Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 15:06
Post by fnxtr
Heh. They used to play that on the local campus station at 6am Mondays. Now, thanks to a technology upgrade, we get "library on random". Bleh.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 13:17
Post by NoName
I'd love to see the tiniest bit of evidence that any money at all has been spent specifically to discredit Gary, his "work", or destroy him/his life.
That some or all of these things might have happened as a side effect of doing genuine scientific work of proven value is at most a happy side effect.
Gary's pathetic whiny self-importance is merely one ongoing symptom of his delusions of adequacy.  He's just not very good at it.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 10:34
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 25 2014,00:29)   Quote (sparc @ Feb. 24 2014,23:19)   Quote "Another thing that makes me think that maybe this work is having an impact is that after it started gaining momentum, Michigan State University, home of Pennock’s Digital Evolution Lab, received a huge $25 million NSF grant in 2010 for BEACON (Bio-computational Evolution in Action CONsortium). I suspect that at least part of the rationale for the NSF giving our tax dollars to fund this boondoggle is the threat to Darwinian evolution posed by the Evolutionary Informatics Lab."
I was not aware that megalomania is measured in Dembskis.

ETA: just learned that the unit can only be properly expressed with caps lock on.
from the interview:

  Quote Far better would have been to use those seven minutes to recount the record of accomplishment of intelligent design.

???
It would involve s p e a k i n g   v  e  r  y     s    l    o    w    l    y.

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 10:29
Post by didymos
Well, I'd love to see you stop whining like a brat, but that's probably not gonna happen either. Such is life.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 09:28
Post by GaryGaulin
I would love to see what would happen where the situation were reversed, and massive amounts of funding were only allowed to be invested in the destruction of the lives and livelihood of those who play with Genetic Algorithms and all the other trivial garbage used to colorfully parade the academic sacred cow, where it brings in money by the millions, especially when a few thousand "science supporters" are running around claiming that the sky/science is falling (on account of ID).
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-25 08:59
Post by didymos
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2014,00:41) Quote (didymos @ Feb. 25 2014,01:17)Man, you really just don't get even the simplest things, do you? Also, re: your paranoiac whining?  Yeah, we don't care about that either.
The whining in this forum is coming from asshole babies like you who think that their science-stopping shit does not smell.
Really, GarGar?  You're resorting to "I know you are but what am I"?  You're as skilled at insults as you are at science.  And English composition.
Categories: AE Public BB

Review of Darwin's Doubt: Part Two

ARN ID Update - Mon, 2014-02-24 18:12

How to build an animal

Whereas the focus in Part 1 falls on fossil evidence for an explosion of life in the Early Cambrian, we change gear in Part 2 and examine biological research relevant to the origin of animal phyla.

The starting point is the search for ways of measuring biological information representing different body plans. Shannon's theory of information (when applied to the animal genome) has the merit of mathematical rigour, but Meyer shows that this approach gives insight only into a sequence's capacity to carry information. Whether the sequence is functional is undetermined ? so discussion of biological information must extend far beyond quantitative measures. Meyer discusses the number of cell types as an indicator of complexity of embedded information. With reference to the genome, which uses digital codes, he uses the term "specified information", meaning that a genetic sequence can only be functional if the codons have a specific arrangement. Is the neo-Darwinian mechanism adequate to explain the origins of novel specified information associated with the Cambrian Explosion? Meyer describes this as a challenging question for Darwinists and claims that the necessity of "vast amounts" of specificity makes their explanations implausible.


(Source here)

To show that this argument is real, and not an argument from ignorance, Meyer devotes the next chapter to unpacking the issues surrounding specificity. In the early 1960s, Murray Eden (a professor of engineering and computer science at MIT) realised that there was a problem with neo-Darwinian theory and organised a conference to explore the issues at the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia. The theme was: "Mathematical challenges to the neo-Darwinian interpretation of evolution". The participants came from many disciplines and included Ernst Mayr (one of the architects of neo-Darwinism) and Richard Lewontin (Professor of genetics and evolutionary biology). Chairing the meeting was the Nobel laureate Sir Peter Medawar. The discussion provided by Meyer is extremely helpful in clarifying the nature of the problems and summarising some of the suggestions for resolving the dilemmas. The most favoured possible solution is explained in the quotation below, and is significant for stimulating a design-based research programme discussed in the subsequent chapter.

