AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: ChemiCat

form_srcid: ChemiCat

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.92.182.0

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is 54.92.182.0

form_author:

form_srcid: ChemiCat

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'ChemiCat%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2014/12/14 05:15:56, Link
Author: ChemiCat
As a long time follower of this thread I would like to say that Gaulin has now flipped from deranged to homicidal.

I would suggest that any further communication with him is via the police or other such authorities.

He has now shown himself to be totally insane.

Date: 2014/12/14 12:09:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
"Yes, they should all report this thread to the US legal authorities. It would not be an inconvenience. The United States Department of Homeland Security is most likely already a reader, due to their interest in "culture war" related affairs where anonymous participants (such as in this thread representing mostly Atheism) use social media to fan the flames of global war."

I understand that English is not your native language and your reading comprehension is next to zero but this statement is just too ridiculous for words.

Your persecution fantasy needs professional treatment as soon as possible.

Date: 2015/02/05 08:51:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
A bit of background about why I came to this forum.

I am an ex-chemist with a grounding in organic analysis. I stumbled across the phrase "molecular intelligence" and came here to see this new research into an area of chemistry of which I hadn't heard.

Imagine my disappointment when I discovered it was just an unsubstantiated and untested assertion by a creationist trying to smuggle "the Trinity" into science. Even worse was the time I wasted trying to make sense of 40+ pages of incomprehensible drivel. It should be a criminal act to mangle the English language like that.

So, Mr Gaulin, are you going to test this assertion and publish your test results as evidence so that we can verify them? Or, as I suspect, are you just going to throw insults and ignore the need for YOU to provide said evidence?

I would like to thank sincerely the efforts, patience and stamina of both NoName and N. Wells for exposing the stupidity of this "theory".

Date: 2015/02/05 17:26:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Thank you, Mr Gaulin.
"Clues to the origin of intelligent living things are found in rudimentary molecular systems such as self-replicating RNA. Since these are single macromolecules that can self-learn they are more precisely examples of ‚ÄúUnimolecular Intelligence‚ÄĚ, as opposed to ‚ÄúMolecular Intelligence‚ÄĚ, which may contain millions of molecules all working together as one, to self-replicate."


So "unimolecular intelligence" only applies to single molecules as opposed molecular intelligence which applies to complex assemblies of molecules?

A number of questions;

1. What are the "clues" you refer to and how do we identify them?

2. How do they "self-learn"? Read chemistry books?

3. What is the difference between a "unimolecule" and a molecule

I still see nothing but bald assertions without any test data or experimentation to even attempt to explain how the molecules (singular and complex) assemble themselves "intelligently " into "intelligence".

Or do you just mean the laws of Physics and Chemistry are the "intelligence"?

Date: 2015/02/05 17:33:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Thanks NoName.

I have read some of the 400+ pages of this forum(not all as I have better things to do with my time) and I think I realise that Mr. Gaulin knows nothing about chemistry, physics or biology. The "extract" he gives in his reply to me is a large number of random words thrown together to sound sciency, nothing more.

Date: 2015/02/05 17:40:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
"And by the way ChemiCat, this information that appears under your name indicates that you are not being truthful in regards to why you came to this forum:"

And why is this not the truth, Mr Gaulin?

I did join this forum in 2013 because that is when I came across your, very misleading, phrase "molecular intelligence". How is this dishonest?

I have not posted a lot to this forum because I was waiting to see whether your claims were anything more than hot air from a creationist. They aren't.

I await your apology and retraction.

Date: 2015/02/06 10:37:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So no apology for your slur, Gaulin. As expected.

Now answer the questions I gave you.

You do realise that "unimolecular" has a very specific meaning in chemistry, don't you. I suspect it is a word you came across accidentally and thought it would look good if you teamed it, erroneously, with "intelligence"

Once you have finished with that one, perhaps you can explain "bimolecular" and "termolecular" in the same context.

You don't get to redefine specific scientific terms without supplying the reason and evidence for so doing. It makes you look as though you don't have a clue about science.

Date: 2015/02/07 03:49:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Ah, I see now. The famous chemistry text book... the Merriam-Webster dictionary! Silly me and after I had to buy all those expensive text books when I only needed to buy this one!

Now try this SCIENTIFIC definition.

Wikipedia

That still doesn't explain how you have the gall to smuggle "intelligence" into your "theory" of "unimolecular intelligence".

Date: 2015/02/07 07:09:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Ironically, I just had a 12 hour marathon rebuilding the Hamada RS34LSII satellite color head after a part went that had it down for a day and needed roller work real bad. The main parent unit for 1 color jobs runs real nice now. But the second color head was on the to-do list for too long (to keep up with rush work that has been keeping it too busy to have it down for a rebuild) and it ran out of time yesterday for a rush two color job with enough solid that the job would have to dry overnight to run through again. Either way it would have have taken two days to get to the paper cutter and look better once through while the color head keeps perfect register with the other.


This is as incomprehensible as the extract from your "theory" you put in your answer to me earlier.

Date: 2015/02/07 09:06:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
NoName,

Yes I have noticed but I was waiting for Gaulin to answer my questions.

I was going to query his bald assertion that RNA is "unimolecular" when it is a polymeric molecule. (Also referred to as a macromolecule).

I have read the extract he gave and the number of errors and unsupported assertions in it makes me wonder if he reads and/or understands the random jumble (or should that be jungle?) of words he types.

It would take a longer time than I am prepared to commit to his "theory" to explain how wrong he is.

Date: 2015/02/07 16:11:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Thanks both of you. I was beginning to realise that a "scientist" who does not take criticism of his work is beyond help.

Gaulin, when a scientist submits a theory and is told what is wrong with it he goes away and investigates where he /she went wrong. Then re-submits the work with any corrections. This is how science self-corrects errors. You however do not do this therefore the only conclusion is that what you do is not science. At best it is an idea that should be discarded.

As has been pointed out at length by N. Wells and NoName you do not even begin to understand the scientific terms you abuse. Worse, when asked to define them, you cannot do so. Until you include definitions and testable experimental results in your "theory" you have nothing but indecipherable word salad.

Date: 2015/02/08 09:26:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[QUOTE]I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you.

I must get to work!

If using "unimolecular" to describe the properties of RNA isn't nonstandard usage please tell us what is.

Yes, you must get to work and rewrite your "theory" in standard usage English. Then we can get to the specific errors and mistakes you have made in chemical terminology.

Date: 2015/02/09 16:32:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
With brains like ours called "Multicellular" and Guenter and others having long ago established what is from the "Cell" or "Cellular" level there is no question which one of the remaining one is where the "Molecular" realm is at. It's such commonsense logic the only thing you can scientifically do is get used to standard naming convention working out that way, work with it.


This is absolutely incomprehensible. Do you mean that a cell is a molecule? Do you mean that a molecule rules a realm? Who calls a multicellular brain "Guenter?

You still have not retracted the statement that RNA is "unimolecular". It is not. It is polymeric. This is such a basic error that it blows away your whole "theory".

Date: 2015/02/10 04:13:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Once again writing that can make you say "What?" is made gone for you by not trying to sort out a Theory Of Operation like a research paper. Brain related detail found on Wikipedia is not needed for theory either, which would simplify the Speciation section. And what's in the Speciation section then mostly goes with the Molecular Intelligence section. It might help to combine that information too. Thoughts?


What?

Date: 2015/02/10 05:59:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I've found this for you, Gaulin.

Coursera

Perhaps combine it with an English grammar course and then rewrite your "theory".

Date: 2015/02/10 11:11:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin says;
Quote
What?


I thought you would not understand. It is a science course that you need to take to see how science really works. It gives you a grounding in how to use computers to create algorithms. It is definitely a course you need.

Date: 2015/02/12 03:17:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
"A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem."
Theory of operation

 
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby behavior of matter powers the trinity (three) level reciprocal causation pathway of systematically identical (in each other's image, likeness) intelligence levels we contain.



Gaulin, how does the first quote relate to your quote? I see no description of how your "device" works, how it troubleshoots your assertions or how your assertions (unimolecular RNA, molecular intelligence etc.) make any sense as an instruction manual.

Perhaps you should identify the discrepancies in your theory before you go any further. Then you can diagnose the many problems in your "theory".

Date: 2015/02/13 03:15:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger.


Have you observed baby alligators putting sticks on birds' heads? Or is this another example of your execrable writing?

The whole of the screed you have just posted is an insult to the intelligence of thinking beings.

Date: 2015/02/16 04:00:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
That was something very cool that hit the news a year ago.
http://www.livescience.com/41898-a....ls.html
His screed is still an insult to thinking beings, just not that little bit of it, except for its grammar ("alligators .... their head ...... her mouth") and his ignoring all the species that show uniparental care or no parental care at all.


Thanks for this link. I see now it is the crocodiles that put the sticks on THEIR own heads. Not as Gaulin's screed reads on the birds' heads.

Can somebody please direct me to an English to Gaulinese? dictionary

Date: 2015/02/16 10:25:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Its soft, white, comes on a roll with not much writing. Cheaper in quantity, tears easily and is hopefully biodegradable.


But, but will nobody think of the poor trees that are going to be desecrated by having his rubbish printed on them.

Date: 2015/02/19 08:26:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I wonder how GG will incorporate this into his "theory"?

http://phys.org/news.......ns.html

Date: 2015/02/20 03:08:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.
It's not even English.

I can't find any reference to the Pre-Cambrian in your not-science "theory", Gaulin.

Date: 2015/02/21 04:18:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you believe that the computer model(s) and their accompanying theory of operation are "not-science" then you should be thankful for helping to convince me that the rulers of what you call "science" are totally useless to someone like me.

You can now all go live in your own little "science" universe where you have to fund your own damn projects, like the rest of us must do.


The "theory of operation" is totally disconnected from your Pac-man simulation. Your "computer model(s)" have nothing to do with your unstated definition of "intelligence".
Your "theory of operation" claims RNA is "unimolecular", RNA isn't unimolecular. And on and on it goes. In poor English grammar and borrowed scientific phrases. Your "theory of operation" is a list of untestable assertions trying to force a creator (intelligent cause) into science.

If you have spent money on this "theory" then I have a slightly used Royal Palace to sell you so you can become the Ruler of Science.

 
Quote
.....like the rest of us must do.


By that do you mean you and Time Cube guy?

Date: 2015/02/21 08:29:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a linear molecule composed of four types of smaller molecules called.....


Not only can't you write in English you cannot READ English either.

So five molecules in a chemical compound are really one! ROFL.

That's two more entities than in your "intelligent cause" so beats your three. Don't try to play Poker, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/03/20 11:56:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
That or he seriously expects Wesley to be jealous that Gary's life is unburdened with files and reference materials and supporting paperwork of various forms, and so could move to that cute spot under the bridge with very little effort.


Or Wesley is jealous that he can't make unsupported assertions and expect to have them accepted as a "theory" or "model".

Date: 2015/03/21 11:16:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
How did you like Wesley's backing up of the "evolving intelligence" claim?


Perhaps when you finally provide your definition of "Intelligence" I can reply to this question.

It is not science when you do not define your terms.

Date: 2015/03/22 13:22:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
From what I can gather a group of evolutionary biologists are using the public schools to teach an Avida based Darwinian theory that misrepresents what is actually going on in ‚Äúcognitive science‚ÄĚ and what cognitive scientists are working on. With the Google search engine now taking a "best guess" all that I have been explaining is already here anyway, including in what has been described as superhuman intelligence "future robot overlords" for us to welcome and/or beware of.

Instead of objective theory that systematically explains why IBM Watson and other systems indeed scientifically qualify as ‚Äúintelligent‚ÄĚ a branch of evolutionary biology is teaching subjective methods where unintelligent things like reaching a goal is good enough of a metric to use as a qualifier, even though such generalizations do not in reality work for those who actually model intelligence (cognitive scientists). Not even the Watson or Google machine intelligence now all around us right now wants anyone to take credit away from their meeting the systematic requirements that also makes sense along with what Arnold Trehub and David Heiserman explained about the basic systematic features of intelligence.

The need to misrepresent my work could be the tip of an iceberg that's in the way of scientific progress now being made in all of cognitive science. Something way bigger than me, where I'm just one of the passengers who needs to help keep watch for those in our way. I'll from here shout out the above alarm to at least cause Wesley to have to rearrange the deck chairs of what they are aboard, while I further work on the computer model that makes it possible for others elsewhere to not have to stop there


A long screed just to say you have no definition for your misrepresentation of "Intelligence".

With no definitions you are not doing science.

BTW, how is your search for an unimolecular RNA coming along?

Date: 2015/03/23 07:28:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
http://news.stanford.edu/news....15.html


Thanks, N. Wells, That is a fascinating article. Do you know if there is a video of the effect?

Of course, Gaulin is going to claim that this was predicted by his "theory" or is illustrated by his "model". Probably because his bug bumps into boundaries or something.

Date: 2015/03/24 04:46:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Thanks for the video, people. For some reason when I visit the page there  is no embedded video.

[/QUOTE]In order to get science work done...[QUOTE]

.....I need to provide definitions of what I am talking about.

FTFY

Date: 2015/03/25 11:47:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
"Particle forces from Entity." What the hell does this even mean? Why capitalise "entity"? What do you mean by "entity"? How are molecules "controlled"?

This is pure gibberish, I bet the Gibbers have better command of English than Gaulinese, though.

This is what happens to science when you try to force an Entity into it.

Please, Gaulin, take this rubbish to the trash.

Date: 2015/03/26 09:59:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I can add the word "Level" to the illustration to become "Molecular Level Intelligence" but that's the best I can do for you, when I have time.


No, the best you can do for us is scrap the whole load of rubbish and turn it into compost. At least then you can grow vegetables for your family and stop complaining about how scientists are preventing you from earning a living.

When you won't answer criticisms of this "theory" or explain in ENGLISH what you mean then the whole thing should be expunged from history.

Date: 2015/03/27 03:42:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
See:
Unified Particle Simulations and Interactions in Computer Animation
[URL=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....PWbvH5k


So, according to you, Pixar are at the cutting edge of biological science. Or are you saying that your "model" is just a crude animation and way behind CGI professionals?

It still hasn't answered the question but that's only one in a long, long queue of avoided questions.

You are not a cognitive scientist. You are at best a dishonest nutcase.

Date: 2015/03/28 13:59:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Once upon a time two elemental particles met up and fell in love. From their love an element developed (don't ask how, it's only a "theory"). This element met another element (not the same element...that's Yucky). From their love sprang a molecule with "intelligence". This molecule met a cell and between them they created an "intelligent" cell which somehow became a multicell (missing out single cell clusters... again Yucky). The "intelligence" had now increased exponentially and became a "model" (not that type of "model".. that's dirty.) and they all lived, happily ever after, in the imagination of somebody called Gaulin

Date: 2015/04/03 15:38:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[/QUOTE]The Treachery of Images.


Gary only thinks superficially in simple images and literal meanings. There is no ability to do deep fundamental analysis.

Gary name this artist.[QUOTE]

Ah! Merci, cette un Neuron!

Date: 2015/04/06 01:40:07, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I'll just leave this here, it makes more sense.

Unwin

Date: 2015/04/11 16:29:56, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin, your science envy is showing again.

Your "theory" and "model" add nothing to the cognitive sciences. You distort the definitions of commonly used words and phrases to fit your prejudices.

You, to put it politely, "borrow" from reputable scientists' work and try to fit it into a framework that has nothing to do with their original papers. You latch on to words you think will sound good in your drivel without the faintest idea of what they mean. Have you contacted any of the authors you have "borrowed" from to ask if they accept your use of their works? I bet the answer is a resounding no. And, further, I bet that they would totally reject your distortion of their works.

Your "theory" is a stranger to your "model" and your "model" has never been on the same planet as your "theory".

You have no testable, repeatable predictions in your "theory" and your bug (with a hippocampus!) is not a model of anything remotely connected to cognition or biology.

And you still haven't said how molecules have "intelligence" or why RNA is unimolecular. Because you don't understand what you are typing and are incapable of defending your "work".

In fact you are a failure who blames other people for your poverty and poor health instead of placing the situation firmly where it belongs, with you.

Date: 2015/04/12 08:04:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Pages of information were already provided to you:


Gaulin, there may be pages of what you, erroneously, refer to as "information" but they do not amount to anything more than assertions without any evidence to support them. You have nothing testable or repeatable in any of your fantasies about what is "real-science".

The number of words you do not understand is now a pile so high that it requires oxygen to reach the summit.

Date: 2015/04/15 11:32:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You need to learn the difference between "simple" and "simplistic."


First he'd have to learn English.

Date: 2015/04/17 11:18:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I can imagine Gaulin buying an IKEA bookcase and insisting that it made a chair when he put it together.

Quote
I'll bet Gary's wife dreams of going to Ikea for an argument.

Date: 2015/04/17 15:37:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Eames reviewed it and said it was awesome.


And Planet Source Code said they would look at it when they had time but still gave it a globe.

Date: 2015/04/19 15:04:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So, Gaulin, still "borrowing" other peoples' work and claiming it fits with your B-S.

You didn't even read the paper or you would see that it has absolutely nothing to do with your "model" at all.

Date: 2015/04/23 01:27:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have been carefully studing this review of modeling methods and evidence.


Does this mean that you are copulating with or to it?

It is for mistakes like this that your "theory" and "model" are a meaningless pile of rubbish. It is only suitable for landfill as it is not recyclable.

Your mistaken concepts of "molecular intelligence", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" are not grounded with scientific evidence, as has been pointed out by N. Wells over and over again. For a start you ignore cellular clusters because they kick a big hole in your "theory".

You have added nothing to cognitive science, in fact adoption of your "theory/model" would send the research backwards not forwards.

Date: 2015/04/24 03:44:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[QUOTE]We are though both trying to understand the same thing. If it is in the future discovered that something works differently then I will (aside from necessarily referencing all else to the map instead of other possible way to do the exact same thing) make appropriate changes.....[QUOTE]

In an appropriate English phrase...utter bollocks.

You are not doing Nobel level work, you are lying about endorsements of your rubbish, you are taking credit for other peoples' work and you are not doing "real-science".

Gaulin, to use a modern idiom, get a life.

Date: 2015/04/24 12:23:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
WOH THERE NEDDY!!


Sorry, k.e., but dishonesty on this scale really gets my goat.

Gaulin brings science into disrepute by claiming a Nobel laureate supports his rubbish.

(Don't know why the quote worked this time but not the last).

Date: 2015/04/27 03:59:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If Gary had anything resembling a real scientific theory he'd be burying us under all his evidence.  He wouldn't care what it was called because he'd have the data to back it up.


Even simpler Gaulin could define his terminology in his own way and give us a clue as to what he wants his mangled English to mean.

To start he could define his usage of "intelligence" "best guess" and the other scientific terminology he renders useless in his "theory".

Once he has done this he can give us some way of testing his "theory".

I won't hold my breath waiting as he still has to justify "molecular intelligence".

Date: 2015/04/28 03:56:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Just do what I do to test the model.


How can I alter the parameters of your "model" to check that what YOU are programming is founded on reality? Especially when your "insect" has an hypothalamus?

Quote
It is far better to have a tentative operational definition than mislead yourself into believing that you have one that can has been fully tested, ground truthed, whatever.


So it is safe to work on an electrical circuit before unplugging it from the mains?

Gaulin, the only time you've been correct was when you called your "theory" and "model" the shit on the bathroom wall.

Date: 2015/04/29 03:27:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It's not my fault that Charles Darwin only had a simple outside view of a complex intelligent system (that causes speciation) and did not have enough detail for a working model of it. If he did then he would have possibly like me have reached a point where the model would require a theory of operation (to explain how it works).


I'm not sure quite what this is supposed to mean but it appears that Gaulin thinks that a "complex intelligent system" causes speciation.

Quote
At this point in time it's more like helping to pioneer a relatively new area of science where for all the goal ends up becoming to model living things in molecular level detail, with what can be fairly described as an ID Lab of the future.


The problem here, Gaulin, is that you are using a covered wagon and scientists are driving a racing car.

Date: 2015/05/06 02:52:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So, I go away for a few days over the Bank Holiday, (Yes, I'm English), and Gaulin spews more Not-science onto the 'net.

Gaulin, ¬†  
Quote
I explained how to model the process, from the behavior of matter on up.


No you didn't. You have made nothing but assertions that are Not-science. No explanations or definitions, no testable methods, nothing, nada, zilch.

Where is the "unimolecular RNA"? Where is the "molecular intelligence"? Where is the "cellular intelligence"?

You are just throwing "sciency" words around like a monkey throwing faeces.

Quit trying to force your religion into science as it does not belong here. There is no trinity in your theory, there is no "intelligent cause". In fact the whole ID phrase you qoute is trivial and explains nothing, just like your Not-science "theory".

Also, the British phrase is "Yank my chain", not meant as an insult to you Yanks. Now I need to wash my brain as I can't remove the image of Gaulin "Wanking his chain". YUK.

Date: 2015/05/09 03:23:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I need to get back to the programming work.


Choosing which cable channel to watch?

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.


Please list the "certain features" that you claim need "intelligence" to explain. Identify this "intelligence" outside of the already listed features i.e. symphonies, poetry, buildings vehicles etc. List the features that DO NOT require "intelligence" as an explanation. Then link it to your Not-science "theory".

I won't hold my breath as you are just another ID liar and plagiarist.

Date: 2015/05/11 02:57:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.


I suppose your particular gods are the "intelligence" without "evolution". It is difficult what point you are making with this sentence.

