs are understood in the context of ID or else Creationists and others will oppose whatever loaded explanation the masterminds in this forum could fit to slap them with, then the scientists the Theory of Intelligent Design most need to stay busy in their lab get stuck in the middle of a hell of a conflict, they really don't want to be in. Better to be revered, than not.

For what it's worth, the most played hymn/anthem in this forum has been Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun or go crazy trying to fight the ways of the world, that are that way for a reason, having to do with the way human intelligence works. I'm simply doing my best to make sure the religious implications of science to come are beforehand understood so it will be properly received by those who do not even want to have to try figuring out what the Brain jelly paper is saying as it pertains to ID and Creation Science. I earned a reputation for having useful information, on matters like these. And as always, how the researchers concerned explain things does not have to change for ID. In this case they already have the right experts giving them honest advice, from another forum, that keep the author(s) heading the best route possible towards the road over the proverbial abyss, to see the madness, going on below but not on the other side where the church buses come from in search of intelligent knowledge of who we are, and where we came from.

The brain jelly surgery paper (or similar) might soon enough become an ID epic, even where they were a bit overambitious, which happens from the excitement but best be happy for them and hope that what they have that most matters to science (and does not care about words like “fractal” being there or not that's trivial) works out. Missing all that going on in the paper helps show a self-defeating double standard that sees something entirely different from what reliable experts in that field (not just I) indicate is actually there.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 16:58
Post by stevestory
I just want novelty, frankly. We've already replied ad nauseum to his mentally ill screeds, I kinda just want to see them waived past newbies, to see their replies.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 21:07
Post by midwifetoad
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,14:50) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.
Congratulations.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:50
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:42)Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Bear in mind that not all unguided processes in evolution involve selection.
The intelligent behavior, of intelligent animals.

I already won. So now I'm getting back to work on the ID Lab.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:46
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:39)...
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.
You really should stand in front of a mirror and recite this to yourself.
It's actually pretty funny coming from the guy who doesn't have a single operational definition in his 'theory', who constantly tosses around unfounded generalizations, and consistently provides excuses for why he shouldn't have to meet the same criteria expected of scientists in general or of scientific theories.
The shame is that even after all this time, we still try to engage with you.

But let's try to flip the issue around for once -- can you name a single 'feature of the universe' or a single entity that is not the result of intelligent design or an'intelligent cause'?
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:42
Post by midwifetoad
Name a specific feature of a living thing best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:39
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,14:17)Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.
For there to be a question I am obliged to answer you must first operationally define your terminology "evolve unguided except by natural selection" and "designed".

You're otherwise still just throwing ambiguous generalizations around, as an excuse for not being able to show why certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

The shame for not even being willing to try, is entirely on you.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:17
Post by midwifetoad
Assume evolve unguided except by natural selection and answer the question.

Name a feature that was designed.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:13
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 16 2014,13:37)No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.
Show me where in the following information it says "did not evolve".

  Quote 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.

http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php


If you cannot address the real premise of the theory then your opinions are already scientifically irrelevant.

I'm not obliged to entertain your deceptions.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:06
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2014,15:01)BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.
Eliza was lifelike enough to be a little scary.
BFD.

You've been wasting your time with the ID-Lab -- it can accomplish nothing for you or for your 'theory' or for human knowledge.

But it's hardly surprising to see you meet the usual points raised against your nonsense with your standard "look over there" deflection and distraction.

You still don't have a clue as to just what 'features of the universe'** are 'best explained' by an 'intelligent cause', nor any idea what 'intelligence' is.  One suspects you don't even have a clue as to what a cause is.


** [by which we assume you mean 'entities in the universe'; the universe itself, the sum total of all that exists, has no more features than any collection]
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 20:01
Post by GaryGaulin
BTW: I have been spending all my free-time on the ID Lab and what I now have is already lifelike enough to be a little bit scary. And not because how it (still) works is complicated, it's because it's not. Something to respect and be careful with, or else (one way or another) be destroyed by.