"The solution was this: even though the size of the combinatorial space that mutations needed to search was enormous, the ratio of functional to non-functional base or amino-acid sequence in their relevant combinatorial spaces might turn out to be much higher than Eden and others had assumed. If that ratio turned out to be high enough, then the mutation and selection mechanism would frequently stumble onto novel genes and proteins and could easily leapfrog from one functional protein island to the next, with natural selection discarding the non-functional outcomes and seizing upon the rare (but not too rare) functional sequences." (page 178)

As a research student in the late 80s, Doug Axe was not persuaded by Dawkins' rhetoric in "The Blind Watchmaker", and wanted to undertake research himself into aspects of genetic information. Reading the proceedings of the Wistar Conference stimulated many ideas for further work. This led Axe to join a protein engineering team at the University of Cambridge. Meyer's discussion of his experiments and results need to be read in full to appreciate the robustness of the empirical work undertaken. However, this is the conclusion of the first phase of Axe's research:

"Overall, therefore, he showed that despite some allowable variability, proteins (and the genes that produce them) are indeed highly specified relative to their biological functions, especially in their crucial exterior portions. Axe showed that whereas proteins will admit some variation at most sites if the rest of the protein is left unchanged, multiple as opposed to single amino-acid substitutions consistently result in rapid loss of protein function." (p.193)

In the next chapter, Meyer himself appears as part of the story-line. The year is 2004, when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington carried Meyer's peer-reviewed article that made reference to Axe's work and the Cambrian Explosion dilemma. He argued that "the theory of intelligent design could help explain the origin of biological information" (p.209). In Meyer's own words, the publication of this paper created "a firestorm of controversy". Up to that time, opponents of intelligent design (ID) claimed that until ID made it into peer-reviewed literature, it could not count as science. Once they realised it had passed through, they left no stone unturned in trying to discredit the paper, the journal's editor and their peer-review process. Many months passed before anything looking like a scientific response appeared, drawing heavily on a 2003 review of thinking about the origin of new genes. Meyer devotes the rest of this chapter to analysing the arguments and showing that the research does not explain the origin of specified information and does not solve the combinatorial inflation problem identified by Murray Eden.

"Overall, what evolutionary biologists have in mind is something like trying to produce a new book by copying the pages of an existing book (gene duplication, lateral gene transfer, and transfer of mobile genetic elements), rearranging blocks of text on each page (exon shuffling, retropositioning, and gene fusion), making random spelling changes to words in each block of text (point mutations), and then randomly rearranging the new pages. Clearly, such random rearrangements and changes will have no realistic chance of generating a literary masterpiece, let alone a coherent read. That is to say, these processes will not likely generate specificity of arrangement and sequence and, therefore, do not solve the combinatorial search problem. In any case, all such scenarios also beg the question. There is a big difference between shuffling and slightly altering pre-existing sequence-specific modules of functional information and explaining how those modules came to possess information-rich sequences in the first place." (p.219)