As you haven't answered any of my other questions in a meaningful way, I'll risk asking another couple;

Can you give an example, with evidence, of an intelligence without a physical body which is subject to evolution (change over time)?

Can you demonstrate, again with evidence, that "intelligence" (your definition, if you have one) is the guiding force for "evolution" (as you see it)?

To sum up, you seem to believe that "intelligence" is needed before "evolution" can occur. This is just trying to force your particular gods into science.

If my translaton of your poor English isn't correct please try to explain it isn't without linking to your Not-science "theory

Date: 2015/05/13 04:23:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.


And I again suppose that this precludes your Not-science theory as well. I thought it said that "intelligence" was molecular in the beginning, I must be wrong when translating the Gaulinese.

So where does your "theory" or "model" state which molecule it was that came before life?* That should be an easy one for you to answer as you say you already have that in your "theory".

Can I propose that it was "intelligent" H2O? See, how easy it is to make assertions? Perhaps you should become a Homeopath.

* With the usual proviso that scientific evidence is required.

Date: 2015/06/13 03:27:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Again, at the other site, GG is claiming that his "theory" explains the origin of intelligence.  We went through that here a month or so ago, and he was never able to tell us what the origin of intelligence was.  How about it, Gary, are you lying to them as you've been doing with us, or can you identify the origin of intelligence?


Hi Jim
Just back from a few weeks in Canada and I see that nothing has changed here.

Of course Gaulin cannot identify the origin of intelligence, he has no intelligence himself.

EvC is another (of the many) websites where he has been handed his arse in a brown paper bag. If he had "intelligence" he would have given up his hopeless "theory" and ludicrous "model" by now.

Date: 2015/06/13 09:02:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote
Driverless Trucks to Hit Alberta’s Oilsands Region Replacing $200,000/yr Operators; Big Layoffs Coming

Suncor Energy Inc., Canada‚Äôs largest oil company, confirmed this week it has entered into a five-year agreement with Komatsu Ltd., the Japanese manufacturer of earthmoving and construction machines, to purchase new heavy haulers for its mining operations north of Fort McMurray. All the new trucks will be ‚Äúautonomous-ready,‚ÄĚ meaning they are capable of operating without a driver, Suncor spokesperson Sneh Seetal said.

http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015.......tml?m=1


Does this mean that you now work for Komatsu making driverless vehicles? Komatsu are using your stupid "bug" to drive trucks? Or is it just another of your irrelevant brain-farts?

Date: 2015/06/14 01:25:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Let's just say I wanted to show where you now stand in comparison to the rest of the world. Punishing innovative ideas that do not serve your religious agendas has been a disaster just waiting to happen.


And as I said it is entirely irrelevant to your crappy "theory" or "bug not-a-model". We can now add technology to the looong list of items you cannot even begin to understand.

Komatsu has intelligent scientists, planners and engineers working for it. You are a part-time sign-writer who would never be employed by the company. See the difference? If you can't seek professional medical treatment.

Date: 2015/06/14 16:27:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Hey, um... you guys do know he's crazy, right?


Yes, but we are trying to get Gaulin to admit it so he can get the appropriate treatment.

Date: 2015/06/15 00:49:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
We can now add the claim that scientists would love to be proven wrong about ID theory to the list of bullshit that has been fed to the general public.


So present your "evidence" for ID (which is not a theory, BTW) in understandable English. All you have so far are unsubstantiated assertions without back up evidence. There are no testable predictions, no mathematical attempts to quantify your "theory", no connection between your poor imitation of Pacman and your "theory".

Name one cognitive scientist who has used anything in your "theory" to advance our understanding. Name one scientist who has used your "Bug" to explain intelligence. You can't, can you?

All you have done is plagiarise the work of others, send cognitive science backwards and spread bullshit all over it.

Your "theory is not science, get a clue.

Date: 2015/06/15 02:11:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I already presented way more than enough evidence, many times:


No you haven't. Your "theory" is an evidence-free, badly written and just a list of unsupported assertions.

Give us just one prediction from your "not-science theory".

We have already falsified many of your ideas so there is nothing to discuss further.

Time for YOU to go away and reassess your wasted life.

Date: 2015/06/15 04:53:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
FIFY


Gaulin, here's an examination I have set for you based on the first assertion of your "theory" (molecular intelligence).

1) O2, H2O, H2SO4, C2H4O2
   Explain which of the above is "intelligent". Provide experimental data to justify your answer. (a bonus point for identifying the unimolecular molecule and explaining why it is.).

2) Are both inorganic and organic molecules "intelligent"? Explain your answer with an experiment to determine "molecular intelligence".

3) Does "intelligence" depend on chain length? Describe how you would demonstrate your answer.

4) When does a non-intelligent molecule begin to demonstrate "intelligence"

5) Are enzymes, amino acids and proteins intelligent? List any experiments done to determine your answer.

6) Which of the family of RNA molecules are "intelligent. How have you verified your answer.

7) How does RNA pass its "intelligence" to DNA? Define how this happens with chemical equations.

8) How does "molecular intelligence" differ from the known laws of physics and chemistry.

And the first question to part two;

1) How does DNA pass its "intelligence" to the cell? Again state experimental data to validate your answer.

No time limit so do your best to answer all the questions.

You do realise that a refusal to answer will mean that your "theory" is indefensible.

Date: 2015/06/15 10:05:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have a day job to get to. Shove your "test" up your ass too.


As predicted, you cannot answer the exam questions. Your "theory" has just been flushed down the toilet where it belongs.

Now you can see why we do not accept your not-science "theory". You have nothing more than an unsubstantiated pile of steaming bullshit.

I don't have an ass and if I did I would not inflict such an indignity and pain on the animal.

Date: 2015/06/15 10:20:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have a day job to get to. Shove your "test" up your ass too.


I'll answer for you then;

1) Don't know but Goddidit.

2) Don't know but see above

3) Ditto

4) Ditto

5) Read my "theory".

6) Ditto

7) Ditto

8) I have absolutely no idea.

1) See my "model".

Date: 2015/06/16 03:20:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin garbles
Quote
Utterly useless English


To quote a source I seem to remember; "ID is religion wrapped in a stolen lab coat".

You have wasted approximately 50 years of your life. You could have got an education and contributed to society. Instead you have done nothing to advance our knowledge, nothing to add to our understanding of cognition, added nothing to science.

Your "trinity" has been reduced to smoking ashes now that you cannot defend the first part of your "theory. This renders the rest of the steaming pile of bullshit as being not even fit to spread as fertiliser.

What a waste.

Date: 2015/06/17 00:17:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
At the moment I am working on getting wave action in the navigational network.


Whatever floats your boat, don't get seasick. You've already spewed enough vomit onto the internet.

Date: 2015/06/19 08:32:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The model and theory is for answering such questions, by modeling them.



 
Quote
Quote (Woodbine @ June 18 2015,11:22)
In what way does your simulation answer any of the questions about the origin, diversity and geographical distribution of life on Earth?

Can you please explain the connection?


Gaulin, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
So we are back to Gaulin's claim to know and describe the origin of intelligence (whatever "intelligence" means in his context). Your "theory" provides no such evidence.

Your bug does not have any diversity. Nor biogeographical distribution. Nor does it explain anything. It is time for you to put it out of its misery.

Perhaps if you included a population of your bugs in your "model" and let them evolve through competition and sexual reproduction you would have something not quite the opposite of evolution.

Don't forget you still have an exam on your "theory" to complete.

Date: 2015/06/19 18:19:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Due to the causation model having multiple self-similar levels: I'm now working on all levels of biology, at the same time, even though only the network dynamics of neural systems are well enough scientifically understood for there to be enough information to model from.


You are NOT working "on all levels of biology". Where are single cell colonies in your "not-a-theory"? How does your "model" demonstrate descent with modification? Where is your evidence for "molecular intelligence"? What contribution does it make to biochemistry? What about single cells without a neural network?

You are no more doing "all levels of biology" than  your bug is modelling anything.

You are a delusional liar doing pseudoscience and expecting us to bow down to your "theory" without thought to how rotten it is.

Date: 2015/06/20 02:05:02, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I'll play.

How does your "theory" explain single cell colonies that do not have a neural network?

(remember, you claimed to be working on "...... all levels of biology).

Date: 2015/06/20 06:30:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In a neural biological circuit that would be the cell timing that is most rewarded with confidence for making the most others fire and wire together in step with that response. It's then a challenge to find out what most excites the whole network that in turn gets a confidence reward by the navigational signals to get it where it wants to go, which is pointed out using direction vectors that lead to where it is attracted to.


So no answer then. I thought you said that you would welcome questions based on your "Not-a-theory".

If this random assembly of words (did you pick them from a hat?) is supposed to be an answer then this shows that you have no understanding of science or English.

Date: 2015/06/21 03:36:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
After explaining how one intelligence level causes another......


We have yet to see anywhere in your "Not-a-theory" where you have presented any evidence for this assertion. There is certainly nothing in there to explain your assertion of "molecular intelligence", "cellular intelligence" or your further assertion that they are linked. To paraphrase a famous advert in the USA, "Show us the evidence".

You are grasping at straws that only exist in your own mind.

Date: 2015/06/24 00:03:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
After explaining how one intelligence level causes another....


Gaulin, do you realise that you are starting with your conclusion and then....... well, nothing really. There is no methodology, no experimental data (in fact, no experiment) and this makes it just a bald assertion.

This is not how science works unless you have replaced science with "Real-Science", have you?

Date: 2015/06/29 01:00:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
N. Wells,

Do you think that Gaulin is going to understand any of this?

For a start it is in good scientific English, Gaulin speaks another language.

Second, it contains a lot of long words that won't be in Gaulin's dictionary of choice.

Third, he will have to spend days (sorry, meant seconds) looking at Wikipaedia definitions and not understanding them.

In short he will ignore all of your post.

Date: 2015/06/29 01:02:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
.....I am a fraud and a liar.


A true statement at last.

What? It's a quote-mine? It was the only sensible thing I could find in the post.

Date: 2015/06/30 08:42:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Let me see if I can make any sense of this dreck, Gaulin.

You are claiming that your "model" code shows the relationship between chemical/electro-chemical/chemical signalling between neurons. Where exactly is this relationship?

Further, where in your "not-a theory" is this explained with researched data? A page and line number will do if you have time in your busy "real-science" schedule to give them.

I won't expect an answer any time soon, what with you having such a huge backlog of unanswered questions in this forum.

Use your dictionary of choice to look up "plagiarism", Gaulin.

Date: 2015/07/01 02:28:08, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 30 2015,14:55)
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 30 2015,08:42)
I won't expect an answer any time soon, what with you having such a huge backlog of unanswered questions in this forum.

I'm not obliged to waste my time on those who cannot accept scientific definitions, demand that I meet their religious expectations.


"Religious", another word to add to the long, long list of words that Gaulin does not or cannot understand.

Gaulin, nowhere in my post is any reference to anything "religious". The only one trying, desperately, to force your religion into science is you.* "Intelligent Design", "intelligent Cause", the Trinity etc, etc, etc, etc. Religion wrapped up in a lab coat!

You are desperate wannabe with a persecution complex, grow up.

* BTW, I don't have a religion, however you define it.

Date: 2015/07/01 02:31:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Machine: Nothing.


This sums up perfectly your "not-a-theory" and your attitude to answering questions.

Date: 2015/07/02 01:47:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It may seem to you like you do not have a religious world-view, but you're starting with very religious conclusions such as: any "intelligent designer" that was involved in our origin must be a sadistic supernatural dimwit who is such an incompetent engineer "He" even wired our eyes backwards.

The truth is that your opinions are extremely religiously biased. Way more than mine anyway. At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.


Another set of lies being spread by this idiot.

Gaulin, what part of "no religion" don't you understand? Where in this forum, apart from you, has anybody invoked an "intelligent designer"? Where has anybody, again apart from you, accused an "intelligent designer" a supernatural dimwit? The only dimwit around here is you. If we change the adjective "sadistic" to "masochistic" this is a perfect description of you.

You are not doing science, you are worshipping at the feet of Casey Luskin. You are the only religious nut around here. When you call atheism a religion you are only revealing the depths of your delusions.

Date: 2015/07/03 04:10:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

Date: 2015/07/03 07:52:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is possible is a living entity too.


Having removed all the unnecessary commas and phrases this is what is left.

Do you really think this is comprehensible English?

I agree with the other comments that you are  non compos mentis.

Date: 2015/07/07 08:54:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Ironically one way to solve the problem without losing detail is to map in more than one grid size (resolution), as does a mammal brain.


Are you now claiming to be "modelling" mammals instead of bugs? I don't think so. This is yet another example of why you are not doing science.

Another question you will avoid; how many cells make up an insects "brain"?

Date: 2015/07/08 04:34:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It obviously depends on the insect's available virtual address space. A 32 bit bus fruit fly has up to 4G brain cells.


I'm shocked that I didn't work this out! Wait! Does that mean I don't get breakfast?

Date: 2015/07/13 02:20:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The real definition/premise......


That should be "The real-definition" to go with your "real-science".

Let's recap;

1) "Molecular level intelligence" - no evidence presented, a bald statement with no data to support it nor any experimental results listed.

2) " Cellular level intelligence" - again as above. A bald statement without any data to support the assertion.

3) "The real-definition/real-premise of 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." - So vague as to be meaningless, which features? Who/what is the "intelligent cause"? This is just an attempt to force a supernatural explanation into the equation.

Gaulin, you have been given the methodology of scientific investigation on numerous occasions and nothing in your "real-science theory" follows that methodology. Excuse the shouting but..YOU ARE NOT DOING SCIENCE. You are paddling in the mud of ID, a religious concept to avoid calling it creationism. All of your unsupported claims point to this conclusion.

Unless and until you can provide data and experiments to test your theory (no, your "bug" doesn't do that), make it falsifiable and remove all the assertions you are just another of the godbots trying to sound sciency without even the basic understanding of science. You have wasted many years of your life on a pile of rubbish.

Date: 2015/07/14 11:49:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I don't at all mind others searching for molecular intelligence/supreme intelligence, which may know way more than you think. This way at least some of us will continue making progress searching for something that Darwinian theory is not even for explaining. Some taking either one religiously just goes with the way science is. Only way to go with the flow is to accept it, move on.


So you finally admit that you have no idea what "molecular intelligence" is or could be. Thanks, although if you had admitted this several hundred pages ago we could have all gone home! Your "theory" is now dead, consigned to the dustbin by your own words.

Quote
The premise of the theory of ID does not require destroying Darwinian evolutionary theory. It only requires explaining how (what science would qualify as) intelligent cause works, without needing to invoke "natural selection", which was relatively easy for my preexisting theory pertaining to "intelligence" to do.

Once that is done all sorts of "certain features" of the universe and of living things like planets with the presence of atmospheric oxygen are best explained as having an intelligent cause, not "natural selection". The first thing you think of is that indicating intelligent life may exist on that planet. The theory then becomes useful for sorting out what (molecular, cellular, multicellular) stage of development its living things are at.

The "evo" that is in Darwinian theory is sometimes connected to the "devo" that happens over our lifetime with the "evo-devo" word. But where there are three levels of intelligence working at once where the one Sal is working on the RAM for can easily be billions of years old it's "devo" all the way on up to us. A "devo-devo-devo" mechanism at work. There is no evo-devo even possible, which simplifies things. Only have to (where not obvious) be specific as to which level of the three is being explained. That is a part of makes the theory so useful to the ID minded. Darwinian theory is so completely separated it's another thing entirely that's good to have been made gone, but without what floats your boat going away. Talking about RM+NS "evolution" becomes a yawn we are not much interested in. But to each their own, so be it.

I don't at all mind others searching for molecular intelligence/supreme intelligence, which may know way more than you think. This way at least some of us will continue making progress searching for something that Darwinian theory is not even for explaining. Some taking either one religiously just goes with the way science is. Only way to go with the flow is to accept it, move on.

What matters to science are things like the genetic RAM information that I found useful. I can honestly say that Sal will likely make sense of that part of the system way ahead of me but I don't mind, I need the help. I earlier mentioned that being one of the reasons why I was not even attempting to model that level of detail. It's sometimes best for me to leave all the glory for figuring out what is missing to someone else, so that they are empowered by what took them to scientifically explain. I can then just cheer them on. No competition at all. I can tell that they are looking for the right thing. Anything else they can explain contributes even more to the Theory of Intelligent Design by being where it's section on Molecular Level Intelligence "REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 ‚Äď SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY" having to go for further information on how that part of the system works. There is an exact place in the theory that's made just for them and are welcomed to become what ends up rewriting that section. This keeps it so that it's not something I myself control. The theory is meant to be a group empowerment thing, where others only have to explain it on a forum we get linked to become the expert on where to begin modeling that part of the system.

Having to also work in code makes it so that it has to be the real thing great theories are made of, where reading scripture and prayer are not expected to make yet unwritten computer programs poof into a folder file. In this case science and religion are kept very well separated. You cannot ask for better than that. Which in turn has you up against a sound theory that never once goes out of bounds of science with a little Sal in it too now. With our not really caring what you think anyway and something like this not going away by your helping to feed it really should accept it for what it is, without protest. Just be thankful.


I suggest sending this to Slimy Sam and see what this does to his "theory". Perhaps his first language is Gaulinese.

Date: 2015/07/18 10:22:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
No, it's way too Goofy for that.


Well, it is all Mickey Mouse science.

Date: 2015/07/21 13:06:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
......I was thinking like a neuron.....


Gaulin, I think you mean "I was thinking with my only neuron".

Date: 2015/07/29 09:50:56, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Much work needs to be done


No paraqwinn, the only "work" that needs doing is "delete all". Simples.

Date: 2015/08/01 06:47:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The punishment comes from annoying critics like you who need evidence galore in a science field......


Our mistake Gaulin, we thought that science needed evidence. Your "Real-without- evidence science" had us all fooled.

Date: 2015/08/02 04:55:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The theory already accounts for all evidence I know of that exists in all of science,


Assuming that you do not mean that you know "all of science" please tell us the science behind "molecular intelligence" oh Great Polymath.

Then you can give an example of a "unimolecular" in your "model".

Then I will turn cartwheels, naked, down The Headrow, Leeds. (Not a pretty sight, I assure you).

Date: 2015/08/03 08:08:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I completely agree with NoName's assessment of your abilities and mental state, Gaulin.

You have little or no understanding of chemistry or physics. Your insistence on using the term "molecular intelligence" demonstrates this perfectly. Your "Real-science evidence-free theory" is meaningless because of this baseless assertion. There is no way that  "Terminology that fell into place..." comes from any logical reasoning. We can add "logical" to the long list of words you misuse throughout your "model" and "theory".

You would make better use of your time by trying to unify your theory with the Time Cube guy's efforts.

Date: 2015/08/04 16:41:08, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So enlighten us, oh Great Gary, fount of all science knowledge.

If molecules "learn" with their little brains, have you investigated reaction energies within chemical reactions to see if they decrease as they learn. A paper on this would not only support your "theory" but blow every objection to it out of the water.

You would then be top of the science tree and feted by all.

That is what you want isn't it?

Date: 2015/08/05 02:30:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


Gaulin, your ignorance of science is showing. Zip it!

Date: 2015/08/05 07:54:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Seeing how you must be an expert in "molecular evolution" please provide evidence that shows the transitional stages between the element Boron that according to your (hahahah!) "theory" evolved into Carbon?


The maniacal laughter looks as though you are mocking "theory" not me. But I should realise by now that your grasp of language is as lacking as your grasp of science.

Quote
The "(hahahah!)" should have made it obvious that I was mocking you and the others.


Who's the fool now? Call for Igor to raise the lightning rod!

Date: 2015/08/06 06:00:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence,


So no "Intelligent cause" necessary then, Gaulin. Just add time.....hmmm, sounds like evolution.

Date: 2015/08/06 07:16:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Origin of species by intelligent cause is certainly not "Darwinian evolutionary theory" but it's not completely wrong to oversimplify by saying that's how "evolution" really works.


But your quote from your "theory" which I copied does not mention evolution of species. Nor does it explain whatever you mean by "intelligent cause". Reading for comprehension is another of your many weaknesses. All you have said is that intelligence evolves over time. No Designer (peace be unto her), no ID cause, no theory, nothing remotely resembling science.

Sorry folks, I don't know what spell I used to invoke "The Diagram" but I'll try to be more careful in future.

Date: 2015/08/07 01:55:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Behavioral speciation happens in both chemistry and biology.


Are chemicals species now? If that is the case I seemed to have wasted six years of my life on further education! [sarcasm].

Tell us, O Great Polymath, God of all science, how and where "behavioural speciation" occurs in "chemistry" Or do we add chemistry and chemicals to the long list of Gaulin's fields of ignorance?

Date: 2015/08/08 07:41:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I ask relatively simple questions and give them the opportunity to prove their point by providing better terms, but they can't provide scientific answers, so they blame me of flailing and projecting.

This forum is running a scam.


We can't provide scientific answers because your "theory-model" is not science in any shape or form. It ignores all scientific principles and laws from physics and chemistry. It explains nothing, predicts nothing and is unfalsifiable.

All you have "achieved" is a colossal waste of your life.

We add "scam" to the Gaulin dictionary of misunderstood words.

Date: 2015/08/08 16:03:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
On second thought, a response like that makes "loony-bin" a much better choice of words than "scam".