Don't be in a rush to let the more theatrical thrills and shocks of a human (to human created intelligence) intelligent causation event now happening in our lifetime lead all to a tragically enslaving Karn Evil 9 ending.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 19:37
Post by midwifetoad
No Gary, name a feature that did not evolve.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-02-16 19:13
Post by REC
This, from Sal, seems worth preserving. He's all about phylogenetic methods, but resorts to nonsense about "gaps between created kinds" to scuttle the obvious evolutionary implications of a sound method.

Quote They ignore obvious gaps between created kinds...

Otherwise, the phylogenetic methods for a created kind I think are really cool. They’ve been used to reconstruct Y-chromosomal Aaron, and possibly Abraham, and maybe, just Maybe Noah or the daughters in law of Noah. We’ll see. I’m not totally against phylogeny, but I don’t believe in 1 universal phylogenetic tree, I believe in an orchard of phylogenetic trees.

UD link
Categories: AE Public BB

IDiots on Twitter

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-02-14 04:49
Post by Henry J
Twittering?

If it wouldn't be an insult to birds, I'd say something about bird-brains here...
Categories: AE Public BB

DI EN&V

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-02-14 04:48
Post by sparc
New footage from the DI summer school:



But are they really educating [quote]the Next Generation of Scientists and Scholars![quote]
According to World Magazine they are rather preaching the choir.
Categories: AE Public BB

DI EN&V

AE Public Forum - Fri, 2014-02-14 01:00
Post by midwifetoad
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 13 2014,08:15)What's up with that picture of Meyer?  Looks like he is squeezed into a suit 4x too big for his head ... if I didn't know better i'd say that had been photo-shopped badly!
Categories: AE Public BB

IDiots on Twitter

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-02-13 22:32
Post by J-Dog
@ #DUM4EVR @#Tard4All
Categories: AE Public BB

BIO-Complexity

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-02-13 22:32
Post by REC
Wonder what happened to the follow-up on this one:

Quote These translation products, called vector proteins, are functionless unless they form legible Chinese characters, in which case they serve the real
function of writing. This coupling of artificial genetic causation to the real world of language makes evolutionary experimentation possible in a context where innovation can have a richness of variety and a depth of causal complexity that at least hints at what is needed to explain the complexity of bacterial proteomes. In order for this possibility to be realized, we here provide a complete Stylus genome as an experimental starting point.

Kinda goofy, but they built a 70,000 word genome. Not a small amount of work. This was done and written up by May 2011. And then, did they try to 'evolve' it?

Guesses:
1) They did, it works, shhh....
2) DI gets into a fight: providing a fitness landscape is "smuggling information" in even though that is exactly what the environment does in evolution, crap our analogy defeats our point...shh
3) The Chinese speaker bailed
4) The bug evolved into the prolific writings of VJTorley, translated and dumped onto UD for us.

Link
Categories: AE Public BB

Wildlife

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-02-13 16:31
Post by Robin
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 12 2014,15:38)So glad this thread has gone active again ... super pictures these past few days.  Living here in the South of England, there's not much opportunity to get out right now unless you have a boat and like taking pictures of lakes.  

I bought myself a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro lens for Christmas, with an OEM ring flash (not an LED knock-off) so i've been playing around with that combination learning how to take macro shots.  

All of these are handheld at 1/200th with the flash, most I think are between f11 and f22 to get some decent depth given that the macro lens has an extremely shallow DoF at f8 and below.  This all makes for a challenge, of course.  I've now got a monopod coming in the post (by canoe, probably) just to hopefully increase the 'good' shot ratio.  Also ordered a macro slider so I can try out some focus stacked shots with my tripod.

These couple are from a frosty morning in early January.
Cool macros Freddie! I'm thinking about getting a similar lens myself. You've definitely got me thinking about it again with these!
Categories: AE Public BB
Syndicate content