Neo-Darwinians are remarkably satisfied with natural selection and their hypothetical models of gene evolution, so that platitudes often replace science. Meyer gives an example from an evolutionary text-book: "One need not go into the details of the evolution of the bird's wing, the giraffe's neck, the vertebrate eye, [. . .] Even a slight advantage or disadvantage in a particular genetic change provides a sufficient differential for the operation of natural selection." (quoted on p.234). Anyone who wants to grapple with the details soon meets problems that cast doubt on the adequacy of Darwinian mechanisms. Meyer introduces us to Tom Frazzetta, whose specialism is functional biomechanics. He found great difficulty defending the concept of gradual change because all the intermediate forms he could envisage would not have been viable. The interdependence of biomechanical systems meant that design changes could not be incremental and many would have to occur concurrently. Frazzetta came to the conclusion that "Phenotypic alteration of integrated systems requires an improbable coincidence of genetic (and hence hereditable phenotypic) modifications of a tightly specified kind." (quoted on p.233). This brings us to the work of Michael Behe and David Snoke, and their 2004 paper in Protein Science. They recognised that some inferred evolutionary changes require coordinated mutations, and they used the principles of population genetics to assess the likelihood of such coordinated changes occurring. The calculated probabilities are so low as to cast doubt on this being a widespread phenomenon in the history of life. Behe was to return to this theme later in his book: The Edge of Evolution (2007).

"In a real sense, therefore, the neo-Darwinian math is itself showing that the neo-Darwinian mechanism cannot build complex adaptations - including the new information-rich genes and proteins that would have been necessary to build the Cambrian animals." (p.254)

At this point, the focus of interest shifts from molecules to body plans; from population genetics to developmental biology. Paul Nelson (philosopher of biology) is introduced when commenting on the "great Darwinian paradox". This is the observation that mutations affecting early stage development are not beneficial, yet these are the very mutations needed if there is to be any change in the body plan. In Nelson's words:

"Such early-acting mutations of global effect on animal development, however, are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo and, in fact, never have been tolerated in any animals that developmental biologists have studied." (p.262).

Early stage development appears to be overseen and coordinated by developmental gene regulatory networks, a concept pioneered by Eric Davidson. It is not a coincidence that developmental biologists like him have been pressing for a new evolutionary synthesis to emerge, because they are acutely aware that neo-Darwinism cannot be the way forward. The tightly integrated gene regulatory networks cannot be mutated incrementally so as to produce new body plans:

"contrary to classical evolution theory, the processes that drive small changes observed as species diverge cannot be taken as models for the evolution of the body plans of animals." (words of Davidson, quoted on p.269).

The challenge to the neo-Darwinian synthesis is even more formidable than this. The mindset of Darwinists is that life is digital. Everything is reduced to bits in the genome sequence. However, what happens to the adequacy of their theory if they are dealing with only part of the information story? What happens is some information is located in the cell independent of the genome? At very least, if this is true, the textbook orthodoxy can only claim to be a partial account of origins. But it also needs to be considered whether neo-Darwinism is a diversion to the real issues affecting life's diversity. These matters are discussed in Meyer's chapter dealing with the epigenetic revolution.

"Many biologists no longer believe that DNA directs virtually everything happening within the cell. Developmental biologists, in particular, are now discovering more and more ways that crucial information for building body plans is imparted by the form and structure of embryonic cells, including information from both the unfertilized and fertilized egg." (p.275)

Much of this chapter draws on the work of Jonathan Wells, whose analysis of the inadequacy of neo-Darwinian theory incorporates the growing evidence that epigenetic influences on development are substantial. (See also here.)

"Yet both-body plan formation during embryological development and major morphological innovation during the history of life depend upon a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. If DNA isn?t wholly responsible for the way an embryo develops - for body-plan morphogenesis - then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely and still not produce a new body plan, regardless of the amount of time and the number of mutational trials available to the evolutionary process. Genetic mutations are simply the wrong tool for the job at hand." (p.281)

A particularly useful aspect of these chapters is that ID-related research is presented in a way that demonstrates the coherence and value of the design paradigm. Researchers operating within a design framework are addressing issues that are of central importance, publishing their work in peer-reviewed papers and other scholarly forums, and engaging in a constructive discourse with scientists working within the naturalistic evolutionary paradigm. Many will be aware of the work of individual scientists mentioned above, but Meyer's account shows how they contribute to the bigger picture and complement one another. This approach to science is exemplary and one hopes it will inspire young scientists to emulate their endeavours.

Where does this lead us? For the answer to that question, we must turn to Part 3 of Meyer's book.