With you as the only inmate, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/08/15 02:04:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The only single molecule system that qualified as intelligent is self-replicating RNA. From theory:


Quote
Unimolecular Intelligence

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

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

The catalytic (chemically reacts with other molecules without itself changing to a new molecular species) ability of ribonucleotide (A,G,C,U) bases combine to form useful molecular machinery. Where properly combined into strands 100 or more bases in length they become a rapidly moving molecule that can control/catalyze other molecules in their environment, and each other, including to induce each others replication. Unlike RNA that exists inside a protective cell membrane these RNA's are directly influenced by the planetary environment, which they are free to control. Modern examples include viruses that over time learned how to control the internal environment of their host to self-assemble protective shells with sensors on the outside for detecting suitable host cells to enter and control. After invading the cells other sensors detect when conditions are right to simultaneously reproduce, thereby overwhelming the immune system of their hosts, which would otherwise detect then destroy them.

REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 ‚Äď SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

The ribonucleotide sequences are a memory system that also acts as its body. On it are molecular sites, which interact with nearby molecules to produce repeatable movements/actions. Its shape can include hairpin bends that are sensitive to the chemical environment, which in turn changes the action responses of its code/memory to nearby molecules, and to each other. Their activity also changes their molecular environment, much the same way as living things have over time changed the atmosphere and chemistry of our planet. This suggests self-organization of a complex collective molecular self-learning system involving diverse molecular systems, which both compete with and sustain each other.

REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

Molecular species that can successfully coexist with others in the population and the environmental changes they cause are successful responses, which stay in the collective memory. Molecular species that fail are soon replaced by another more successful (best guess) response. The overall process must result in collective actions/reactions that efficiently use and recycle the resources available to multiple molecular species, or else there is an unsustainable chemical reaction, which ends when the reactants have consumed each other, resulting in an environmental crash.

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

For such a rapidly replicating molecule RNA editing type mechanisms can become a significant source of guesses. Also, molecular affinity, which is in part measured by the hydropathy index, will favor assimilation of complimentary ribonucleotides. Where these are in limited abundance the next best fitting molecule may replace them, or cause other changes to its structure, which may work as well or better, for their descendants. This makes it possible for these complex molecules to automatically try something new, when necessary.



Quote (Quack @ Aug. 14 2015,03:36)
Is there a demarcation somewhere, between intelligent and non-intelligent molecules? If so, what's the difference?


The above shows how to properly qualify a system like this as intelligent. All four requirements must be met. Other sections of the theory go into more detail.

Quote
What is the source of "molecular intelligence"? It is a fact that molecules are different from atoms and have properties not inherited from the atoms they are made of. So what?


There is no "source" the molecule itself is through trial and error able to "learn", which in turn makes it possible for them to "evolve". That is what makes self-replicating RNA's of such great interest to origin of life scientists.


Look! A Hall of Mirrors, I wonder what it's like. WOW! So much distortion it hurts the eyes!

"The Mirror of Chemistry" It turns it round by 180degs and stands it on its head! "The Mirror of Physics", Clever! There's nothing here! "The Mirror of Biochemistry", Distorted out of all recognition!

Has anybody ever seen Byers and Gaulin in the same room? Just wondering.

Date: 2015/08/17 01:27:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Dumbski? Really, Gaulin. The Dumbski who said that ID is the Logos of St. John? Who ran away at Dover, who lied about being an OEC to keep his job? You quote this liar and hypocrite as an authority? You are so deluded by your religion that you would be better off becoming a preacher, think of all those collection plates!

By trying to force your gods into science you are destroying any credibility you have left.

I thought envy was one on the sins you weren't allowed to practice, I may be wrong, it's a long time since I listened to that bullshit.

We add "religion" to the Gaulin Not-a-Dictionary.

Date: 2015/08/18 02:08:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design that I long saw possible is destined to survive the test of time. It adds to what the dreamers have been dreaming, without science suffering none.


This is why your "theory" (more a delusion) is and never will be accepted as anything other than the ramblings of a deranged mind. It makes no sense, is execrable grammar and has more meanings than any double entendre ever uttered.

You need help, seek it before you sink deeper into delusion.

Date: 2015/08/18 02:10:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is why your "theory" (more a delusion) is...


Garydamnit! missed a "not".

Date: 2015/08/20 11:58:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
One reply later and we're studying the future features of "evolutionary theory" where I am relatively sure almost all will look at all the arrows in the circles around circles illustration that's in it and think "Huh?".


That's what we've been saying with every post you make.

To reduce your verbiage to Shorter Gaulinese; "My god can beat your god".

Date: 2015/08/20 15:35:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin,

You keep taunting us about how well ID is doing and often refer to Casey Luskin, the Attack Gerbil.

Read and enjoy!

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

Date: 2015/08/22 03:29:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It looks like your url is missing detail, or something.


And we add "scrolling" to the Gaulin "Not-a-Dictionary".

The article below the Hambo one is the one about Luskin's Circus.

To help you, either go to the page and use your "scroll wheel" (in the centre between the "click" buttons) or observe the vertical "bar" on the right-hand side of the screen, "click" on the down arrow and you will get to the linked article.

Sorry if this is too technical and scientific for your limited creationist mind but Google can help with these terms.

To use Google enter the word "Google" into a search engine and use the "search" facility.... Damn getting too technical again.

Date: 2015/08/22 06:14:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
...Ken Ham. He didn't like ID, so he's more on your side on that issue.


So even a fraud believes that "intelligent cause" is rubbish. Well, colour me shocked!

Date: 2015/08/25 04:32:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
It looks like Gaulin received a "Join the Dots" book and scribbled all over it.

We also add "environment" and "mol" to the Gaulin Not-a-Dictionary.

Date: 2015/08/27 02:17:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you can't discuss what I spent a long time drawing then get out of this tread!


Gaulin, You're no Leonardo!

Date: 2015/08/27 16:19:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
There can be no scientific refutation of your bullshit as it doesn't contain any science.

You do not have any testable hypothesis or theory. Your knowledge of physics, chemistry and biology is non-existent. You cannot provide any predictions or scientific tests that your theory leads to. You make unfounded and evidence free assertions that are not explained within your theory. You try to force religious symbolism into science, again without evidence. You have wasted years of your life when you could have been learning some science.

You are a failure.

Date: 2015/08/27 16:33:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., being subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a defined time scale.


There you go, Gaulin. Now point out where in your bullshit  you use the terminology that even remotely gets close to that.

Date: 2015/08/27 16:41:08, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin, here is a link to show you how much you have abused the definition of the term Genetic Species.

http://www.mammalsociety.org/article....concept

Date: 2015/08/28 02:16:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I think it needs more arrows, Gary.


And crayons. Don't forget the crayons. And squares.

Date: 2015/08/29 16:39:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I think, just an idea, that Gaulin is trying to say that he is angling for a job with the DI. He can then sink into total anti-science instead of just skimming the surface.

I won't hold my breath whilst the Luskin Circus even acknowledges that Gaulin exists.

Quote
The Discovery Institute dreamed of through science changing culture.


The Disco'tute doesn't do science so you should fit in well if the offer materialises, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/08/31 08:43:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The DI might be stupid and crazy  but they're not THAT stupid and crazy.


Are you sure about that?

Date: 2015/09/04 07:51:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
That's funny (not ha-ha), both Gaulin and the Time-cube guy disappear at the same time.

Date: 2015/09/05 07:04:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My Methodist training taught me that Reason and Facts come from God, which is to be visualized as a 24/7 Creator that is somehow everywhere and in everything (i.e. living things).


Yet more un-evidenced assertions from the master of assertions.

I offer odds that we get onto discussing "objective morality" next.

It's all about the science, isn't it Gaulin.[sarcasm, as you won't realise this].

Date: 2015/09/06 01:50:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
They might have a religion filled way of explaining things, but at least they have the true/false level of detail 100% right.


My brain shut down to protect itself from the stupidity and I missed the last sentence.

Gaulin, what does this mean? That they are 100% right and 100% wrong at the same time?

It's all about the science!

Date: 2015/09/07 12:08:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator".


I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand.

But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us".

Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary.

It's all about the science!

Date: 2015/09/08 02:34:10, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Science is a verb.


Let me put this in a language you can understand, Gaulin.

Gaulin sciences not.

Date: 2015/09/25 04:28:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
For the past several days I have been busy coordinating a paleontology related project happening tomorrow where the goal will be to photograph document as many layers as possible, in an area of the site being leveled rather quickly by someone who is very good at bringing trace fossils to the surface.


Still waiting for YOU to science us, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/09/27 01:45:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
What phrases am I looking for to describe the above dreck?

Hmm... how about,

"Basking in the light others' work"....or

"Giants standing on my shoulders"

Still waiting for you to science us, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/09/28 01:40:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
For the past several days I have been busy coordinating a paleontology related project [......]


Opening and closing the gate for the experts? Car park attendant? Or in charge of the coffee maker?

Date: 2015/10/02 05:04:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
There are no words.


There are but bullshit is the only printable one!

Date: 2015/10/02 11:02:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin,

You're being out-cranked in the Cranky Race. You'll have to include "cause and effect" and "universal intelligence in your Bug now or lose the years you have laboured.

Date: 2015/10/03 03:01:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
As I posted, Gaulin. You are losing the Cranky Race!

Date: 2015/10/03 05:14:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
But you will surely die without knowing the real intelligence[...]


I know, ask me, I know! It's ALIENS isn't it!

Date: 2015/10/03 05:18:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..


It looks like a variation on Gaulin's "molecular intelligence" to me. Is it?

Date: 2015/10/03 14:15:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What the "internal representation" sees is shown in the upper right of the screen.


I see a red 'X' in the top right. I suggest that you press it along with 'delete all'.

Date: 2015/10/04 03:10:02, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance

Date: 2015/10/05 01:36:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
The Crank Race is hotting up. Postcardo is still in front by a head and Gaulin is catching up slowly.

Date: 2015/10/06 04:40:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I am not a fortune teller like you...


I suspect that Postcardo wears his hat sideways and sticks his hand in his vest shouting "I am ze king of France, I tell you!"

Date: 2015/10/06 04:48:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin

You are falling behind in the Crank Stakes. You need to include more X,Y and Z in your crap.

Date: 2015/10/07 13:42:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yeah, but has anyone claimed that the current team is intelligent?


That must mean Postcardo is a shoe-in to play for them.

Date: 2015/10/08 06:09:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.


So if an animal runs away from danger that is naturen, if it chooses to stay and fight that is intellen as it had two solutions to choose between. That is a big contradiction.

What are your definitions for being "animal" and what criteria defining "animal" doesn't apply to Homo sapiens?

Are you still claiming to be the King of France.

Date: 2015/10/08 06:22:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 07 2015,20:59)

Nova - Secrets of Noah's Ark


All this proves is that your holy book is a plagiarised version of earlier works. Like your not-a-theory.

Do you agree with Postcardo that Homo sapiens is not an animal?

You're being out-cranked.

Date: 2015/10/10 02:24:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!


NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!

Date: 2015/10/11 05:25:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Postcardo

Are trees "intellen" or "naturen"?

Using your not-a-theory explain why;

Oak trees, when attacked by a predator (insects, caterpillars etc.) they increase tannin production in the leaves to repel the attack.

Not only this But they send chemical signals to other oaks in the vicinity which increase tannin production even though they are not under attack.

Note I said "explain" not come out with bald assertions as usual.

Also, genius, why don't you write in your native language and employ a translator? This would save a lot of time and effort trying to understand your execrable grammar and syntax.

Date: 2015/10/11 05:29:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
dazz, sleep well tonight, little boy...


So that is the best reply you can come up with, is it genius?

You have just had your not-a-theory trashed and the only thing you can say is this!

That is really showing the "real-intelligence".

Date: 2015/10/12 01:30:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.


That's it? That's an explanation? Another evidence-free assertion?

You are a bullshitting fraud with an IQ less than your hat size. A total waste of skin. Please do the world a favour and never breed.

Date: 2015/10/12 01:38:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Noname,

Quote
What experiments support your work?


You take a box with holes in it, Cover the holes with tissue and drop a 68g egg through the holes, add tissue until both the egg and tissue don't break. This hen disproves the ToE!

IT DOES I TELL YOU. I AM NAPOLEON!!!1!!!x+x+x!!!111

Date: 2015/10/12 01:51:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Forgot to add the linky thing





Quote
This hen disproves the ToE!


Should have been "This THEN..." but with it using an egg......

Date: 2015/10/12 01:54:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
why can't I add the link?

Try again;

http://talkrational.org/showthr....page=10

Let's see if that works!

Date: 2015/10/12 06:37:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
But since it said Halloween Whopper on the wrapper I assumed that is what is was.


Just like your dreck says "theory" on it you assume that it is one.

Date: 2015/10/13 14:57:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
So I experimentally tested your theory[...]


dazz, but did you imagine a 68g egg? if not your experiment is invalid.

COS I SEZ SO!!!!!

Date: 2015/10/16 04:01:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
At this point in time: my occasionally having to credit others in the ID movement only goes to show how incredibly badly things went for your anti-ID movement side.


Dover.

Date: 2015/10/16 11:36:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Since I knew what the outcome would be: it's not an issue for me.


Intelligent design is dead in the water, Gaulin. So why do you insist of trying to breathe life into it, apart from insanity?

BTW, Postcardo is so far ahead in the Crank Stakes that you are not even on the horizon yet.

Date: 2015/10/17 01:38:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gary, did you miss these easy questions?  You wouldn't be running away from them would you?


Running away ? Gaulin? Tell me it isn't so! Gaulin, the genius of the ID movement, can't run away from his real-science not-a-theory because if he does the whole shoddy edifice will collapse. He just told us so.

Run, Gaulin, Run! See how Gaulin runs!

One question, Gaulin. Can you prove Postcardo's "theory" is wrong?

Date: 2015/10/22 09:28:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
k.e..,

Leave Postcardo alone! He's happy shouting at passers-by from the asylum window. Perhaps he will convince someone that he really is Napoleon one day.

Date: 2015/10/23 02:29:51, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You've been off your hinges for years.


And still getting the same replies to his not-a-theory.

[QUOTE]Ah, so you already know how insane he is.
Quote


Hahaha, any rebuttal of his idiotic ideas that also incorporates the Underpants Gnomes gets extra points.[QUOTE]

All from the same thread Gaulin linked to.

Gaulin, Postcardo has taken over your asylum, so back on your meds, please.

Date: 2015/10/24 02:09:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
You're not trying hard enough, Gaulin.

You are running a very poor second to Postcardo.

Mid-term report.......Must try harder.

Date: 2015/10/25 02:33:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I'm sorry, Postcardo.

I totally underestimated the depths of your delusion. I assumed that you aspired to be Napoleon Bonaparte but I was wrong.

I now realise that you think you are a god.

You are most definitely insane.

Date: 2015/10/26 05:22:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...


All you have shown is that *X* has many values making your maths an invalid construct. So tell us, Oh Great One, how do we solve your X' to any value?

ps Can you ask Santa Claus to send me an Aston Martin (any model) for Christmas...

Date: 2015/10/27 04:15:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Holy crap if this goes on he'll reprint his whole useless miserable books and then you'll have read them. Don't encourage him.


But, but, I REALLY want an Aston Martin!

Date: 2015/10/27 04:19:53, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gary is no longer fun or interesting.


Yes, Postcardo is so much more fun.

Gaulin has a delusion of adequacy whereas Postcardo has a full-on  God delusion.

Date: 2015/10/31 04:49:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?

Date: 2015/10/31 04:57:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gary Gaulin - Saturday, October 31, 2015 1:11:00 AM

Hi Bill, since a theory is a testable explanation for how something works or happened: the best explanation will best explain to scientists how to model how intelligent cause works and what happened during events such as the Cambrian Explosion, and without needing to resort to (as in Darwinian evolutionary theory) a "natural selection" based explanation.

After having a testable explanation it is possible to compete for which theory (ID evolutionary theory or Darwinian evolutionary theory) best explains how "evolution" works and how to model the process. That gets measured by which one scientists find most useful in their science work and may depend on which area of science the theory is being used for. I'm not sure about paleontology but the ID theory I defend is way more useful in cognitive science than generalizations that cannot explain how intelligence and intelligent cause/causation works (and predicts a biological "singularity" type event of some kind is possible).

The first step is to develop a testable theory with at least as much explanatory power as the (Darwinian) "natural selection" based explanations. Without that the only thing you have are arguments against another theory and when properly legally challenged will result in another trial that ID will lose, just like in Dover.
   

Is this a translation from the Japanese via Portuguese to Gaulinese. If it is I will have to rewrite the Gaulinese to English

Date: 2015/10/31 05:00:10, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm not sure about paleontology or biology or cognitve science or anything science, really.


'nuff said.

Date: 2015/10/31 08:10:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".


I was trying to be brief for our side but was trying to project how Postcardo thinks. I think I wasn't too far off the mark judging by the preceding screeds from him.

So, Postcardo, all I have to do to be a "real-scientist" is to self-publish a book or two refuting your "books" and I am a god, right?

Date: 2015/10/31 13:12:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm not sure about paleontology...


Sorry, Gaulin that's my fault. I added the phrase "or biology or cognitive science or anything science, really."

I always have problems with the quotes tag, and the http tag and ...oh all the others really.

Date: 2015/11/01 02:55:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them


Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping!

ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested?

pps How's it going with Santa Claus?

Date: 2015/11/03 04:11:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.

Date: 2015/11/03 10:31:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
EdTuesday, November 03, 2015 10:44:00 AM
Sorry Gary, but that isn't a scientific discussion, it's more a collection of people having fantasies they are being 'scientific', acting the scientist. All the while trying to come up with ideas how to overthrow ET.

I fell over laughing in the second sentence: Whales regrowing gills? WTF?

I continued reading hoping for some real science, and what followed was this gem:
"A genetic system is just like us learning over time. It might have a fuzzy recollection of what happened a few billion years ago,"

Ye gods...


Gary GaulinTuesday, November 03, 2015 10:52:00 AM
Ed says: "Ye gods..."

You provided another example of how the subject is changed to religion.


Did you mean these comments, Gaulin?

Are you really serious that shouting "Ye gods...." at your rubbish is an endorsement of religion.

Please take your meds.

Date: 2015/11/04 03:10:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I don't care...


So the money order isn't on the way?

I'll drop a hint so that you will buy my books,

(whisper) I am your Intelligent Agent! But don't tell everybody here!

Date: 2015/11/08 04:19:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In case anyone missed the fun:

[URL=http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015....3725434


And your sorry contribution was relevant how?


 
Quote
Edgar Postrado strikes again?


And where is your refutation of what Postcardo is saying?

Date: 2015/11/08 04:28:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!
[QUOTE]

But I've told you that my books explain why YOU are wrong! And my books are available to you for the stated fee.

Send the money and I'll send you the proof that you are wrong.

I've already given you a hint as to why you are wrong, here's another;

I repeated your experiment, the egg broke so I fried it and ate it even though I wasn't hungry.

So pay up or shut up!

Date: 2015/11/08 16:11:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have no idea what that means either. But I found something that I did understand, I think..


I think you are channelling Advances/Postcardo.

And don't you know that Postcardo has one more . than you? So he must be better at real-science!

Date: 2015/11/09 02:01:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
LOL!!!


THREE, count them, three exclamation points. That's tin-foil hat territory.

Another two and it's a jacket with sleeves fastened at the back

Date: 2015/11/10 03:40:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Take care at that link. Don't try to dismiss the advert at the bottom.

Date: 2015/11/13 09:17:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Three .'s represent infinity. Adding one more only makes an obvious contextual error. I won!


No, Gaulin, you didn't. Unless you finish your sentence with three full stops Postcardo says you are not sciencing (derived from your "to science). Add four and you overtake Postcardo in the Crank Stakes.

Date: 2015/11/14 11:02:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Notice the calm when the crank runs away~


Perhaps the home has withdrawn his internet privileges for some misdemeanour.

Date: 2015/11/15 13:00:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And it turned into another epic adventure!


How does Bullshit Arrogant avoiding questions about the basics of ID turn into an "epic adventure"?

Date: 2015/11/16 02:05:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It's like a schoolyard fight all run to see but in this case figuring out who is actually winning is a considerable educational challenge for all. It was for me too at first, so from experience I know how hard it can be.


This makes as much sense as your crazy "real-science theory", so you understand that means less than zero.

Arrogant got turned into a pile of mincemeat. (Ground beef in the USA, I think).

Date: 2015/11/21 06:38:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gone. Last post here.


Less staying power than Postcardo, what a waste of space this thread was.

Date: 2015/11/23 14:32:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
We are now venturing into uncharted science territory, where even once thought scientifically impossible theory can be found. Please wish the voyagers well..


Oh! Bloody hell! I sense a new "diagram" coming along.

Just when we thought it was safe..

Date: 2015/11/24 12:27:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What really matters here are the scientific models lawyers and religious activists develop that already have millions of dollars vested in them, so to hell with all others.


As you aren't a lawyer I guess from this mangled Gaulinese you think you are a religious activist.

Date: 2015/11/25 08:37:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm responsible for models that go past and cover way more than that.


No, it doesn't, Gaulin.

Your chemistry is wrong, your physics is wrong, your palaeontology is wrong and your whole concept is wrong. I would go so far as to say it isn't even wrong. The whole of your output would be better off used as fertiliser.

Your model, whilst based on the biblical four legs, represents nothing within a biological context. It does not reproduce with variation, it is not part of a population, it is under no selection pressures and it does not react to the environment other than what you code it to do. It has no more relevance to a biological life form than a Space Invader module.

Your "theory" is not testable, falsifiable or able to be experimentally shown to be accurate. It is a mish-mash of conflicting assertions with no foundation in any known scientific method.

You have at best a pseudoscience where you are trying to force your religion into genuine science. You are a religious zealot whose understanding of the natural world is limited to your reading of the Bible.

ID/creationism is a dead end. You have wasted years of your life. Get a decent job and provide for your family instead of wasting time on your obsession.

Date: 2015/11/27 09:59:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
...showing how over the years my ID related work became a non-issue.


This is exactly what you have been told repeatedly. Your "work" is a non-issue to everybody with an interest or profession in science related fields.

A better phrase would be " ...my ID related work became a pile of bullshit."

There is nothing in your "work" that is relevant to any theory of intelligence in cognitive science.

Some vague statements by code kids at PSC does not qualify as peer revue. You have nothing in either your "theory" or "model" that could be even considered for a peer reviewed science journal. Your swill wouldn't even be accepted by the DI or AiG for their in-house "peer-reviewed" journals.  

You are still wasting the time you have left to look after your family by pursuing this obsession.

Date: 2015/12/02 04:06:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 01 2015,11:00)
DNA replication, and its mind boggling nano technology  that defies naturalistic explanations.


Please, Trollangelo, point to anywhere in your copypasta that cannot be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry.

Better yet, point to somewhere in the DNA molecule and show what your miracle worker (sorry, Intelligent Designer) did, when and how.
With evidence and full chemical analysis in your own words.

Waiting..

Date: 2015/12/03 16:23:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I now have bee behavior


No, you don't. You don't know the first thing about bees. Are you talking of honey bees only or mining bees or cuckoo bees or solitary bees or parasitic bees etc. etc.

Again you are straying into territory you know nothing about and cherry-picking words that you think support your effluent.

This is a field that I have studied and record for wildlife conservation purposes.

So try and learn something before you shoot your mouth off.

Date: 2015/12/04 04:32:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Moar academic elitist snobbery!  You think that just because you have knowledge that it means that you know more than someone who doesn't!  Think of the children!


Quod erat demonstrandum.

Date: 2015/12/05 02:24:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
From one time-step to the next its motors can be busy going forward and reverse as fast as they can just to stay in one place, hover. An occasional reminder that a zap is coming might alter its actions. But it may still wait until the last moment to respond, or not. Much depends on the circumstances, including what it would have done anyway.


What, by the FSM, does this mean, Gaulin?

I think you should rewrite your tag line as;

"certain aspects of the universe are best explained by typing random words on the internet."

Date: 2015/12/06 03:18:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Jim there is no need to overinflate your ego. I'm not writing a novel, you know.[rest of the mish-mash redacted to save our sanity]


You are certainly writing some kind of fiction.

Which random word generator do you use, Gaulin? Your last post is as coherent as a very incoherent thing. I've heard better English from a falling-down drunk.

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously.

Date: 2015/12/06 12:03:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Anyone?


Sorry, I'll try later when I've drunk enough!

It isn't English, though.

Date: 2015/12/06 15:36:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote
One song more regularly on their playlist is though just as soothingly haunting, by the lyrics being foretelling of any cherished knowledge that has the power to ultimately become what each child still knows.

???

Anyone?


No sorry, even the single malt hasn't clarified things.

How is the weather on Planet Gibber, Gaulin?

Date: 2015/12/07 02:48:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My last reply shows a contrast where it's more like being left out of the science fun that goes with gaining an understanding of how religion works by working in harmony with it through the religious implications of a culture changing scientific theory.


Still Gibberish, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/12/09 04:20:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The ID movement does not need to "bring down the theory of evolution". It only needs to antiquate the oversimplified "natural selection did it" answers that come from Darwinian evolutionary theory, using what becomes ID evolutionary theory where there is a model with multiple levels of self-similar intelligence for modeling all in biology. Darwinian theory cannot even predict whether "evolution" is somehow intelligent or not. It's more limited than you may realize.

The ID movement that now remains does have a way to get past the collapse of the old movement. The article and video I linked to is good evidence of that more progress has been made than I thought. For the sake of science: I have to welcome the change.


Gary at Sandwalk.

More Gibberish, Gaulin. Why not get a book on English grammar and have somebody read it to you?

Date: 2015/12/09 04:39:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gary GaulinSaturday, December 05, 2015 5:57:00 PM
This is from someone who studies brain chemistry, me. Did your findings support or not support the following?


Copypasta from da theory redacted, as we've seen it before.

In your own words and formulae explain how electrochemical signalling takes place between neurons. Then show how this was the result of ID.

Waiting..

Date: 2015/12/09 04:45:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
PetrushkaTuesday, December 08, 2015 2:05:00 PM
Robert, either you or your computer are drunk. Your spelling and grammar are becoming Gaulinesque.


Posting and linking to Sandwalk does you no favours, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/12/14 01:42:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
When it comes to science Barry can be a real Scrooge but at least the true meaning of Kitzmas past is now in the Christmas future that looks at least as bright as majestic light-show while playing our song:


Now you are distorting Gibberish as well, Gaulin.

Date: 2015/12/17 06:13:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Factory and machine planning and design, and what it tells us about cell factories and molecular machines [rubbishy analogy redacted]


Except that cell structures don't have forward planning or design, just the laws of physics and chemistry.

Date: 2015/12/21 04:31:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Hello, Otangelo! I can't help but notice that you have, once again, neglected to answer the questions[...]


Did you expect a testable, falsifiable answer from Trollangelo, Cubist? Don't hold your breath.

The first rule of Creationist Club? Don't answer questions about Creationist Club!

Date: 2015/12/21 15:10:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Hi Cubist

Not being American I had to look up "Lenny Flank". I now see where you are coming from.

Date: 2015/12/23 03:27:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Thanks Cubist

I'm working my way through them.

Date: 2015/12/26 13:55:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I found two annoying punctuation typos, oh my!
I must make a quick edit:


Now you need to correct the grammar, the sentence structure and the word usage then you would be able to communicate with the scientific community.

They will still tell you that your output is rubbish piled high.

Date: 2015/12/27 14:19:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And considering how design parameters to change and (by charting and graphing behavior) gain an understanding of include an attractor network that models hippocampi and entorhinal cortex areas there might already be preteens who can put any cognitive science related experience you have to shame.


My points are proved.

I would call this sentence Byersesque but that would be an insult to R. Byers.

Have you been taking lessons from him, Gaulin?

Date: 2015/12/29 07:49:23, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Some of the continuing personal insults make it very easy for me to relate:


Every post you make shows that you do not understand how to construct an English sentence, Gaulin.

I don't know if the USA has remedial English courses as we do here in the UK but I advise you to look out for one.

I cannot decide which is the worst, your not-a-theory, your "model" or your English.

Date: 2016/01/02 10:24:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What gets me off these days are things like launching a Theory of Intelligent Design into orbit around the science world or AI radio DJ that ultimately gets me in trouble with the FCC that ends up helping to make them good at the field office so it was in a way a pleasure to have become involved in the by that time two year W I Don't Know experiment. I could never accomplish all that while drinking and at times all mad at the world.


So it wasn't the drink that fried your brain. Then it must have been hard drugs.

A suggestion, Gaulin. Why not get your wife to read your posts out loud to you before posting them. You may realise what is wrong with them.

Launching your "not-a-theory" around anything is a waste of resources. Turn green, Gaulin and do your bit to avert climate change. Compost your drivel and help save the Earth.

Date: 2016/01/07 08:28:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is indeed important information for figuring out the origin and the workings of much larger brains like ours.


The origin is evolution, dur. The workings are electro-chemical signalling between neurons, again dur.

Date: 2016/01/09 07:35:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You really need to go back to Wesley's remarks and show just where he claims that the similarity is a 'coincidence'.
Your general dysphasia has resulted in a complete non sequitur of a response.  Quell surprise.

Your first point is entirely irrelevant, even to your own argument.
Your second point is baseless given your complete ignorance of electrical flows in plant matter.
Your third point is ludicrously incorrect.
Your fourth point is incoherent, relies on your own absurdist (and generally false) assumptions, and addresses claims not being made.You really need to go back to Wesley's remarks and show just where he claims that the similarity is a 'coincidence'.
Your general dysphasia has resulted in a complete non sequitur of a response.  Quell surprise.

Your first point is entirely irrelevant, even to your own argument.
Your second point is baseless given your complete ignorance of electrical flows in plant matter.
Your third point is ludicrously incorrect.
Your fourth point is incoherent, relies on your own absurdist (and generally false) assumptions, and addresses claims not being made.


But all of these objections are covered by Gaulin's "theory-of-everything". It looks as though you haven't read it. (Nobody has but don't tell Gaulin.).

Date: 2016/01/10 03:49:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And I'm simultaneously showing ChemiCat the proper use of single or double "Duh?" not "dur" or even worse "again dur".


The difference is three thousand miles of ocean. To help you get your wife to read any Pratchett novel about the trolls to you.

Or learn the difference in usage of "boot and "trunk.

After saying that I see you don't deny my point so you accept evolution as the best explanation. Goodbye "intelligent agent".

Date: 2016/01/10 14:40:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[QUOTE]
Quote (Cubist @ Dec. 19 2015,21:01)
Quote (Otangelo @ Dec. 16 2015,16:59)


Question: Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by "intelligent agents" other than human beings?

Question :  Do you, or do you not, have evidence of "information-rich systems" being produced by NON "intelligent agents" at all ?


Pleading the fifth, Trollangelo?

The first rule of Creationist Club? Don't answer questions about Creationist Club! Case proven.

Date: 2016/01/11 14:57:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If ever there were a person with negative potential it would be you.


Does that still apply if Gaulin ascends a step ladder?

Date: 2016/01/12 04:45:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Another breakthrough!

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/biological-mishap-six-hundred-million-years-ago-created-this-anthropocene


I seem to remember many pages ago asking you about single-cell clusters, Gaulin.

You refused to answer and moved the goalposts. If the concept was in your "not-a-theory" it would have been easy to point it out. It wasn't there.

Now you have the gall to claim that it is. This is not how science is done. It is however how the bible was constructed.

Date: 2016/01/12 04:52:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And Trollangelo continues his drive-by behaviour.

I'll bet good money that he is a postal bible college student who gains credits for bearding the "evilutionists" in their own lair. He has now gone off to email his "professor" for more copy pasta and get a pat on the head for being a good evangelist.

Date: 2016/01/12 09:21:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I seriously don't have time for an argument over semantics, or need another scientifically useless evolution did-it answer.


That's all your "not-a-theory" is, a romp through semantics, Gaulin.

As has been pointed out by NoName and N.Wells there is no explanatory element to your "theory", nothing other than goddidit. An even worse answer than evolution did it. You have a mass of contradictory assertions and a poor Space Invaders type "model".

For the sake of your long-suffering wife and family seek professional help for your obsessions.

Date: 2016/01/14 04:04:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So you must be one of the "little kids" who, when told there is no Santa Claus, answers ad nauseam "is too!" despite all the evidence against you.

Time to grow up, Gaulin, and realise that you have wasted years of your life. Seek help.

Date: 2016/01/15 05:16:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
A note can be added to indicate how much more can in the future be expected. Where that is slowly incremented to reflect data gathering progress it becomes like a goal-drive that encourages researchers with data that sets more pixels to upload it into the NCBI system. At a lab research level it seems like a rather mundane job on top of all else that goes unnoticed by the general public and "science paper" driven academia where filling in the gene information seems like a rather thankless job. But where it for-good puts an end to what Larry is annoyed by enough to have written this article to complain about it becomes heroic to help light up the pixels in graphs that (one way or the other) puts an end to all the arguments over what "search space" has inside of it.


Above from the comment at Sandwalk Gaulin linked to.

English, Gaulin, learn how to use it. (Or so Gaulin can understand it; "English learn use it to how").

Date: 2016/01/18 08:43:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
A link to a four year old blog with five comments, four of them yours, Gaulin?

Is that what you call science? And calling yourself "Death Adder, Really?

I see your grasp of English hasn't improved in the four years since either.

Quote
I hate to get off on another project tangent but it's something I in a way already started at Biology Online. The DNA data files are all set to go, so it makes sense to try it out instead of wondering what it looks like.

Date: 2016/01/20 16:42:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yeah, even atoms are.  Despite all evidence to the contrary (i.e., all evidence and reason), atoms have to learn how to bind to other atoms to form molecules.
Gary has said as much, repeatedly, and steadfastly avoids any clarification of where in the scale from atoms to macroscopic entities (rocks, dogs, people, bridges) intelligent agency is required.  That comes far far too close to addressing the dead elephant in the room -- his banal and trivial "premise" is worthless without taking the next step of identifying which features of the universe are best explained by intelligent cause and which features are not best explained by such a cause.


I honestly think that Gaulin does not understand what is wrong with the ID's "best explained by Intelligent Cause" phrase. He cannot grasp abstract thoughts such as triviality. When it says "certain aspects" he assumes that it means "all aspects".

As evidenced by his poor attempts at insults subtlety in meaning is beyond his mental capacity. This is why he uses VB and not a better platform for his "model" he is limited by this lack of capacity.

We keep asking Gaulin for definitions for the concepts, like molecular intelligence, best guess and even intelligence, as he uses the words. He cannot supply these because he doesn't know how he is using them, his appalling use of language demonstrates this.

Gaulin will not admit that he has wasted years of his time on the rubbish he types. I can only feel pity for him and his family. I know I shouldn't make fun of him but his unwillingness to learn from his many mistakes does not leave any other choice. Ignoring him is not an option because I don't want such misinformation to influence the K to 12 ages he is supposedly aiming at.

Not that he will gain much traction there.

Date: 2016/01/21 02:54:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
1.Triplet codons must be assigned to amino acids to establish a genetic cipher.  Nucleic-acid bases and amino acids don‚Äôt recognize each other directly, but have to deal via chemical intermediaries ( tRNA's and  Aminoacyl tRNA synthetase ), there is no obvious reason why particular triplets should go with particular amino acids.


Trollangelo, now explain why this is not possible within the laws of physics and chemistry alone without the interference of your gods.

In retrospect don't bother, I know you can't.

Date: 2016/01/21 03:05:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If the proper terminology required for Cognitive Science is too difficult for you then you should stay out of discussions where it is required.


Is this a chance to ask Gaulin for HIS definitions of the words, molecular intelligence, best guess and intelligence,etc. etc., that he abuses so readily? Yes it is!

So Gaulin, please provide the definitions for the scientific concepts you have been distorting in your "theory of everything".

Date: 2016/01/21 08:52:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You are again co-opting all the theories in science into your "evolution by natural selection" paradigm in order to make it seem like all other theories in biology must follow it, when it's the other way around.


Gaulin, this is one of your most blatant lies to date.

Show us where we have co-opted cosmology, electromagnetism, gravity, nuclear forces, subatomic particles etc. etc. into biology.

Then you could do a bit of thinking and list "all the theories in science" on a ream or two of paper.

After you have done this you will see that your "not-a-theory" isn't there.

Date: 2016/01/22 03:47:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Once again Gaulin displays his colossal ignorance of anything scientific.

   
Quote
Now it's your turn to lay it all on the line with two empirical everyday examples for how your opposites work:

Natural Selection = "?"
UnNatural Selection = "?"


N.Wells has set out exactly what evolution by natural selection and random mutation is which you would understand if you lifted your nose out of creationist sites and read a biology text book.

How many times must you be told that your "theory" and "model" have nothing to do with reality before you throw it all away and get a decent job to support your long-suffering family?

How is your list of "all the theories in science" coming along?

Date: 2016/01/22 10:20:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Is Gaulin now co-opting philosophy for his "not-a-theory"?

There is NO philosophy in your bullshit as well as no science.

Give it up, Gaulin, and go look after your family properly.

Date: 2016/01/22 10:29:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Can you show me a example of coded, specified, complex information, that has not a intelligence as origin ?


Jesus christ on a pogo stick.

Sorry, I saw that Ogre beat me to the exact questions I was going to ask.

So, Trollangelo, when can we expect your answers? And why should I have any fear of your baseless threats of eternity?

Date: 2016/01/22 10:34:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Trollangelo,

Which of this list has more "Specified Complex information"?

           post
           opts
           tops
           stop
           pots
           spot

And give justification for your answer.

Date: 2016/01/23 10:42:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Claim anything you want to, Gaulin. I claim you are a religion-soaked imbecile with no knowledge of science.

I see alligators are still putting sticks on birds' heads, salmon are still guarding nests and gametes are molecules.

In all the years you have wasted you still have learnt nothing about science or English grammar.

I now claim you are a waste of oxygen.

Date: 2016/01/26 02:42:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What a trashy place here. It even smells bad. Don 't know if i come back.


Just a minute, Trollangelo, I'll open a window for you. Don't worry about smelling we are used to the stench of IDiots.

Now how about answering some questions...

Date: 2016/01/26 02:48:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I hope you will get the curve before its too late. Because then you will still enjoy a meaningful life here on earth, and a happy time in eternity.


Isn't that a threat, albeit a veiled one, of your Hell, Trollangelo?

It seems as though you are unable to understand your own words not just biology.

Date: 2016/01/26 09:05:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Otherwise merciless female alligators will lovingly protect their well-cared-for offspring who scurry into the safety of her mouth when in danger, and are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks that birds are searching for on her head.


Slightly better but still wrong. Try;

"Female alligators teach their young to put sticks on their heads to attract birds, which are searching for nesting materials, within range of a strike to procure a meal."

Now, is it only female alligators that are merciless or do the males sometimes release a meal on moral grounds?

As pointed out to you alligators make no moral judgement about their prey. Stop the anthropomorphism, a reason why I stopped watching American natural history programmes. That and Oprah Winfrey narrating.

Date: 2016/01/27 01:58:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Damn it! I put my money on a music video.

Date: 2016/01/28 02:54:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Your "theory", which is not a theory at all, contains material that is both original and true.  Tragically for you, where it is original it is not true, where it is true it is not original.


What are the odds being offered on a music video this time?

Date: 2016/01/29 01:53:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Working on it.



And they still ignore you. Apart from quoting your "certain features..." bullshit you have nothing to add to the IDiots' arguments, nothing. Your "theory" is nothing more than thinly disguised religion. Your pseudoscience is nothing more than a jumbled collection of assertions. Your "model" is a poor rendition of Pacman. When you are ignored by Uncommonly Dense you know that you have nothing.

Why not get out and study alligator behaviour yourself instead of relying on dubious articles on the internet. At least you will be out in the fresh air and not suffering brain damage cramped up inside or cluttering up the internet.

You have wasted years when you could have been supporting your family properly and getting your health problems sorted out.

Date: 2016/01/31 04:56:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I am only obliged to explain how to from the behavior of matter on up model the "intelligent cause" that would likewise experience crashes followed by relatively fast recovery (by new biological designs) after an equal magnitude environmental catastrophe happening in the model's virtual world.


Gaulin, how can you rant on and on about learning and intelligence when you still haven't learnt how to construct a meaningful sentence intelligently? There is more to English than starting with a capital letter and ending with a full stop.

 
Quote
The scientific fields that study extinctions are in in the area of paleontology and geology, where extinction events are used to pinpoint a specific geological time where all around the planet new species suddenly appear in the strata above that geological layer.


Apart from loons like Meyer, please provide references to any credentialed geologist or palaeontologist who refers to "suddenly appear" in a scientific peer-reviewed paper. You are once again trying your hardest to force your god into science.

We can add palaeontology and geology to the lengthening list of scientific fields that Gaulin knows nothing about.

Date: 2016/01/31 07:51:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Further to N.Wells's take down of your dreck, Gaulin, mammals and dinosaurs co-existed until the probable asteroid impact. After this event some mammals survived and were able to radiate into the available ecological  niches which became available to them.

Some dinosaurs were able to survive and eventually became the birds of today. Neither the mammals nor the dinosaurs became extinct in the mass extinction, they evolved to become the animals we see today.

Until you understand science please stop making unfounded assertions to force your gods into well-understood science

Date: 2016/01/31 14:47:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The premise of the theory of intelligent design only obliges me to explain how biological "intelligent cause" works. But theory would explain it as:
The life giving behavior of matter level that still powers us 24 hours a day also causes volcanic eruptions and even black holes for intelligence throughout the universe to learn how to keep a safe distance away from, or get used to.


I understand it all now! Gaulin thinks that Scientology and science are the same thing! He never did understand English.

Xenu rules and is the intelligent cause that Gaulin worships.

Keep on bombing those volcanoes, Gaulin.

Date: 2016/02/06 03:16:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
What's wrong, Gaulin? Utterly Dense got your tongue?

Date: 2016/02/07 03:51:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I am currently overwhelmed with science work,...


NURSE! Gaulin is sciencing again!

Date: 2016/02/08 01:58:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The DI was sinking itself. So I had to throw them an anchor, which kinda went clear through their bow:


All right as I have some spare time let us, as a gentle exercise, try and work out what this mess means.

Were the DI sinking themselves? This is called "scuttling". If they were was it for the insurance? If they were just sinking then "itself" becomes superfluous.

"So I had to throw them an anchor...". Was this the heaviest thing you could find, Gaulin? Why were you helping them to sink? Under US law would this be the equivalent of our aiding and abetting?

"Which kinda went "clear" through their bows". Is this meant to be "clean"? So you are adding to your previous law-breaking by making sure they sank.

Either that or Gaulin has no idea of what an analogy is meant to say.

Please don't become a life-guard, Gaulin. Lead weights are no use to a drowning person.