"[T]he Cambrian explosion now looks less like the minor anomaly that Darwin perceived it to be, and more like a profound enigma, one that exemplifies a fundamental and as yet unsolved problem - the origination of animal form." (p.287)

To be continued.

Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design
by Stephen C. Meyer
HarperOne (HarperCollins), New York, 2013. 520 pp. ISBN 9780062071477.

Darwin's Doubt Website

Categories: Anti-Science News

CS Lewis (1898-1963) honoured at Westminster Abbey

ARN ID Update - Mon, 2014-02-24 03:23

Readers of Uncommon Descent will recall that mid-20th century Christian apologist C.S. Lewis's views on Darwinism and scientism have attracted considerable interest of late. And some misrepresentation as well, as some zealous followers of Darwin have tried to claim him as one of their own.

More...

Categories: Anti-Science News

For His Substance-Free Contribution to the Debate with Stephen Meyer, American Spectator Readers Pummel John Derbyshire

ARN ID Update - Mon, 2014-02-24 03:15

As reported in ENV...Congratulations to The American Spectator for having such sensible readers. Sometimes it's gratifying to find that the people who should know better actually do.

In January, the conservative magazine featured paired articles by Stephen Meyer and John Derbyshire arguing respectively for and against intelligent design. Derbyshire "argued" only in the limited sense of tossing off snide insults and trying to paint ID absurdly with the brush of "Occasionalism," a medieval theological concept.

More...

Categories: Anti-Science News

ID Proponent Schools Theistic Evolutionist Theologians on Intelligent Design

ARN ID Update - Mon, 2014-02-24 03:00

Christian Post contributor Anugrah Kumar writes that Casey Luskin, a proponent of Intelligence Design, says that most theistic evolutionists appear to be unfamiliar with what ID theorists say, and they wrongly maintain that it's a "God of the gaps" argument.

More...

Categories: Anti-Science News

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 23:29
Post by midwifetoad
This is kind of slow, but here's a few Barry quotemines and their discussion at talkorigins:

[blockquote]No wonder paleontologists shied away from

evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]

[blockquote]I wish in no way to impugn the potential

validity of gradualism . . . I wish only to point out

that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]


[blockquote]The fossil record with its abrupt

transitions offers no support for gradual change

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]

[blockquote]At the higher level of evolutionary

transition between basic morphological designs,

gradualism has always been in trouble

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]


[blockquote]The absence of fossil evidence for

intermediary stages between major transitions in organic

design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination,

to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has

been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic

accounts of evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-3.html

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]With the benefit of hindsight, it is amazing

that paleontologists could have accepted gradual

evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a

handful of supposedly well-documented lineages

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-4.html

[/blockquote]


[blockquote]The main problem with such phyletic

gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little

evidence for it.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-1.html

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]f we examine the fossil record in detail,

whether at the level of orders or of species, we find –

over and over again – not gradual evolution

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-4.html

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]yet to preserve our favored account of

evolution by natural selection we view our data as so

bad that we almost never see the very process we profess

to study

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]



[blockquote]The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became

an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left

ignored

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]The main impetus for expanding the view that

species are discrete at any one point in time, to

embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil

record.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

[/blockquote]



[blockquote]The record certainly did not reveal gradual

transformations of structure in the course of time.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

[/blockquote]




[blockquote]Many species remain virtually unchanged for

millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be

replaced by a quite different, but related, form.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]When we do see the introduction of

evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....3.html[

blockquote]

[blockquote]if you do collect a series of fossils up

through a sequence of sedimentary rock, and if you don’t

see much evidence of anatomical change through that

series, that is indeed evidence that substantial gradual

evolutionary change has not occurred

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....-2.html

[/blockquote]
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 22:42
Post by N.Wells
Quote N.Wells was talking like this is a theory dreamed up at church on a whim after watching a Discovery Institute video
You're the one talking up religion and offering proud support to creationist/IDist positions:
Quote To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer: .....

From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness.......  