Why do I have to use a year's worth of parentheses when replying to Gaulin's rubbish?

Date: 2016/02/10 07:04:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And our Trollangelo is back after his last flounce. I wonder how long he will last this time before his sad arse cannot take any more kicking.

Trollangelo, what is "digital" about a DNA molecule? Does this mean that every chemical reaction is digital?

Please give us some evidence for your preposterous claims about molecules. (Not that I expect a reply as you have none to give.).

Date: 2016/02/10 07:05:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Now you have ignored my last questions please give us an example of irreducible complexity that has not yet been trashed.

Date: 2016/02/16 10:01:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Feel free to provide evidence that ANY non-human intelligence exists.

Feel free to provide evidence that ANY non-human intelligence did all the things you say evolution can't.

Feel free to provide evidence that ANY deity exists.


I'll just add

Feel free to flounce back to your god-bubble, IDiot.

Date: 2016/02/16 10:13:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Kathy rules the religious side of the ID theory. I just keep the science part coming!


It's all about the science!

Feel free to provide some then as you haven't so far, Gaulin.

All you have done is try to force your version of your god into science and done that as poorly as your assertions about intelligence (whatever you suppose that to be). You have no science just a mess of buzz-words plagiarised at random from various scientists and put through a mind that spews them out in randomised English without meaning.

I'm sorry to hear that your health troubles have come back but perhaps you should stop posting rubbish and concentrate on improving the life of yourself and your family.

Date: 2016/02/17 03:50:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Two here, second one new:


I refuse to go to that god-soaked den of liars, Gaulin. I don't want to increase their ill-gotten revenue.

That you do is very indicative your own mindset. You are just another godbot pretender who has been rejected wherever you have posted your rubbish.

As you didn't read my last sentence i my last post here it is again;

I'm sorry to hear that your health troubles have come back but perhaps you should stop posting rubbish and concentrate on improving the life of yourself and your family.

Date: 2016/02/17 08:13:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You can be sure that ID theory we are having science fun of a lifetime with right now is what US academia takes seriously.


Dumbski, jumped ship,
Luskin. jumped ship,
Behe, shunted into a non-position,
Meyer, a liar for christ,
Lisle, ditto and totally nuts,
etc. etc.

Yes, ID is doing sooooo well!

No serious scientist anywhere is discussing ID/creationism except when they want a good laugh.

What is it, 50 years since ID stalled on the starting line? In that time ID/creationism has produced nothing, zilch, nada. Your "contribution" to "ID science" just makes it worse if that is possible. As N.Wells has eloquently pointed out again, your "theory" is not a scientific theory nor is it English.

Give up, Gaulin, and look after your family and yourself properly.

Date: 2016/02/18 03:52:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Then what's the problem with academiciana?


They are not the problem, it's your pseudoscience that's the problem.

Date: 2016/02/26 17:16:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I think we are all happy you've sought professional help, Gary.


Now all you have to do, Gaulin, is show your "theory" to a professional. They will tell you to bin it and you can get on with your life and look after your family.

Date: 2016/02/28 07:36:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Trolls like this make this whole forum a useless toilet. It's impossible to seriously discuss anything, without sadistic shitheads like you butting in.


Instead of correcting the massive mistakes and errors in your "not-a-science theory. Instead of providing evidence to back up your wild assertions. Instead of defining the terms you use in eccentric ways. Instead of listening to scientific criticisms of your inanities. Instead of correcting your appalling English usage. You call people with better knowledge and reason "shitheads".

Yet "It's all about the science".

Seek help with your obsessions, Gaulin, before they damage you and your family further.

Date: 2016/03/03 15:34:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm pretty sure he can't even see 'before' in the rear-view mirror.
He seems to be a complete and total failure at life.  He certainly fails at anything requiring basic language skills.


Judging by the paucity of the recent posts it looks as though we are getting through to him that his "theory" is a waste of electrons.

Date: 2016/03/04 03:13:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You live in a straight- jacket provided by the institution


FTFY, Ogre.

This would explain why his posts are 3-4 weeks apart, they allow internet access whilst they change the jacket. It keeps him calm.

Date: 2016/03/04 07:04:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Don't get your hopes up.  Gary has a habit of wandering off for a few days, usually to spout the same old nonsense elsewhere.  He'll be back sooner or later, probably with links to whoever is kicking his arse right now.


You nailed it JohnW.

Date: 2016/03/05 09:39:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm honestly not sure what to make of the paper:  
Quote
The explicit functional link indicates that the biomechanical characteristic of tendinous connective architecture between muscles and articulations is the proper design by the Creator to perform a multitude of daily tasks in a comfortable way.

I am though more amused, than am angered by it.


Of course you are not sure. It sounds too much like science and ID combined. That's why your "theory" is such a mess.

Date: 2016/03/06 03:09:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Arbor Ministries?


So what?

Date: 2016/03/06 15:17:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[/QUOTE]Any info?
Quote


Not from uncommonly dense, no.


Quote
At this moment in time there is a very serious ID theory being taught to the world via Barry‚Äôs blog that helps science teachers write lesson plans explaining all the common illustrations for the ‚Äúscientific method‚ÄĚ and even what ‚Äúscience‚ÄĚ is. It‚Äôs one of those things that have a way of on their own spreading into science and culture.[QUOTE]

Another unsupported assertion from the ignorant IDist.

Date: 2016/03/06 15:22:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Any info?


Not from uncommonly dense.

Quote
At this moment in time there is a very serious ID theory being taught to the world via Barry‚Äôs blog that helps science teachers write lesson plans explaining all the common illustrations for the ‚Äúscientific method‚ÄĚ and even what ‚Äúscience‚ÄĚ is. It‚Äôs one of those things that have a way of on their own spreading into science and culture.



Another evidence-free assertion from the ignorant IDist.

(Don,t know how the previous one posted, I just checked his next pile of vomit and it had posted)

Date: 2016/03/11 02:33:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Check out this...


We don't care. Gaulin. It has nothing to do with science. It is religious propaganda.

Date: 2016/03/12 15:23:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I can add that: for science journals the "peer-review" is the "confidence" part of the mechanism. When confidence in a submission being true is below a certain threshold its author(s) are forced to take a best guess what will work better for the reviewers.

As in the cognitive model the result is a self-correcting trial and error method for learning proper (often medically related) actions to take in a given (often disease related) situation.


Yet another Gualinesque assault on the English language.

Your "model" is not self-correcting, there has been no trial and error involved, it is certainly disease related, though. You should seek professional help for that.

We add "cognitive" to the Gaulin not-a-dictionary of words Gaulin doesn't understand.

Date: 2016/03/14 14:10:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Come on Gaulin, answer the criticisms of what you erroneously call a theory.

Gaulin's reply; Oh, look a squirrel!

Date: 2016/03/16 04:12:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Worse.  He's pandering the suicide of a much-respected (and much disrespected) musician/celebrity.
Doesn't even rise to the level of tawdry.  Merely contemptible.  Par for the Gaulin course.


My apologies, I wasn't being flippant about the death of a great musician.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy of Gaulin when he made his post.

Date: 2016/03/18 13:59:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2016,00:07  
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2016,06:29)

............
............

And late last night I ended up submitting an abstract for the philosophy conference, even though I do not know a thing about video conferencing or ever tried. I'm not sure whether I should show what it is. If they want me then you'll soon enough see. For now though:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/philoso....-600429

Oh hey!


Oh hell! The squirrels are multiplying.

Date: 2016/03/23 10:13:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
It looks as though Gaulin has drowned in the cesspit of UD.

Date: 2016/03/30 15:37:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
A man like that should have never become a science teacher.


How would you know, Gaulin, you and science are total strangers.

Date: 2016/04/09 02:55:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I wish Laurie a speedy recovery.

Date: 2016/04/12 03:32:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The limitations of a model much depends on whether a core variable is a generalization, as is the case for "natural selection" being caused by intelligent living things in the environment who on their own decide to do.
Darwinian theory is useful as a general view.
But not starting with a model for all the intelligence in the environment leads to a generalization that includes it, but that is not useful for computer modeling (the hardest part to add to a virtual environment) what goes inside the minds of the living things doing all the selecting.


And the Gaulinese is back. Gaulin, read this part and try and make sense of it. I nearly said re-read it but I realised that you hadn't read it once.

Quote
And I wish the forum software did not garble the url addresses like that. It "wasn't me", or "wasn't I".


And I wish the Gaulin software didn't garble.

Date: 2016/04/15 02:52:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And it's certainly not my fault that they are this way.


It most certainly is your fault. The unintelligible screed you posted above is the whole of the problem. It is unscientific, written in pre-school English, should be laughed out of any discussion of either science or philosophy and consigned to the recycle bin permanently.


Quote
I just sent this to the institute that is holding the conference. From what I can see explaining it like this should work, for philosophers. The David Heiserman related part is shown with the model that shows a working two hemisphere circuit on the screen. Let me know if you see anything that can be improved, or leaves a question it should answer.

>>
If all goes well for starting up at a moment of its (deterministic) lifetime then the ID Lab #5 critter will while young in its learning and expected to be more brave and inquisitive you will clearly see it going back to look at the invisible shock zone, without that behavior being programmed in. Everything it does is determined by how the simple to generate but even in a network its size becomes complex wave behavior that works together with memory and motors. Later on in life it gets more set in its ways. But while still young there is a dangerously playful curiosity that on its own emerged from the wave interactions. I hope to show what is happening in the network that gives it an internal world model of itself on my screen. In that case though I am not sure whether all I see on my wide mode screen will show up for everyone else and in a recording. If all goes well then it should be useful for studying the wave interactions. Anyway, here is a my preview. I might be one of the few presentations you don't already have an idea about and find it worth the read:
-----------------------------------------

Human languages include universal concepts that reflect how our brain works.

Our bilateral symmetry causes us to have a two sided brain and body. That results in our needing two words (in English) "left" and "right" for something already there, needing to be given a name to.

Insects also have this intuitive sense of left/right:
Central Control of Insect Locomotion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....F64c30Q

The word "thinking" is for a brain state that happens where are not confident of what actions to take. It is related to how our brain works, something already there to be given a name to.

The entorhinal cortex and hippocampus areas of our brain form a central hub in a widespread network for memory and spatial navigation.
In this brain area we construct an "inner world model" of any size scale for what observe happening in the "external world".
This causes us to have a:
First person self-image of ourselves, interacting with the environment, named "I" and "me".
Second person view of ourselves, from someone else represented inside the environment named "you" and "yours".
Third person view of everything including ourselves, from outside the environment that uses the names "he", "she", "it", or "they".

When we picture something written in the first, second or third person view we end up in that world too.

Even where looking through a microscope at something microscopic we can still visualize ourselves navigating inside that world, as we change our "focus of attention" from one place to another.

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

From what the ID Lab #5 was able to demonstrate the ability to model the interacting properties of what we see or map out anyway (imagine) is the result of wave propagation where neighboring place fields (each containing a circuit containing a number of neurons) will pass in incoming signal along to the next in line in that direction, or not. It's much like "making a wave" as on the ocean around a stadium by standing up with arms in the air right after the neighboring person does, which causes the next to do the same. This wave propagation is easily stopped (as by a solid barrier such as a sea wall) by not signaling when the wave arrives, at a given place.

Planning ahead emerged from alternating between present and future conditions. Signal flow maps out a directional path to follow along with related information like places to avoid along the way that stops just short of the invisible hazard.

Our cognitive ability to visualize a working model has now been enhanced by computer models.
Like a book uses words to make it possible for others to "picture" what is in the mind of another, a computer model uses coded logic to make it possible for others to experiment with what could once only be "pictured" in the mind.

A "model" demonstrates how something works or happened. The result of us thinking schematically, as schema.
Without this for navigating its environment the virtual critter just keeps getting zapped by the moving shock zone. It is unable to figure out how to go around then wait for when it is safe to eat the food.

A "theory" in words explains how the model works or what happened in it.
For (real or computer modeled) electronic systems/devices the theory is the ‚ÄúTheory of Operation‚ÄĚ or ‚ÄúHow it Works‚ÄĚ documentation.

The scientific theory in books by Charles Darwin explained how his model for biological speciation works, which is now tested using Evolutionary Algorithms.
The scientific theory in books by Albert Einstein explained how his cosmic model works, which has also been computer model tested.

For a scientific theory to be useful it has to explain a model/mechanism to experiment with.
If a theory has nothing to model in it (explains no testable mechanism) then regardless of theory's premise being true or false it is not useful to those who need scientific models.

The limitations of a model much depends on whether a core variable is a generalization, as is the case for "natural selection" being caused by intelligent living things in the environment who on their own decide to do.
Darwinian theory is useful as a general view.
But not starting with a model for all the intelligence in the environment leads to a generalization that includes it, but that is not useful for computer modeling (the hardest part to add to a virtual environment) what goes inside the minds of the living things doing all the selecting.


Get somebody to read this crap out loud to you and maybe then you will realise what is wrong with both you and your "theory".

Date: 2016/04/17 07:46:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
A question even led to me having to go into the genetic level intelligence being a billions of year's old entity that could be conscious or otherwise expressed into ours in a way the thinking of sex all day is expected by having of babies being what keeps it alive, literally.


More "wharblegarble" from the Gaulin Random Word Generator‚ĄĘ.

You are an unmitigated fool, Gaulin.

Date: 2016/04/18 15:07:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Penmanship on a keyboard?  (cringes)  Don't you mean grammar?  Well, I guess not, if word definitions don't mean anything to you . . . .

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It's bad enough that he's trusted with a blunt keyboard. Imagine what damage he could do with a sharp pen!

Date: 2016/04/20 02:59:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
So not so much a bar as a trench, without the workmanship.


And digging deeper all the time.

Welcome to the nut buffet, Palaeonictus.

Date: 2016/04/20 08:35:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2016,05:25)
Quote (Texas Teach @ April 19 2016,16:10)
Gary, answer your critics or no scientist will ever take you seriously.

I disgrace myself even more by being here to allow disrespectful swellheads like you to make false claims in order to trash my scientific work.

Regardless of your reasons: you and the others are just creeps. Another scientific problem that needs to be fixed, not condoned.


Gaulin, you are as much use to science as water skis are to a herring.

You have no theory, your theory and model are useless for all the reasons supplied over these hundreds of pages, you have no "scientific work" by any stretch of the words and your grammar is atrocious.

Flounce off, Gaulin, and come back when you have something other than drivel to present.

Date: 2016/04/23 03:33:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From the AM_NAT website;

 
Quote
Gary Gaulin, Gaulin Tracksite, Hitchcock Press Inc. Holyoke, Massachusetts.
The ‚Äúscientific method‚ÄĚ is inherent to human behavior. Babies learn by forming hypotheses (an idea you can test) leading to theories (explanation for how something works or happened) that yield for them repeatable results. The same behavior is found in the hypothesis and theory driven science journal methodology of adults, where ‚Äúpeer review‚ÄĚ is the ‚Äúconfidence‚ÄĚ part of the cognitive related mechanism. This talk will focus on the scientific method as a methodology we use on a daily basis, which does not need Methodological Naturalism or any other philosophy to understand, just the very basics of cognitive science and common sense.


And this sums up Gaulin's "science" completely. He has none of the attributes of science.

Tell us, oh great polyglot, what is common sense about the Earth revolving around the Sun? What is common sense about the Earth being a sphere? And don't make us start on Quantum theories.

You are not sciencing in any shape or form.

Date: 2016/04/23 08:04:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Gary, post your talk so we can listen.


We dare you...

I have a feeling that the talk is the copyright of the owners of the website where the discussion took place as they are touting the DVD for sale. They may not let Gaulin use it. And I don't think "intellectual property" applies to anything at that "conference". There was nothing intellectual about it.

Date: 2016/04/24 04:39:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
$30, which was the full package including all conference videos.  I was easily enough able to afford it.


So you threw away $30 on a pseudoscience internet "conference" without regard to the health and welfare of your sick wife?

This reflects well on your chosen religion.

You are a despicable excuse for a human being.

Date: 2016/04/25 02:27:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So, no answers to any of the relevant questions posed to you,Gaulin. Just rhetoric with ad homs, noted.

Now answer the questions about your "molecular intelligence" that you have avoided for pages. If this is your first premise in your "theory" and you can't provide the evidence then the rest of your bullshit isn't worth the time to refute.

Come on stop the deflections and defend your theory or admit it is garbage.

Date: 2016/04/28 03:22:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So, once again (how many times is this now?) Gaulin gets his arse handed to him in a paper bag and he retreats to pop videos. Yet he tells us it's all about the science (and his gods).

Tell us , oh great polymath, when are you going to address the fatal flaws in your pseudoscience and not-a-model?

Date: 2016/04/29 03:45:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The source code and Windows 10 (or earlier) compatible IDLab5.exe can be downloaded from this link:


As has been pointed out oh so many times, NOBODY CARES.

Date: 2016/04/30 04:27:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Awesome!
http://www.kurzweilai.net/onoff-b....covered


and

Quote
And more awesomeness:
www.dailycal.org/2015/07/28/uc-berkeley-researchers-reveal-possible-process-of-communication-in-brain/


None of which has any bearing on the crap you have churned out.

Note well, Gaulin, this is how science is done, not by your blatant attempts to force your preferred gods into reality.

Date: 2016/04/30 13:49:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Along with all the rest of the words in the dictionary, Gary has a terrible difficulty grasping 'entails' and 'is entailed by'.
I suspect he thinks the terms apply to genetic-level learning mice.


No, too complex a thought for Gaulin. I suspect he thinks (for some degree of "thinks) the terms apply to his computer mouse.

Date: 2016/04/30 15:23:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Reality is like this:


"Reality", another word that passes Gaulin by without him understanding it.

And yet more deflection from the fatal flaws in his not-a-theory.

Time to grow up, Gaulin, and enter the real world instead of your god-soaked fantasy

Date: 2016/05/01 03:13:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
...but if none are able to ask an intelligent question then there is nothing worth answering to.


But you haven't been able to answer the intelligent questions because you aren't intelligent.

So I'll try again;

How do I test for "molecular intelligence" as (not) defined by you? How does this assertion of yours fall outside the laws of chemistry and physics?

There you are. Now spend the next ten years trying to answer.

Or ask your gods for an explanation.

Date: 2016/05/02 06:01:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
There are not enough hits from Africa to even show up on the map. But regardless of who or what is reading it in countries that are still considered by some to be a Cold War enemy: I looked forward to using what I have for cultural exchange peacemaking type uses that adapt small dancing stunt vehicles that do not need to be coded with dance moves for them to on their own want to dance to music. Unfortunately the whole project only led to forum conflict that helps make this an even more dangerous world. It's one more thing on my mind that makes me resent the big-science crap that endlessly makes pompous demands. If my worse nightmare comes true then I can at least honestly say that those left alive who found it convenient to constantly trash my work only have themselves to blame.


This makes sense where in the world?

Dancing stunt cars that don't need programming to do what they do? They are programmed to do more than your "bug"!

Paranoia is a terrible condition, Gaulin, for the sake of your family seek help.

I can't "trash your work" because I haven't seen the print shop where you do work. I can trash your excrement you call a theory and what you call a model because there doesn't appear to be any work involved in them.

Date: 2016/05/03 02:57:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Science is still going my way.


Science drove past you whilst you were still thumbing a lift.

Quote
That stupid schematic, again


If this models intelligence in a biological entity does this make Gaulin non-biological?

Date: 2016/05/05 09:26:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote
I learned that in a forum like this one it is vital to make sure to provide phrases that have training wheels on them.


Then put your training wheels on these questions;

1) How do molecules learn?
2) How does this differ for polymers like RNA/DNA?
3) Why can't unimolecular systems be intelligent?
4) How do energy gradients affect this learning?
5) Do oxygen levels affect the outcome?
6) Do molecules learn to overcome these different conditions?

These questions are probably rhetorical as Gaulin has no chance of understanding them or giving a scientific answer.

Date: 2016/05/06 01:49:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you and others cannot be honest then I am not going to bother with you.


So, no training wheels then. No defence of your theory. No idea about how chemistry works. Nothing but deflection and dishonesty. Nothing but fact less assertions without foundation.

You would know if you attempted to answer these questions that you do not have a theory at all.

You are nothing but a god-soaked liar who is trying to set back the education of K to 12 children to the Dark Ages. Trying to impose your religious delusions onto science is not working, Gaulin, you should stop wasting your life and look after your family properly.

Date: 2016/05/06 16:44:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
These clowns trashed my thread by throwing post after post of insults then blame me for it being a long thread where finding relevant information is impossible?


When we ask you for relevant information all we get is a stupid music video. When you finally provide answers to the relevant questions about your pseudoscience perhaps the insults will stop, perhaps.

Until then you are nothing but a god-soaked snake oil salesman trying to force your religion onto K to 12 children.

Date: 2016/05/07 04:51:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I can now go back to ignoring the trolls, without feeling like I need to address the endless stupidity that is normal for this forum.


No, can't find any evidence in those piles of shit you linked to, Gaulin. Just more mindless assertions that you pulled out of your arse.

How many times have I to tell you that calling RNA "unimolecular" is not even wrong. Now that part of your not-a-theory has been shown to be shit it means the rest of your pile of shit is not even wrong as well.

FFS, Gaulin, get somebody to read a chemistry text book to you as you are shown to be totally incapable of reading one yourself.

Date: 2016/05/09 10:45:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Specific changes to non-coding RNA may be part of what makes us human
phys.org/news/2016-05-specific-non-coding-rna-human.html


None of which has any relevance to your not-a-theory. You do not discuss coding, transcription or anything resembling them. All you look at is "RNA" and scramble to make it fit into your crap. It doesn't.

Now back to those questions you haven't answered...

Thanks for repeating them in case Gaulin missed them first time, NoName.

Date: 2016/05/09 10:47:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I had enough bullshit for one day.


Then stop reading your not-a-theory and the problem will be cured.

Date: 2016/05/10 01:50:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I will continue to post relevant information. But I'm purposely not answering these assholes.


At last! A tacit admission that he has no answers! This is a textbook classic diversion tactic, if you have no answers call your interrogators 'assholes' and refuse to engage with them.

Gaulin you are as rubbish at this logic thing as you are at science.

Improve your vegetable crop, go and spread your well-rotted bullshit on them.

Date: 2016/05/11 04:12:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Aaaand back to the music videos, the last refuge of Gaulin's incompetence.

No answers given yet again. No defence of your not-a-theory.

Let's try again;

How would an 'intelligent' RNA polymer differ from one reacting to the existing laws of physics and chemistry?

And the follow-up;

How would we detect this difference?

Again, I won't hold my breath for answers.

Date: 2016/05/12 02:49:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It sounds to me like you are saying: How would an 'intelligent' robot differ from one reacting to the existing laws of electronics?


So that would be no need for 'intelligence' then. So stop trying to force your definition of intelligence onto unthinking molecules.

No 'best guesses', no 'motor control', just the laws of physics and chemistry. No Intelligence required.

Also, robots are man-made objects that only perform as they are humanly programmed to do, who or what 'programmes' RNA polymers to 'learn'?

Ah hell, why do I have to use up a year's supply of quote marks when talking to Gaulin?

Don't answer, I've just realised. It's because he has no operational definitions and can use words to mean what he wants them to mean when he wants to obfuscate.

Date: 2016/05/12 10:22:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[QUOTE]Although it's just a semantics issue I do wonder whether RNA's fully qualify as being "unimolecular". A molecule made of molecules can also be said to be a multimolecular molecule, a polymer.
[CODE]

Thank you, and to continue the metaphor used by N.Wells, game, set and match.

It is not a semantics issue, it is an issue about the correct usage of existing scientific terms. You cannot blindly redefine these terms without a reason to do so. Your drivel does not do this. Your abysmal knowledge of physics and chemistry does not allow you to do this, in fact this has been pointed out to you by every poster here since the very beginning of the thread.

I won't deal with the other ignorant posts of yours regarding Ohm's Law etc. as the others have already pointed out the major flaws with this trash.

Date: 2016/05/12 10:23:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Sorry clicked wrong button by mistake.

Date: 2016/05/13 02:11:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And here's a link for you, Gaulin baby;

Molecular activators


Quote
(ChemiCat, have I said anything wrong here?)


No, that's just fine. I was trying to get Gaulin to do some research other than looking for buzzwords that 'fit' into his not-a-theory. I see  the latest is 'sequence'.

The whole problem with your not-a-theory, Gaulin baby, is that you have made the same mistake as all creationists and started with your conclusion. Until you begin providing scientific testable evidence for your BS, start providing operational definitions and start learning (in the correct usage of the word- not yours) some basic science you are going to be the last laugh of all of us.

Date: 2016/05/14 02:42:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I already visited the "Artificial muscles, molecular actuator design, microscopic theory of nanotube and conjugated polymer actuation" webpage several times, while researching molecular actuators. There are other good ones on the web too.


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

Date: 2016/05/14 02:52:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
When I ask you or someone else how to reword so that it makes more sense to them I normally get something like "your not-a-theory is a waste of time and should be thrown out so that you can do more constructive things with your life" in which case I cannot take them seriously. You would do the same where I did nothing but throw insults like "Your Darwinian not-a-theory nonsense takes more faith to believe than I have and should be thrown out of science."


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

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

Date: 2016/05/14 08:38:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you're attempting to argue that molecular motors/actuators do not exist in biology then you're on your own with that myth. RNA based propulsion is well known to exist.


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

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

Date: 2016/05/14 08:54:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Here's a link for you, Gaulin;

John Oliver

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

Now misread that, Gaulin.

Date: 2016/05/14 14:47:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And if anyone from this forum gets in to disrupt the constructive discussion now happening in the Reddit forum I will personally ask JoeCoder to delete your insults and ban you for good.


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

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

Date: 2016/05/14 14:50:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If you need a forum that favors snobs and bullies then you are getting what you deserve. And with my topic for the "Spontaneous formation and base pairing of plausible prebiotic nucleotides in water" paper having turned into a short but surprisingly useful and constructive discussion I'm impressed.


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

Date: 2016/05/14 14:54:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
To make that clearer, I'm referring to your contribution, Gaulin, not the original paper

Date: 2016/05/15 01:15:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
...though I'm still not certain whether the need to replicate previous contents of its code/memory for it to learn new tricks changes things...


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

Have at it, Gaulin!

Date: 2016/05/15 15:09:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Oh and "dingy" should be spelled "dinghy". I built her when I was in my early teens or before (and bad at spelling), but she recently had a fresh coat of paint that strengthened her hull even more. For her age she's not at all dingy looking.


You didn't mention this post from Sandwalk did you, Gaulin? I wonder why.

I see that your spelling hasn't improved in those intervening years. Much like your incompetent not-a-theory.

Date: 2016/05/16 02:08:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Ironically I'm the only one here that has any science worth sharing. The rest is, well, you know what.


No, Gaulin baby, that's backwards. We have the science and you are full of the 'you know what.

Date: 2016/05/16 02:17:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From Gaulin's circle-jerk subreddit;

Quote
Why we are private
Unfortunately our experiments with r/creation being an open sub didn't go very well.  We become overwhelmingly outnumbered and It became a place for people to bash creationism (which there are already plenty on reddit) and most of the creationists left in frustration. We need a place for ourselves where creationists are the primary voices.  Everybody needs a "home base" where they can be themselves :P  But for balance, we still allow some dissenting voices among our ranks and regularly link to discussions about creation and ID on other subs to invite our members to participate there.

Someday if our numbers become large enough we may go public again.

Levels of Access
We currently grant two levels of access:

Full access:  If you meet the rather minimal criteria of being an ID proponent as described by Granville Sewall, or are even open-minded to the idea that ID might be true, you can have full and permanent access. It doesn't matter whether you ascribe to a particular religion or none at all.
Read only access: You can view all posts and comments, but are not allowed to make posts or comments of your own.  However if you ever feel the need for more, message us moderators and we will schedule for you to create one thread with a specific question or point for debate.  You will be allowed to comment within that thread as much as you want.
Message the moderators to request access, and let us know which level you are requesting.


The name that stands out is Granville " I don't know how Thermodynamics work" Sewall! The moron amongst morons. Gaulin should fit right in there.

Date: 2016/05/19 11:36:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And for those who are unfamiliar with the university level cycle: what will happen next is there will be panic that results in a billion or so dollar "investment in education" that results in the creation of even more multi-million dollar "evolution" websites, million+ dollar wax Charles Darwin exhibits showing him sitting while writing his theory, Evolutionary Algorithms that make what looks like multicolor poop, academic spokespeople traveling around the country giving talks while pitching their books, while I (and others who are more reasonable) have to be bashed into oblivion because everything is supposed to be my responsibility and all the scientists in the world are too busy with "real science" to get involved in a not-a-theory and all the rest of the excuses for what amounts to academic snobbery.


Oh Boo-Hoo are de nasty sciency people being nasty, baby Gaulin. Oh how poorly the nasty ones treat you, you special snowflake. Oh Boo-Hoo aren't they showering you in money? Now take your thumb out of your arse and get an education.

'Reasonable' another word that baby Gaulin doesn't understand. The Gaulin not-a-dictionary is now on its fourth volume.

Date: 2016/05/20 09:45:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Update:
The Blyth Institute is getting the conference videos and papers (now in review stage) ready for publication. Jonathan is excited by the excellent turnout, all speakers submitted a paper. The online conference turned out to be a great success.


And?

Date: 2016/05/21 03:20:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Those who need long definitions that end up expecting the general public to stop using the word "theory" as is normal on US TV shows like the very popular program my wife loves named "Castle" and in real life are likewise part of the problem, but academia has a way of making sure that they don't even know it.


Stairway to Heaven by Led Zep;

"For you know that sometimes words have two meanings..."

Like your not-a-theory, Gaulin, 'Castle' is a work of fiction.

Date: 2016/05/23 01:48:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If the police bash down my door and arrest me for theft of scientific materials then I'll have to blame you!

A quick scan shows that they are discussing the RNA methods only. I'll have to spend some time going through them for more detail. I'm finding this very interesting.

The estimate for the percentage of the genome that codes for RNA's appears to have been added to the press release only. Normally I would not take it overly serious but in this case it's a more reliable source than usual.


From Gaulin at Sandwalk.

Larry is writing his book about DNA. Gaulin can't tell the difference between this and RNA. What a surprise! Gaulin's ignorance knows no bounds.

Earlier he even asked Georgi for the $31.50 to access the paper, showing that Gaulin hasn't read the paper only the magazine article and he wasted his money on a so-called conference.

Date: 2016/05/23 01:52:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And another gem from baby Gaulin;

Quote
Gary GaulinSunday, May 22, 2016 7:41:00 PM
Let's talk science!
Yeah!

How do we prove the guided evolution? Where do we start?
The ID movement already proposed a hypothesis that only needs to be tested to be true by a testable scientific theory, which I just so happen have all set to go:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

I'll soon be improving the wording to make the theory more precise and also cover the cognitive origin of the "scientific method" but it's still a good start towards explaining how "guided evolution" works.


ROFLMAO!

Date: 2016/05/24 02:09:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gary at Sandwalk;

Quote
Gary GaulinMonday, May 23, 2016 1:54:00 AM
Drats, the brown-noser found me!

The operational definition for intelligence and information I provided in the .pdf for theory I linked to above is more than enough to model all the levels of intelligence it covers. It's wonderful for systems biology related work. Anyone who needs more than that from someone who gets no funding at all is either new to science or just being a biased creep, like N.Wells needs to be.


He found you because YOU PROVIDED a link, you demented moron.

You have not provided any testable scientific definitions, you have asserted (look up the meaning, moron) your presuppositions. There is no science in your bullshit.

Provide a methodology for testing 'molecular intelligence' and come back when you have it, moron.

Date: 2016/05/25 01:30:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And Gaulin's latest post on Sandwalk;

Quote
Gary GaulinSunday, May 22, 2016 6:36:00 PM
This comment has been removed by the author.

Reply


Why has Gaulin started channelling Joe G? Has anybody seen them in the same room together?

Date: 2016/05/25 01:36:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Oh and the guided/unguided discussion went so well (for me) that I had to stop the Jeopardy countdown music. If you are familiar with the way the game show works then you know what that means.


That's why you are no good at science, baby Gaulin. You have to remove your comments before you get your arse burnt further.

When your not-science is based on crappy TV quiz shows ( I had to Google Jeopardy to find out what it was) and fictional crime writers you are nothing but an idiot.

Ditch your religion, baby Gaulin, stop playing chess as a pigeon and get on with caring for your hard-pressed family.

Date: 2016/05/25 08:09:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
How can a post from 3 days ago be my latest?


I followed YOUR last link so there is only yourself to blame for giving us the wrong one. I think you are losing your short-term memory, Gaulin, see a doctor.

Date: 2016/05/26 11:31:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This makes sense:
America now has nearly 5 PR people for every reporter, double the rate from a decade ago


And as with the current paper you are misrepresenting they are not science savvy.

Date: 2016/05/27 09:27:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Quote (N.Wells @ May 27 2016,09:29)
His confidence evaluator is set to 100% confidence but 0% evaluation?



Quote
It's his best rejoinder yet to the last few pages of decimation.  

I'm kind of fond of "Go to hell you waste of time piece of shit."

But that doesn't have a beat and you can't dance to it.  Lol.
But yes, that was one of his classics.  If you can't address the criticisms go for the foul mouthed attack.
He really is a tiresome piece of excrement isn't he?


It doesn't even scan as 'rap'.

Quote
But that doesn't have a beat and you can't dance to it.  Lol


I bet Gaulin thinks it has and dances around his basement humming it.

Date: 2016/05/28 06:32:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
From the early days of the streetwise religion:

M√∂tley Cr√ľe - Wild Side (Official Music Video)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nm1BJPe-pg


Of course, it's all about the science!

Quote
With a congregation like that my mission became a "be careful what you wish for" situation that equally applies to the Discovery Institute.


I'm sure that inside Gaulin's brain this makes some sort of sense.

Date: 2016/05/29 01:08:53, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance


What do you know, Gaulin has learnt to copy and paste! Now how about learning some science, Gaulin?



Quote
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy


Yes, Gaulin, how is that working out? Only two years of the twenty to go. The Wedge is as effective as your pile of bullshit.

Quote
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2016,15:00)
ROSETTA'S COMET CONTAINS INGREDIENTS FOR LIFE
sci.esa.int/rosetta/57858-rosettas-comet-contains-ingredients-for-life/


Is this something else for you to plagiarise for your not-a-theory, Gaulin?

Date: 2016/05/29 04:06:41, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Aretha Franklin - Freeway Of Love!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip_pjb5_fgA


Aaaand Gaulin sinks further into the irrelevancy of his own making.

Date: 2016/05/29 04:17:51, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The only way to make a new cell is to duplicate a cell that already exists. A cell reproduces by performing an orderly sequence of events in which it duplicates its contents and then divides in two.  This cycle of duplication and division, known as the cell cycle, is the essential mechanism by which all living things reproduce. Dividing cells must coordinate their growth. A complex network of regulatory proteins  trigger the different events of the cycle.


Stolen from here without reference;

NCBI

A dishonest creationist, who would have thought that!

Date: 2016/05/31 00:27:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I still expect a walk on the beach would often include a concentrated protoplasmic biomass-like pile along the high tide line, but what's in it did not yet comprise the seaweed with things like crabs that later came from it. In either case there was already plenty of starter material being skim deposited in different environments making stones slippery when wet, not crystal clear water washing everything squeaky clean and slime free. In either case you have to start with a tremendous amount of life giving compounds already in the comets and other cosmic debris. Even frozen and/or liquid methane lakes would like rain from the sky, which is honestly the next best thing to starting off with a steady supply of plenty of cow manure. The single carbon monomers link up into fats and oils that make cell membranes stay together to cover watery surfaces while those that are not end up on one side of the membrane or the other.


Crabs being born from seaweed? Methane rain? Membranes covering watery surfaces? Yet more indications that you do not have the brain capacity you were born with,Gaulin. It's as if your religious upbringing has seriously damaged it. Or did the pastor hit your head on the font? Why are you channelling a creationist version of Darwin's tangled bank? He was a better scientist AND a better poet than you will ever be.



 
Quote
Self-assembly has a way of putting everything that the Big-Bang's cosmic tornado separated into its most basic chemical parts back together again...


What a load of bullshit! Try throwing away your bibles and getting down to your local library, ask for a science book for 5 year old's and get somebody to read it to you.

 
Quote
This sorting out of the cell forming compounds preceded the special moment of breathing of life into them, where self-learning genetic systems were by self-assembly created in a meant to be way, not lucky accidents.


And this is why your anal output will never be accepted as science. Evidence-free assertions cannot be investigated by anything. This is pure 'invisible pink unicorn' territory.

 
Quote
From something I wrote for the Reddit Creationism forum.


"Wrote" for some definition of "wrote" in the Gaulinese to English dictionary. This certainly 'self-assembled' without any intelligence involved.

I have to watch paint dry so I will leave the rest of this bullshit to others to tell you why it is bullshit.

Date: 2016/06/04 05:48:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
A scientific model that makes Biblical creationism able to gain inspiration from RNA World scientists like Gerald Joyce makes a narrow escape from where things seemed going in Kansas, where back in the days of turmoil in the KCFS forum was a birdie that led to his personally praising my efforts in his home state. As it turns out the self-assembly related way of explaining things that started with Kathy Martin and came together in the forum Jack Krebs did a great job ruling. After one professor was already beaten and it looking like origin of life researchers where next on the list it makes worse nightmares that look like this new release just a close call that was ultimately avoided:


Nurse! Gaulin needs his meds, stat. He's barfing all over the internet again!

Date: 2016/06/06 06:41:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Imagine my total lack of surprise that you are unable and unwilling to address the above.


I am also not surprised. I cannot remember any occasion when Gaulin has replied to anything of substance except with a link to some creationist backwater site or a crappy music video. It is the only response he has to the fatal criticisms of his not-a-theory.

I would be very surprised, however, if he ever provides any evidence-based science for his ass-ertions though!

Date: 2016/06/07 09:52:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
N.Wells said;

Quote
I don't think you understood...


Did he ever understand anything? I've added Gaulin to the Gaulin to English dictionary as "to Gaulin(verb)=to misunderstand, particularly about anything scientific.

Date: 2016/06/09 11:46:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The two models start from the total opposite ends of the wiring problem. I'm starting from the brain stem up, not the other side of the stream that expects an address to sum up what being sensed from movies and such. They are not expected to be the same. Where the science is working out on both sides they are expected to complement each other, this well. It's then having two lines of evidence, instead of only one. With so many already working the input side of the information flow it is best I develop from the other.



Quote
GG's English composition skills seem to be headed in the wrong direction.


I think it is certainly going nowhere near the English language. I hope that in his capacity as a printer of sorts he doesn't have to proof-read.

Date: 2016/07/12 13:58:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Hi Folks, just back off holiday to the news that Gaulin's fantasy girl, Kathy Martin, is back! She is running for a seat in the Kansas legislature.

Kathy Martin

First the Big Barn Encounter then this. Gaulin's fantasies are all coming true!

Date: 2016/07/15 07:08:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have been busy with tracksite related work as well as the paper that I ended up with more time to finish, and will soon have to get back to work on.


So busy doing nothing, then.

Date: 2016/07/17 09:31:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Wot? Stealing oxygen.


No, more like oxygen starvation.

Date: 2016/08/02 08:19:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In case you're wondering where Gary went, he's got a job as a speechwriter:


Just when I was coming to the assumption that his keyboard had run out of punctuation marks.

Date: 2016/08/03 15:57:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Oh No!

Gaulin's crush, Kathy Martin, was defeated in her attempt to win a seat in the legislature.

Sensuous Curmudgeon

Oh well, at least he is keeping busy doing nothing.

Date: 2016/08/04 00:11:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The flood geology work is going so well...


Next to be included in Gaulin's not-a-theory: Noah the founder of cognitive science.

I can't wait to read it!

Date: 2016/08/10 10:40:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Having been built of "denial" what Ken Ham and others have for "flood theory" is destined to hit a "rock bottom" leaving a "void" that needs to be right away filled with evidence and theory pertaining to environment changing floods, or something else will. Where not taken seriously by giving it all the scientific respect given to other "theories" the morph to follow is otherwise expected to have another gap for inserting "magical thinking" to "bite you in the ass again". We might look at it as a free handout full of fascinating field-guide information to pass out in the parking lot (and inexpensive kit of tools they can buy so they'll have what they need) to next have visitors chiseling in flood formed rocks all the way home, even where they are driving all the way back to Boston. In my local there are a number of museums and the Nash Dinosaur Site is good at serving tourists who want a flood formed tracksite experience and something to take home as a momento.


And the real Gaulin is back with his usual distortion of grammar.

Gaulin, please seek help either with your English grammar or your mind, preferably both.

Date: 2016/08/11 01:31:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin throws out a faint thread of hope:

 
Quote
Theories that fail become one more "failed theory" added to the pile along with the others evidence ultimately went against.


I think he is beginning to realise that his not-a-theory has no chance of being an accepted part of cognitive science.

Perhaps he now sees that it fails at 'intelligent molecules' and goes down the toilet from there onwards.

His whole output is unsubstantiated assertion without scientific evidence. It is thinly disguised apologetics and nothing more.

Date: 2016/08/12 08:43:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The only thing I did is explain how the system works, as it relates to systems biology.


No you didn't. Your not-a theory explains nothing about systems or biology. It is a mishmash of pseudoscience and poor theology without any basis in reality. It tries to do so with poor grammar, no definitions, poor English and a total lack of experimental evidence whatsoever.

You are of much use to science as an aqualung to a cod.  

All your output comes over as a wannabe scientist wearing a stolen white coat with leaking pens in the top pocket.

You are illiterate in your chosen language and without Google you would be scientifically ignorant. Even with Google you cannot do anything but plagiarise people like Trehub and Heiserman.

You have wasted years of your life, neglected your health and put you family second to your God obsession. Try and correct this whilst you can.

Date: 2016/08/13 01:16:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Oh and a grmamar tip. Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.


Once again Gaulin confuses spelling with grammar. Just as he confuses his not-a-theory with science.

Damn, N.Wells beat me to it...carry on.

Date: 2016/08/14 01:02:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Perhaps I better stop wasting time here.


I have been telling you that for page after page. You are wasting your time with your not-a-theory instead of looking after yourself and your family. You have wasted your time for years by ignoring the evidence against your 'theory', by not providing evidence for your n-a t.  

You have a wife and offspring and grandchildren so abandon your wild obsession and spend the time with them.

Date: 2016/08/14 12:02:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This forum should be discussing a far more serious credibility problem such as:
Quote
My opinion: Evolutionary Psychologists can't seem to get their story straight!
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/despite-what-you-might-think-humans-actually-evolved-to-be-kind


That is the opinion of someone who has a greater than average understanding of science, and only expects a coherent answer.