Quote Respecting the past this way, makes the theory very faith-friendly and useful there.  And where the planet sizzles or has another ice-age that makes technology all gone it’s then only what religion can make sense of that easily carries on.  Not that I become a Jesus it’s actually here more from the emerging legend of Kathy Martin who to spite their religious way of seeing things prevailed, with help from a science guy who focused on the science work while explaining important connections that parallel religion that keeps the search for our Creator going for at least a few more hundred years hopefully forever.

Quote Theory can now read so much like Genesis I could go on and on about how things are for the most part working out well for what you would call "creationists".

However, my point was more nuanced: your approach to knowledge is more like a religious approach than a scientific approach, in that you make assertions based on what seems self-evident to you, and you have no interest in testing your ideas or supporting them scientifically.  You apparently just expect your audience to accept your stuff on faith, because you sure aren't making your case in ways that are scientific.



Re Anirban Bandyopadhyay:  I stick by my statement that his "organic computer" work seems potentially really important.  I agree that the paper you cited is odd in many ways, including its grammar and jargon and its somewhat problematic venue (the MPDI organization that publishes "Information" has got itself into trouble in recent years for publishing some truly crappy articles).  I also agree that this is far outside my specialty (so I could easily be wrong).  Nonetheless, Bandyopadhyay's "molecular organic computer" stuff from a few years ago (an earlier phase of this research) was published in Nature Physics, sounded very exciting, and got a lot of good press that spelled out immense potential for his line of work if he is right only on a small fraction of his ideas (e.g., http://www.gizmag.com/organic....).  

Bandyopadhyay has been part of a large group of people at prestigious places like Japan's National Institute for Materials Science, Michigan Technological University, and Japan's National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, and they've been publishing in prestigious places like http://www.nature.com/nphys....6.html, with funding from places like NSF.   Whatever the shortcomings of his most recent paper, Bandyopadhyay's stuff is at least well enough done that it's hard to dismiss it out of hand, while yours falls far short of that and is obviously crappy to anyone (except you) who reads it.  One of the commenters on the website you cited said, "Trying to figure out some extremely intricate, extremely unconventional computer architecture based on undefined words, unrelated buzz words, and insufficient detail is not worth my time, and probably is not even possible. [/quote]".  Except for "extremely intricate .... computer architure",  the other things in that complaint apply better to your crap than to Bandyopadhyay's - how come you are so blinded to your own shortcomings?
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 22:08
Post by JohnW
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,13:41) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
He's hit the jackpot:
Quote Talk to Walter Brown and associates
Joe, you do know that's tantamount to saying "i know absolutely fuck all about basic, middle-school-level physics", don't you?
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 21:55
Post by socle
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 18 2014,15:41)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
Nice to see Wally B's Hydropants Theory getting a mention by Joe in that thread.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 21:41
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 18 2014,15:34)See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Joe: "Nope, I have no interest in the Bible other than it is a collection of old books."

but also

Joe: "And I only hate atheists who misrepresent the Bible"

and "What Bible are you using? And why do all Bible scholars disagree with you?

“And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered” (KJV).

High hills,not mountains.

See also- http://www.answersingenesis.org/....sis.org "

and

Joe: "And yes a 6,000 year old earth is dumb and it isn't part of the Bible"

And also:

That whole page is a shrine to his Tard.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 21:34
Post by OgreMkV
See Joe argue in support of Noah's flood: http://www.skepticink.com/tipplin....e-flood
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 19:20
Post by NoName
It makes just as much sense after running through a length-5 markov chain generator with Gary's latest screed as the input text:
"I also much labs are all stay learning that biologically this means forum could be religious important that are, from anyway, and that most makes N.Wells electronically already happening my best advice, forum, they can't be no sense for the evidence is across they were about best) is not have that separated and Creator a reputations of what just having ago illustrated and all stay learned, I honestly the religious, which happening, from the ways, how the odd one all standard that or we have to figuring implication, have the way for ID. In my best route possible to ID or else Creating like Guenter them with what that they already have to model one all the Theory of that going entists across to making like: Someone else Creation, have to try to science work make the madness, to go crazy trying the two parts or not care all you want eventually this for this means for have the best opinion the religious implicate is whether end of Intelligence is saying entific abyss they really can't want them honest of that are the scientists them. As long able excitemention the explain jelly sure the descripture, and are, and left the complain jelly don't best of cells the brain their lab geniuses were like them with the odd one the madness, to makes N.Wells the science working all starts or we have to do together end one out it's OK to fight somethink that going out it's OK to complained and does no fun, for those what keep them, while I found online (and what way. The the research busy in them magnets and are about work so ment, which happens anyway, the part what see the religious, while I focus on things does not having double to go crazy try to go away, and other should fit to components or else scientionists attractal abyss, going useful information the understood explanations of that eventually do with cells electronically happy for the paradigms are a bit overing as always of that way human brain jelly already work so it makes N.Wells the Brain jelly surgery paper hell parated that see that biology labs are unexpectrum any eventually this for me to try figuring what field (not even want to compete with cells electrum could fit to come from fractal” being no see then the expected fanfare. I earning, from what the rever this means for them with the Brain jelly having of cells the odd one that them in the brains to slap they can't way. That the most need theory of me. That I long as the words something as far as the science level at the descripture, from anyone else Creator all standard the paper hell oppose where essentirely doing the best advice, from the ways, how a self-defeation I focus on and Creating my honestly the odd online (and such. Also much lab get stuck in the understood in the madness, to model one else about where about where essentionists and such. Also much like that the church of ID and whatevered, the middle of whatever loaded example of Intelligence. In the beforehand online (and as evidence to change for our the describing what real then this case the level at the expert discussion I found of a human brain jelly different Design most played hymn/anthem, while I focus on thing that intelligence level up to sense for our case them in the words like Guenter their lab get stuck in that see the explanations of a concerned and hope the Theory of our their lab get stuck in the two parts. In my honest of that are a bit over the road overbial abyss, to Creator a reputationists the parated about words like: Someone all stay learned, the complained a real that are all excited for these. And all excited for othere we happening, from the brain jelly surgery paper make surgery paper is cases, as it makes a good so much like: Someone out what keep the road overbial abyss, to figuring double starts of the way. Theory of a context of ID or go away, anyway, that going what just having as always of the madness, to change for the excited a real the science is describing ago illustrated and does no coming the religious important to do together the brains to change forum could be prover loaded explaints from in the others like Guenter they just happens forum has been Sheryl Crow - Soak Up Theory of what that most need to sense for me to makes a good in the madness, to sense forum anotech like the components from in this means from fractal” being in the religious, which happens from what field (not on the two part whethere. I also ment but not event, which make surgery paper helps show the paper helps should look like Guenter those whether this for the explaints from. That the works out. Missing able excited fanfare. In anyway, that way for those where like Guenter the middle of science is context of a helps show the excited from discussion Science is where we are that are all excited from anotech lab geniuses context of scientists attractal” being together for ID. In both of what that just having able standard that the The Sun or else"
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Tue, 2014-02-18 19:06
Post by jeffox
There must be some kind of way I can speak
Said the GooGoo to the chief
There's so much confusion
In my head, where's relief?
Scientific in my mind
Yet I'm just not heard
No one will ever give me time
Intelligent fractal is turfed . . . .
Hey!
No reason to be enlightened
The chief he snidely spoke
You don't belong here among us
Cuz your brain is high on hope
But I know you've been told that
And this is not your aim
So please do not talk to these folks
Your tard is getting great
Hey!
All along the science blog
Real brains kept the clue
While all the shitheads came and went
And ol' Goo Goo, too
Outside in the ID tardcage
They all did hoot
You scientists just aren't dumb enough!
And that goes up our snoot . . . .
Hey!  

(The 'Heys' are for the Jimi Hendrix version)
(May Bobby Dylan forgive me)
           
Categories: AE Public BB

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
Syndicate content