--------------


Quote
Perhaps I better stop wasting time here.


Still here then, Gaulin.

Date: 2016/08/16 01:51:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You should not be teaching science.


Says the science wannabe who cannot even begin to understand the scientific process, who can only supply a list of unevidenced assertions, who cannot accept that the scientific evidence totally disproves his assertions, who still insists that molecular intelligence proves his god.

Still here I see, Gaulin. Having trouble working out how a door works?

Date: 2016/08/16 07:42:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From Gaulin's post at Kurzweil;

Quote
As in our imagination there can be an internal world model representation of our body interacting with its environment, which qualifies as a (virtual) body to control that is in addition to the body it emulates. We this way test various actions in our mind, before actually performing them. Other animals likewise plan their actions, and have an imagination they fills their dreams that have them moving their legs and feet in ways that make it obvious they dream too.


This is supposed to make sense? Is English your first and only language? Try running your paragraph through Google translate, it would make for better communication than this crap.



Quote
As in our imagination...


Imagination, another word you do not understand and is now added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary.

Date: 2016/08/21 02:36:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
There is no Godly need to be adversarial to science. From the theory I have we are are indeed a trinity of intelligence levels in one, and talking only 6 or so thousand of years has a way of belittling our Creator. I sense that science is the path we were destined to take, where following the scientific evidence wherever it leads keeps us heading in a direction where we all want to go. The other intelligence levels in us through reciprocal cause can to some extent share in the thrill of discovery too. Finding out for ourselves is a meant to be thing. From my experience: what does not make sense after being scientifically tested leads to something even better. The best thing to do is move things along as quickly as possible. As a result I now have what I just explained to you, to help keep science and religion in perfect harmony.


Gaulin, Gaulin, Gaulin, do you ever read your bullshit? Before posting try to get somebody to read it back to you. When they stop laughing at you, that is.

Quote
From the theory I have we are are indeed a trinity of intelligence levels in one,...


You have no theory until you provide testable evidence for your wild assertions.

Quote
where following the scientific evidence wherever it leads keeps us heading in a direction where we all want to go.


What evidence? You have provided none to explain your 'theory'. WE have been asking for your 'evidence' for page after page, so where is it? Plagiarising the work of others, Trelub etc., does nothing but show that your 'theory' is no such thing.

Quote
From my experience: what does not make sense after being scientifically tested leads to something even better.


I think this rubbish means that experiments have to be performed to verify or reject an hypothesis, I think. If this is the correct interpretation of this mangled English, where are your repeatable tests to verify/reject your 'theory'?





Quote
I take the miracles attributed to Jesus to his knowing what scientists and physicians were experimenting with, which literally would have brought the otherwise for sure dead back to life again but that was because of his knowledge of human physiology.


Even your apologetics are scrambled. Where in your holey book is your Jesus described as an anatomist? Where are the diagrams of human anatomy. You are making this up just like you made up your not-a-theory.

Quote
As in the above model: God is expected to be timeless. Hard to say whether it's possible for such a thing to have a start. Otherwise is a paradox that to at least me makes it less likely that there once was a nothingness where not even the force filled vacuum of "outer space" where there is little solid matter but something is none the less there.


This must make sense somewhere in the universe. 'Paradox' another word you don't understand. Why a timeless god and not a timeless universe?

Your attempt at science is rubbish, your theology is non-existent and you cosmology is twisted out of all coherence. The average K to 12 has a better understanding of these subjects than you ever will.

Date: 2016/08/21 16:08:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Rawhiiiide!


Well his backside has been flayed raw! Can he take any more punishment?

Date: 2016/08/23 02:22:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
On Radio 4 from the BBC there is a panel game called ' Just a Minute' in which panellists have to talk for one minute on a subject without deviation, hesitation or repetition.

Quote
Disregard the UNU. I went to their site, there is no way a useful answer would come from that thing.


Gaulin would not last a second.

Date: 2016/08/25 10:26:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote



Posts: 4908
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47  
www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made?


No not just you. I heard him invoke a supernatural agency (God?) to be the creator of dinosaur adaptability as well.

Of course he did this without evidence. Hmm, who does that remind me about? So, Gaulin, given up on your sleep theory then?

Date: 2016/08/26 05:08:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
... In the real science world you're on your own...


"In the pseudoscience world you are on your own. Fixed that for you, Gaulin.

Poor lonely Gaulin, all alone in a world of his own.

Date: 2016/08/26 05:17:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide.


However, nobody has come forward to say that your not-a-theory is useful. Not one person, ever.  The best reply has been "I'll look into it when I have time". That's it. That's it for wasting years of your life. That's it for being told that the flaws in your 'not a theory' render it useless. That is if anyone can understand your abuse of language, punctuation and grammar. Your "theory" isn't even useful as toilet paper.

Date: 2016/09/03 02:53:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Well I'm also busy combining flashes of intuition with careful controlled analysis.

Back to work!


Unfortunately for you, Gaulin, Einstein's intuitions were based on his knowledge of the science involved. Your "intuitions" are based on a twisted interpretation of pseudoscience from the DI.

Throw away your all your assertions and you have nothing to add to cognitive science in your not-a-theory. You do have a poor imitation of Pacman, I will concede that point. However that is also useless to explain what you, alone, consider as 'intelligence'.

A hippocampal insect, really? I suggest you look up how many neurons make up what can be called an insect's brain (Hint; not many). Then try and fit in a hippocampus.

Your God delusion has fried your brain, Gaulin.

Date: 2016/09/03 17:07:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
That's nice, but I work with far more than "animal intelligence".


No, Gaulin you work with no intelligence at all. (See how you have to use words in the correct context to make sense).

Quote
I'm not interested in narrow definitions that cannot explain how an intelligent system works. That would be a step backwards.


The first time you even begin to start to try and use definitions will be the time you have come close to sciencing.

Date: 2016/09/07 01:18:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Snowball ‚ĄĘ - Another One Bites The Dust
www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw


Another irrelevant video to add to your irrelevant not-a-theory, Gaulin.

What next? Kittens?

Date: 2016/09/07 10:47:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The ID Lab is all set to make a video.


Kittens! I bet it's about kittens. Dancing kittens.

Quote
And has dance step type cellular memory.  More later..


The only cell you need, Gaulin, is a padded one.

Date: 2016/09/09 01:20:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You are making no sense at all. But that's par for your course, whatever it is.....


Oh, the irony!

This is what everybody on the internet has been telling YOU for years, Gaulin.

Back to your cell.

Date: 2016/09/09 01:25:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 08 2016,20:44)
Question answered!
 
Quote
[‚Äď]Baconmusubi, ¬†Evolutionist 2 points 2 hours ago

If I'm using Time Tree correctly, the Asian elephant and tulip poppy ancestors diverged around 1.5 billion years ago when eukaryotes diversified. I think this link should show the same results I found.
So to answer your question, the common ancestor was a primitive eukaryotic cell.

And all without recourse to your nonsense.  
How odd.  How surprising.  Said no one anywhere.

Your effluent has nothing to offer, can elaborate on nor deepen our understanding of any part of this.  
So why do keep dragging these bright shiny facts that cannot help but show the banality, the utter vacuity, of your "work" across the path of this, ahem, 'discussion'?


I'm waiting for a Tulipelephant to appear in the not-a-theory now.

Or in the Pacman copy. Chasing a bug to compare hippocampi.

Date: 2016/09/10 16:44:02, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It follows the movement physics already used at the multicellular level of the virtual ID Lab critter.  


Gaulin, you know even less about physics than you do about chemistry and biology. Since you know nothing about either of those that takes your physics knowledge into the minus.

Quote
Exactly what the theory predicts:...


The Theory of Evolution, yes. Your mish-mash of unconnected assertions, no.

Because you see your version of God behind everything from the Big Bang to the Cambrian explosion to animal intelligence your not-a-theory is just a waste of electrons. You explain nothing, you define nothing, you understand nothing, your mess makes no predictions and you expect the cognitive scientists to beat a path to your door. Don't hold your breath.

Now about those kittens...

Date: 2016/09/10 16:46:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I used to think you moved your lips when you looked at pictures.  Now I doubt you even see them.


Cut off his index finger and he can't even read what he has written.

Date: 2016/09/17 02:37:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And as I saw on the classroom door: Where words fail, music speaks.
Queensryche - Silent Lucidity
www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw


When you have no answer for your critics, post a music video.

Date: 2016/09/18 15:54:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It's hard to believe that it gets even better than what I now have. I'm sure I'll be excited to rush what I end up with to YouTube.


Of course! YouTube! The 'go to' place to publish scientific theory! Why haven't scientists discovered this peer-reviewed location before? One day all scientific discoveries will appear there first! Another triumph for Gaulin!

Sorry, got carried away a bit there, it must have been the hysterical laughter that did it. Or the Scotch. I thought I read that Gaulin had made a scientific breakthrough. I was wrong. Just his usual bullshit. And not even a music video.

Send in the dancing kittens. The clown is already here.

Date: 2016/09/20 05:48:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I could have easily wasted another 10 years experimenting...


Fixed that for you.

Quote
But now I can delete it all out!


Just what we have been telling you! Do it, do it now and give yourself the time to spend with your family.

Date: 2016/09/26 12:53:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Either Gaulin has taken our good advice and deleted his rubbish or he can't find a suitably inappropriate music video.

Date: 2016/09/30 06:33:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I am very confident that the prediction I was able to make will eventually turn out to be true.


Gaulin, you couldn't predict whether the sun will come up tomorrow. Your rubbish makes no predictions.

Quote
But in their case they are just a vile troll turding all over my thread.


As there was a pile of bullshit already on here from your theory why shouldn't NoName think it was a toilet?

Bring in the Dancing Kittens, the clown is back!

Date: 2016/09/30 06:37:10, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
<a href="www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/551qcb/why_neuroscientists_need_to_study_the_crow/" target="_blank">Reddit</a>


Oh look! Gaulin has found another peer-review venue apart from YouTube!

Science had better catch up quickly!

Date: 2016/10/01 10:20:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The theory predicted this hypothesis is true. Without the model that all this theory is possible from this hypothesis would not even exist.


If I can untangle this abuse of the English language, I think Gaulin is  saying his not-a-theory predicted something and if it wasn't for his "model" his "theory" is useless. I think.

Gaulin, did your hypothesis come from your "theory" or vice versa? Did your "theory" come from your "model" or vice versa. Whichever it is it is definitely not science nor reason.

Which version of your BS makes this prediction and how can we tell without being able to see a dated version? How does your not-a-theory predict the Cambrian Explosion which happened about 5 hundred million years ago. Is this like the biblical predictions of Jesus your minister told you about in whichever sect of Methodism you were brought up in? Does anyone regard your rubbish as science in even the broadest meaning of science?

When do we get to see the Dancing Kittens?

Date: 2016/10/01 15:57:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Not speaking for Gary, of course, but here's Independent Woman, played by kittens.


OK Jim, how did you get a copy of Gaulin's new video before release?

Date: 2016/10/05 01:51:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
After all that work and the time being the next morning it's a miracle it's not worse than forgivable ambiguity and maybe a redundant "I" from not being sure which place to put it. It's normal for a brain that needs sleep to automatically add or skip words. Again be thankful I wrote anything at all about the day. By the next was not able to.


Somewhere in this universe this makes sense! Or possibly in one of the multiverses.

Nothing to do with the lack of sleep, Gaulin. It's due to a lack of grammar and 'intelligence'.


Quote
On a more serious note, Guenter strikes again!

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/55tvx8/can_you_all_please_help_me_with_something/


Ah! The University of Reddit, the go-to place to 'learn' about neuroscience! At least it is a step up from the execrable R/creationism subthread.

To quote; What a hoot!

Date: 2016/10/07 07:27:07, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm accustomed;


If they gave out annual awards for the most irrelevant person on the planet Gaulin would win it every time.

Date: 2016/10/17 02:08:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Wake me up when you have anything relevant to say in any field of science, Gaulin

Date: 2016/10/17 02:14:07, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I doubt Barry Arrington can make me holy again. But Methodist  leaders can!


Pastor

Just don't walk over the lawn, Gaulin, or you will be holey.

Date: 2016/10/18 03:03:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Stick to making patterns, Gaulin. You can make some pretty CGI patterns.

Date: 2016/10/18 03:05:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
That's a Protestant church.


No True Scotsman!

Date: 2016/10/26 07:06:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Here is a very educational debate:


Obviously you learnt nothing from it , Gaulin.

We can add Reddit to YouTube as the go to sites for serious scientific research...NOT. Of course, anything with even a modicum of science to it goes straight over Gaulin's head at great height and speed.

Date: 2016/10/28 12:25:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I don’t doubt we shoot rockets upwards. I don’t doubt people are employed to monitor the rover who really think it is on Mars, I don’t doubt they made the thing. I doubt very much that it is Mars though


Of course it isn't Mars. I'm the one who replaced the grey dust with red dust on the Moon set and painted the rocks... Just a minute there's someone at the door.. back in a mo.....

Date: 2016/10/29 08:53:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Much of the conflict is being caused by overzealous educators who are using definitions that came from political activists who are more concerned about finding new ways to stop the Discovery Institute.


The quasi-Discovery Institute is not a scientific organisation in any sense of the word "Science". They are an out-and-out religious and political lobby group. They do no research, do not contribute anything to human knowledge. Nobody is trying to stop them as they have never moved.

When are you going to use any definitions at all, Gaulin? Your rubbish has none. I believe this is so you can plagiarise true scientific research and not be called out on it. Your total output of many years cannot be used for any aspect of cognitive science and your model is at best a poor imitation of Pacman. There is nothing of value to any science in your bullshit.

Scrap the whole thing and concentrate on digging yourself and family out of the mess you have caused by your obsessions.

Date: 2016/11/01 04:21:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You have not demonstrated the attitude of a scientist[..]


How would you know, Gaulin? You are not, and never have been, a scientist. Your not-a-theory shows that. You do not know what 'evidence' means, you do not use definitions and your English comprehension is abysmal.  

 
Quote
Posted on Nov. 01 2016,02:46
Fine then. The Discovery Institute won.


No it hasn't. The Disco'tute has won nothing. They, like you, are not scientists. They, like you, start with the presupposition of a god(s) and go from there. This is so removed from science as to be in a different universe.

If you do not support the DI remove their stupid "intelligent design not natural selection' shtick from your 'theory'. Better still, use your science to prove that there is an Intelligent Designer. Then fame and fortune awaits! That is what you want, isn't it?

Until then your pseudoscience is useless and can be lumped with Global Warming denial, the Anti-vax movement and even the Time Cube guy as an irrelevant waste of time.

Date: 2016/11/03 07:38:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It really is true that all Gary has to offer is a series of disconnected non sequiturs.
Phantom brain syndrome indeed.


Gaulin would think (for a given value of 'think') it a luxury to have a phantom brain?

Date: 2016/11/14 04:57:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The word "human" is still fuzzily defined. But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve. Classification systems will not change, the word is not used in them anyway. It's the sort of thing for "we the people" to decide where you can get used to the way it has already been, for a couple thousand years of so.


And this pile of ignorance is why the closest you will get to a scientist is your dentist.

"Human" may not be understood by you so "Homo" will pass so far above your head as to have ice on it. The "general public" are not as ignorant of science as you but also science isn't a voting matter. It is evidence driven whether the "general public" vote for or against it.

Quote
Classification systems will not change[..]


Classification systems can and do change in the face of new evidence. Can you say "Archeaopteryx"? Is it a bird (earlier classification) or a Dinosaur (latest classification)?

Quote
But as far as the general public is concerned many already define a human based on first humans named Adam and Eve.


Another assertion based on your bible-twisted 'thinking'. Who are these "General Public"? Hindus? Native Americans? Atheists? Only Bible literalists and inerrantists think this and they are wrong. As are your "General Public" As wrong as voting for the Farter.

I do feel sorry for all the gullible Americans who are still voting for and following the itinerant Snake-oil Salesmen.

Date: 2016/11/15 02:49:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In our cultures the most generally accepted definition of them all starts with first humans, Adam and Eve. It's not a science based definition, but it's already there. The only thing that is needed to make it also a scientific concept is to find some truth to the story.


There you go. Gaulin, now that your not-a-theory is so widely accepted you can start the search for Adam and Eve's remains. Remember how successful were the searches for Noah's Ark? Why they found loads of them! Then you could find the original Garden. Think of the fame...the fortune.. the utter lack of credibility. You could become a bigger laughing stock than you are now. And you still do not understand the word 'definition'.

 
Quote
The problem for me is that the common names now used to differentiate them are "chimp" and "bonobo". If I instead say "pygmy chimps" then very few would even know what I'm talking about.


Not the only problem you have but if you were to use the binomial names, as N.Wells and NoName have so considerately given you, your confusion will disappear. But, of course, that would have to mean you learning some science. Something you have signally failed to do to date.

 
Quote
If people demand change then you must give them something that is scientifically rewarding to have changed.


Which makes your total failure so obvious. Your grammar is still atrocious.

 
Quote
But still, from what I can see the differences between bonobos and chimps are similar to chimps and gorillas.


Then after your dental work I suggest an eye check-up. Get rid of the Jesus goggles.

Date: 2016/11/15 02:56:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You are not alone.


No, you aren't. My front page comments haven't renewed for three days now.

Date: 2016/11/16 09:46:25, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Your going on and on about how things are officially taxonomically classified is irrelevant to a discussion about a word that is not even used in official taxonomical classification. In this case it's what we the people want. So just be thankful the science world can easily adapt to the change.


Gaulin, this quote demonstrates why what you do is not science, is not even a cousin of science and is now extinct.

Taxonomy attempts to classify living creatures and how they relate to each other. It is way too technical for someone like you without the necessary training and comprehension. As is most science.

This lack is further demonstrated with your conflation of chemical species with living species. Again you cannot understand the different usage of the same word.

Science is not a 'we the people' consensus but an evidence and testability driven basis for explaining the real world and the facts that already exist. It is not put to a popular vote and never will be. Before you continue with your drivel I suggest you try an on-line course in basic science with a second in English grammar. Then you will not only see how wrong you are but how to correct your multiple errors.

In the years you have been trolling the internet with your rubbish you could have learnt about science and, even as an amateur, made a contribution to our knowledge. Have you heard the phrase 'citizen science'?

Until you ditch your religious convictions or at least remove them from consideration within your "theory" you will contribute nothing  to science and society.

Date: 2016/11/19 14:38:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I ended up needing to explain more detail to a geneticist who responded to my request for help figuring out what I have.


It has been obvious for years that what you have is a big fat zero.

You are now totally misunderstanding "chromosome banding" along with "chemical species", along with "modelling" and along with "cognition".

By reading and researching the information and links provided by NoName and N.Wells you could save yourself a lot of embarrassment. By getting some high school science textbooks you could get a grounding in sciences. Instead you change the subject, spew invective and dig yourself an even deeper hole.

I certainly don't have the patience that NoName and N.Wells have in correcting the errors in your bullshit.

Date: 2016/11/24 04:40:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
[/QUOTE]The designer uses rot13, apparently.[QUOTE]

She has to. She tried Gaulin's load-o-rubbish and found it didn't work.

Date: 2016/11/24 04:41:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Don't know what happened there!

Date: 2017/01/23 04:40:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I hate to sometimes bring out the worse in people and create opportunity for false-flag trolls making their rivals look bad by acting out of character for who they are but most of the forums representing science and scientists to "creationists" are a damn disgrace. It's no wonder mainstream scientific academia has so little credibility in such places.


I finally manage to log in to comment on AtBC and I find that the Gaulinese to English translator is down. I see that Gaulin hasn't learnt anything since last time I was here, same old same old.

Date: 2017/01/25 10:08:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Through forces that power chemistry and physics our Intelligent Designer governs our morphology and even influences our thoughts in ways only a billions of year old trinity of self-learning systems existing as a planet sized collective that keeps itself going through time by falling in love and having babies ever could.


Apart from the atrocious abuse of the English language, Gaulin, you still have to provide any testable scientific evidence for either your god (the so-called Intelligent Designer- peace be upon him) or for your unholy trinity of "intelligence".Perhaps you can start by providing evidence for the following;

"Molecular Intelligence
Answer, with evidence, the following questions;

1) Do non-organic molecules have "intelligence" as well as organic ones? How do you test your answer?
2) How long and large does an organic molecule have to be before it gains "intelligence"?
  2a) How does molecular weight affect said "intelligence"?
3) Does the addition of side chains influence the amount of "intelligence" in a molecule?
4) How about molecules containing Silicon, can they exhibit "intelligence"?
5) What effect does allotropy have?

Those will do for now, I have a lot more for you to answer. Remember that all your answers must have testable data to back them up, not just wild assertions.

Also remember that if you cannot supply any answers your "Not-a-theory" fails at the first paragraph.

Go to it, Gaulin!

Date: 2017/01/27 04:46:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I have no time to feed the trolls, but made time to keep everyone here posted.


As I suspected, Gaulin, you have no defence for your bullshit. No scientific evidence and no credibility.

The Reddit subs that you inhabit are about your level of competence, that is none at all. Since Sandwalk, Uncommonly Dense, the Disco 'Tute and Panda's Thumb have all dismissed your feeble attempts to "science" the last place left for you is the echo chamber of Reddit.

When even the moron that is JoeG rejects you it is time to seriously re-assess your piled high and deep manure.

Date: 2017/01/29 03:56:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Or at least I believe so.


We know you believe a lot of things;

You believe what you are doing is science... it isn't.
You believe there is an Intelligent Designer... there isn't.
You believe that the DI is a scientific foundation...they aren't.
You believe you are right ...you aren't.
You believe scientists are wrong about your "theory"...they aren't.
You believe the Bible is true...it isn't.

Your beliefs have nothing to do with your attempts at science, they are presuppositions based on your god-addled upbringing.

Ditch the beliefs,Gaulin, you will feel better for it.

Date: 2017/02/08 05:31:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
the current US public education political climate makes this a time for the model and theory to be of service to my/our country. The NAS was formed to provide national leadership in scientific issues like this. What I have needs more work than a typical article or paper but it gives them something to work with for showing why what the Discovery Institute wants in all the public schools involves a scientific misconduct related scam a good part of mainstream religion already denounced.


(Link redacted by ChemiCat)

Please show, without referring us to your pile-o'-crap, why your "model-theory" has any educational benefits whatsoever. Your abysmal theology has no relevance to science, in fact it hinders the general public's understanding of how science works.

IF you could begin to realise how scientific enquiry does work in reality you would see how inadequate your crap is and how it distorts science beyond any possibility of being useful. You are not even wrong.

How about answering some of my questions? Of course, you can't because you are not "sciencing".

Date: 2017/02/08 08:51:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
As with Phrenology theory: theories can be false, as well as true.


There never was a Phrenology Theory, it was a woo-woo thing just like ID. So in your world false is true, black is white and you still don't know how to use commas.

Quote
Never ever should the word "theory" or the having been written by "theorists" be thought of as necessarily indicating that it has been tested to be true.


Apart from the excruciating abuse of the English language, a theory has been tested against known facts and found to be supported by them. Your pile-o'-crap is untestable so isn't even approaching a theory.

Quote
Where enough people are passionate they will keep trying anything, until a breakthrough happens. That's what just happened for the ID movement. In fact the ID theory predicts that where there are a whole lot of best guesses being tried where confidence being true is tested the result is collective intelligence that learns new knowledge from old. Regardless of testing true or false: all hypotheses are equally valuable, blessed.


This is total bollocks.

Quote
Kathy Martin helped bring to life an evo-word free science classroom demonstration introducing self-assembly to her peers (science teachers) while at the same time making it a mixing salad oil simple thing not something that needs evolution to explain. Spinoffs from the noisy public hearing for the "theory of intelligent design" made the whole thing worthwhile. Jack Krebs and others from KCFS can be proud for networking in help some of the best scientists in the world.


They lost and ID/creationism was shown to be Christianity in drag. The board were voted out in the next election. Behe, Dembski etc are not "the best scientists" by any stretch of language. In fact Dumbski ran away before testifying.


Quote
To be credible in science and engineering it's necessary for me to separate ID from religious arguments from creationism.


ID = creationism = religion. Nuff said.

Quote
The ID controversy has shown that ahead of time proposing then presenting for testing a theory like this can lead to great scientific benefit.


Just another mangling of the language with no content.

And, of course, the inevitable link to a crappy music video.

Thanks to Stevestory for the hilarious link.

Date: 2017/02/09 04:38:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You too could learn a lot from a dummy.


Only by testing to destruction and we have already done this to your pile-o'-crap.

Date: 2017/02/14 11:09:23, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Appears that Gaulin really has run into the wall.

Date: 2017/02/15 17:02:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm not so sure that didn't happen head first a long time ago.


If he went head first he'd go straight through and still be running.

Wrecking ball Gaulin.

Date: 2017/02/16 04:20:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And for a geology refresher:


A YouTube video, quelle surprise! At least it's not a crappy music one.

Gaulin pseudoscience all the way.

Date: 2017/02/18 09:05:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
People who believe that it's as easy as sending what you have for theory to a "science journal" are sending a dangerous message that made it possible for the DI, AIG and other entities to get where they now are, by simply starting their own journals.


And these vanity journals will not print your pile-o'-crap either.

Date: 2017/02/19 12:40:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I applaud you, N.Wells.

You have immeasurably more patience with this scientific illiterate than I have.

So, Gaulin, how about starting at the beginning of your "theory" and defining "molecular intelligence" and describing a method of testing for it . You know, how a scientist would go about it. All you have to do is follow the guidelines given to you, repeatedly, by N.Wells.

Date: 2017/02/20 03:05:26, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I emailed for reliable advice on a draft for a new PowerPoint page that explains hypotheses, models, theories and laws. It also contains an example of "weaknesses" in the Darwinian model/theory, as is more or less being made fashionable by new state bills now in circulation around the US. This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.

In any event, through a far more functional understanding of how science works it is possible to do just fine getting through the current political climate.


Ah! The fundie's last resort! Redefine the words to mean what he  wants them to mean!



Quote
This does not help the DI's problem of leaving the model/mechanism up to the religious imagination, but it's a good thing for a scientific model/theory of ID that does not need to do that.


So says the religious Gaulin who is trying to force an "Intelligent Designer" into science. Who bases his Pile-o'-crap on the Trinity. Oh no, not a religious "theory" at all.

So as you will not answer my chemistry questions, Gaulin, who is this "Designer"?

Date: 2017/02/21 02:25:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I need to find a new forum.


You need to find a new hobby, science isn't your friend.

 
Quote
The other scientific disgrace is the way religious organizations are allowed to get away with scientific fraud.


So you are beginning to realise that you are part of the fraud at last.

 
Quote
All this says very very bad things about the state of our society. And with US education going down the tubes: science teachers should not be throwing insults at the only people doing something real about it.


The only way to improve education in the USA is to prevent the religious people like you from trying to force their particular brand of religion into the education system.

YOU are not the 'people' doing something 'real'. YOU are trying to drag science back into the Dark Ages where religion ruled.

You have been told over and over again that your Pile-o'-crap is NOT a scientific theory, it is a muddled mass of pathetic assertions written in execrable English. There are no definitions in it, no testing methods and is to science what an aqualung is to a fish. Unless and until you provide these basic details what you are doing is a compulsive obsession that needs professional help to cure.

As you have never corrected any of the faulty ideas in your bullshit, never answered any of the questions about your dreck, never been able to do anything but throw insults and crappy music videos at the people that see through your transparent efforts to force your god into science, you have contributed nothing of interest to science. In fact, you have had a negative effect with your 'theory' and your crazy 'bug'.

Give it up, Gaulin, and go and do something useful for your family instead.

Date: 2017/02/22 03:39:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin's reply from that forum;

Quote
[‚Äď]GaryGaulin 1 point 20 hours ago
that there are no valid alternatives to your claims, so you have to be right
You are not telling the truth.
The truth is that "Darwinian theory" being true does not make another theory (for intelligent behavior) false, but some in this forum believe(d) otherwise.
And I'm still waiting for your scientific theory to explain how "intelligent cause" works.


And from earlier in the thread;

Quote
Even where they could prove Darwinian theory be false that does not make another true.


So unless there is some alternative theory yours is correct? Is that what you are saying (and have been saying for years in this forum)?

Date: 2017/02/22 03:43:02, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 21 2017,01:25)
So you are beginning to realize that you are part of the fraud at last.

I tend to doubt that.


@ Henry J, so do I. Gaulin is too thick-skulled for that irony to penetrate.

Date: 2017/02/23 02:21:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yes, a hypothesis is a conclusion. And before testing it can be oppositely worded to hold true until tested to be false without it's logic structure changing, it's just inverted. In this case that would be by changing "are best explained" to "are not best explained". A working model and theory would still indicate the "are best explained" condition, exact same thing.


And this shows why what you are doing is not science.

And a reply explaining this;

Quote
A scientific hypothesis is more than just that. It is a proposed explanation that is both testable, and chiefly, FALSIFIABLE.


And Gaulin doubles down;

Quote
The "theory" for the ID Lab "model" for experimenting with "intelligence" and ultimately "intelligent cause" is what tests the hypothesis that reads "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" to be true. In this case the hypothesis requires far more than a simple experiment I could perform and write up in a couple of weeks, it's decades of work on a theory that I will never live long enough to fully complete because theories are tentative and in this case some of the biological details could take 100 or more years to fully discover.


A "theory is tentative"? Really? The only thing tentative is that it can be changed when other facts become available through research. Your grasp of definitions lets you down again. Your understanding of hypothesis and theory is ass-backwards.

Date: 2017/02/23 07:58:08, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is a useful article:


Only if you print it and use it to wrap up fish and chips.

Date: 2017/02/25 03:57:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Body Code is a selection of biomedical animations that explore the human body at the microscopic and molecular scale. Body Code was designed for museum and art gallery exhibition, with the goal of reaching public audiences who do not usually seek out or are exposed to the details of scientific knowledge.


Hmm, sounds like a certain poseur/poster with the initials GG, doesn't it?

Date: 2017/02/28 03:25:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In my case I had a model and theory that the premise the DI kept repeating described real well, but it sure wasn't made of religious answers and logical fallacy they were taking about. After learning more about science at the KCFS forum then realizing what I had was (excepting what should never be in a scientific theory) almost there it became a science calling, where I'm the one stuck delivering the news about (with all religion and philosophy aside) the premise actually being scientifically true. It's otherwise a theory that the DI controls, feed by protest from those who want to make it gone. But where what started in Seattle became things like Self-Replicating RNA - DNA Labs impressing the world's most respected scientists, where the theory came from is just another weird story of science that's expected


From Reddit.

Apart from the usual Gaulin Gibberish, there is NO evidence, testable or otherwise, for any science in your pile-o'-crap. Spread your manure on a field and it will kill everything not help it grow.

Your theory is nothing but thinly disguised theocratic bungling and poor theology at that.

Quote
But where what started in Seattle became things like Self-Replicating RNA - DNA Labs impressing the world's most respected scientists, where the theory came from is just another weird story of science that's expected


No Gaulin, the DI has done no RNA-DNA research at all. They are incapable of so doing. Even with Annie "green screen" Gauger heading up their top secret underground laboratory.

As expected, where the theory came from is just another story of weird science. Fixed that for you.

Date: 2017/03/01 15:48:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
After three attempts to derail the thread Gaulin gets ignored and disappears.

As k.e. says "SAD".

Quote
I'm not surprised by N.Wells posting (close sounding but) unrelated papers.


That's because they passed through your head without his point registering in your "multi-cellular intelligence".

Date: 2017/03/02 15:53:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
But is it special or general?


In Gaulin's case , definitely "special", Henry J.

Date: 2017/03/05 09:56:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
However, the big challenge for Watson's hypothesis is whether any empirical evidence for it can be found in nature.


This article is a hypothesis about evolution. It is not a scientific paper but speculation on the subject of whether Natural Selection and random mutations are the main driving forces behind evolution.

Much like your not-a-theory, Gaulin

Date: 2017/03/05 17:15:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Note how Watson is working really hard to ground-truth his ideas [...]


Yes, I think it is an interesting hypothesis and I am not criticising Watson's ideas as they could lead to some interesting scientific enquiry and solve coding problems. The point I was trying to make to Gaulin is that it is how an hypothesis should be formulated.

Gaulin's effort at an hypothesis (which he insists is a theory) only stifles further investigations with bald assertions, lack of definitions and, as you say, lack of ground-truthing.

Date: 2017/03/08 03:00:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Note: you brought up the paper.  I didn't say anything about cognitive science one way or the other.  I did however correctly note that Watson is (very properly) concerned about ground-truthing his work, finding evidence to support it, and thinking up ways to test his work, all completely unlike you.  That's why he is pursuing ideas scientifically, while you are merely producing effluent.


I will add that I bet that if Watson finds evidence to falsify his hypothesis he will reject it. Umm, sorry that's Gaulin not Watson. Watson will rethink his hypothesis in light of the evidence and either reject his hypothesis or rework it.

Date: 2017/03/08 07:49:02, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Excellent response, N.Wells.

I hope you have sent Gaulin some salve for his burns.

Date: 2017/03/11 07:20:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It's only more evidence that I was right.


Only in your own alternative universe, Gaulin.

Date: 2017/03/18 17:58:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Now, Gaulin, compare that paper with your "efforts" and see where you have gone wrong (Clue; all of yours),

Note how science papers are actually written with methodologies, conclusions and citations. Note how yours doesn't do this. Then consider where you have been going wrong. Then tell us what you intend to do to correct your mess.

I won't hold my breath.

Date: 2017/03/24 02:38:20, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the usual politics.


"I had to give up, on the whole thing, due to the lack of scientific evidence." There, I've fixed that for you.

Does this mean your recycle bin is full of wasted electrons?

Date: 2017/03/25 13:59:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From the Sandwalk comments;

 
Quote
JassWednesday, March 22, 2017 4:51:00 PM
"It's not a lie if you believe it" -someone once said...

I often say that ( to some) "...it's not a lie if you want to believe it..." However, it is an unacceptable lie if you want to deceive others because you chose to believe a lie and manipulate others to believe it...

Since there is no system to make public deceivers accountable to society, anybody can publish any shit he wants under the protective umbrella of "science" and he gets away with that whether it is true or false...with one exception: ID. If they publish something even with experimental evidence that can't be denied, it's always wrong, a lie or deceiving...

This is what's wrong and I'll fight it to death....


Does Jass = Gaulin? It sounds like it to me.

For "Jass's" information, nobody from the ID side has ever done an experiment, ever.

Date: 2017/05/13 08:13:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
What N.Wells said and saved me the trouble.

Date: 2017/05/14 08:43:10, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin,

I see your attempts at the English language has worsened. Please read the dreck you write out loud before posting.

For once I agree with you, you do have a theory, only not in the scientific sense. Yours is the common usage of a guess. It is not an hypothesis nor a scientific theory and it only just approaches an idea.

As has been pointed out many many times you do not define your idea. You have provided no testable evidence for your idea. There is no falsifiable test for your idea. You have a religious obsession that needs professional help.

Quote
And with this being a culturally established science-changer that you are powerless to change you will just have to get used to it, anyway.


What exactly are you referring to here? Is it Dinosaur Train or your idea? Dino Train has more chance of becoming a "culturally science-changer" than your crap.

Date: 2017/06/23 01:06:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
To make up for another late-night typo (caused by my human brain being good at automatically filling in missing words) and clammy grammar here's a more awake version:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/spatial-reasoning-system-is-now-complete-extremely-lifelike-behavior


To use an Anglicism "Bollocks!"

There is nothing even vaguely resembling "lifelike" behaviour in your rubbish.

Stop wasting your time and get some help with your obsessions.

Date: 2017/06/25 09:54:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I now have a YouTube video for the ID-Lab 6.1 critter!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIvjax0_lLE


Very pretty, but do you do it in any other colour than cerise? That really is my least favourite colour.

Date: 2017/06/26 00:33:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Posted on June 25 2017,23:38
The color coordination was inspired by U2:


Ah, Bono, the Edge and the other two. Pretentious much.

Quote
cerisely?


Redily.

Date: 2017/07/03 02:25:30, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Also, I finished optimizing the primary spatial network code for the ID Lab 6.1 and found that it simplified the (at one point OR'ed together) array structure to include Boundary/Border locations that are always in a do nothing state. After bumping into the wall enough times to have sensed it is fully contained inside everything beyond it suddenly stops propagating, turns a solid magenta color. Sort of disregards all that exists outside of its immediate environment, is no longer distracted through areas it does not yet know have a boundary between them. The array was already there as an avoid like a shock, but bumping into a wall that goes no further and stepping into the middle of somewhere that does were found to be better represented by two levels of signal blocking power. It makes sense that the critter does best when solid walls fully block signal propagation.


Just more irrelevant mumbo-jumbo from a totally irrelevant IDiot.

Date: 2017/07/15 11:39:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What conversation? I'm all ears.


You know, where you have an idea and make up a long screed about it and make a totally irrelevant computer programme of a supposed bug.

Then when we ask pertinent questions about your pseudoscience you run away or double down. Or post stupid music videos or link to your rubbish comments on other sites.

If you want a conversation answer the many unanswered questions you have avoided so far.

I won't hold my breath...

Date: 2017/07/17 11:21:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Speaking of answering questions:


He swerves, he ducks and runs head first into the wall!

Date: 2017/07/22 05:58:53, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Speaking of answering questions:


So when are you going to start, Gaulin?

Date: 2017/07/29 14:58:51, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Speaking of answering questions:


"Answering" and "conversation" added to the Gaulin not-a-dictionary  as words Gaulin doesn't understand.

Date: 2017/08/06 14:58:07, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Mudslinging creeps have made it worth staying out of this forum.


Mudslinging enters the Gaulin not-a-dictionary.

It isn't mudslinging, Gaulin, it is plain old-fashioned ridicule for your efforts to force your version of a god into science.

Date: 2017/08/07 03:48:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Therefore instead of my wasting time arguing with Wesley I need to get back to work on biologically relevant dancing robots and related things.


So, Gaulin, does this mean that your not-a-theory has been sent to the wasted electron bin?

And really, really? Dancing robots are biologically relevant? Your insanity is showing. What do they do, shag in the car park behind the disco?

Date: 2017/08/07 11:13:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Wasted electrons? Aren't those reusable?


Change that to recycle bin, is that better?

Date: 2017/08/08 02:33:47, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
‚ÄúThis is maybe the most important question for neuroscience right now,‚ÄĚ he said to Inverse, but he added that it will be a challenge to convince his colleagues that it matters at all.


And is entirely irrelevant to your pseudoscience, Gaulin.

Your BS comes nowhere near close to being an explanation of brainwaves. Your Pacman animation does nothing for cognitive science or computer gaming.

Date: 2017/08/09 02:13:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Some very seriously have a political related agenda that requires the truth of this matter to be "sweep under the rug". If it's not those who were led to believe that their thoughts are at least in part divine magic that cannot be scientifically modeled or explained, it's possibly hidebound academics who did the same thing to (just a student at the time) Galileo after he pissed them off by stealing the show with his spiffy pendulum.

On the bright side my keeping no (industrial or military) secrets is perhaps a new one for Asian and other global competitors who normally have to find a way to kinda steal them. Data mining related "deep learning" certainly never led to a brain-wave generating breakthrough that would be this scary agile in battle. I worry about the danger this can become, but where the information that enables it did not come from me I would have to worry even more.


Sorry, I'm not yet fluent in Gaulinese. Could you translate into English for me, thanks.

However, every time Gaulin posts I have to rewrite the Gaulin to English phrase book so I may be a while attaining fluency.

Date: 2017/08/09 12:48:21, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The proper designation for competency in Gaulinese is flatulency.


Better lay off the beans, Gaulin.

Cowboys

Date: 2017/08/10 01:03:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Eat beans. America needs the gas.


Well you have a White House full of it for a start.

Date: 2017/08/17 04:02:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The message currently is: Racial and religious hate groups (now including the Discovery Institute, UD and affiliates in Turkey) are very bad and dangerous people, but in a free country like this it is our responsibility to allow them to run our public schools and such.


Am I reading this right? Gaulin wants the KKK, Far right Nazis and Turkey to run the schools in the USA? The Disco'tute, UD and Turkey are hate groups?

Or is this more stupidity from the clown of ID?

Date: 2017/08/17 13:06:07, Link
Author: ChemiCat
So what, it's the Disco'tute's standard shtick.

Date: 2017/08/19 00:48:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Quote
With so many having made WW2 a taboo topic




Who knows? It's more Gaulinese but translated into Gibberish not English. (Sorry, I didn't mean to insult the Gibbers, I think the UD mob are fine people/s)

Date: 2017/08/26 03:32:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In my opinion: KF is saying that it is immoral to not obey those who act upon what the "voice of God" they hear tells them to do, and is angry because scientific evidence only indicates that auditory hallucinations are the most common type of hallucination in people with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia.


Now all we have to do is get KF to translate this for us.

Date: 2017/08/29 06:49:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From your link, Gaulin;

Quote
If someone is already pre-disposed to disbelieve scientific conclusions around issues like human evolution, climate change, stem cell research or the Big Bang theory because of their religious or political views, learning more about the subject actually increases their disbelief, a new study finds.


I take it then that you will be removing the religious connotations from your pseudo-theory. Or doing the interwebs a favour and scrapping it altogether. We all live in hope, I suppose.

Date: 2017/09/01 01:33:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It is not possible to remove religious implications from scientific theories.


In which case it is NOT a scientific theory. Including "trinity", IDCreationism and an "Intelligent Designer" in a scientific theory renders it nothing more than bad theology. Not science.

To make these claims, as you do Gaulin, means that you have no understanding of how science works. You have no scientific theory and no relevant model of the theory. You are wasting what remains of your life when you could be spending it with your family

Date: 2017/09/04 13:14:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Can anyone bring me up to speed here?


Just the same old Gaulin, "Intelligent Design, Intelligent Molecules, a Trinity of cells, a bug that represents a poor version of Pacman, rinse, repeat and foul all over the internet with it.

Up to speed now?

Date: 2017/09/04 16:22:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This does nothing to answer my questions!


First rule of Gaulin's thread... Gaulin doesn't answer questions.

Second rule of Gaulin's thread... see first rule.

Date: 2017/09/05 07:53:17, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
It's still the same model/theory and message:

theoryofid.blogspot.com/


And back to page one we go!

I'm sure Gaulin is just trying to wear us down until we shout "Enough, your theory is cutting edge science already". Just to shut him up.

How many times do we have to tell him that he has NO scientific theory or hypothesis? His "theory" hardly approaches an idea. His "model" has no relevance to biology nor is it cognitive science. Both are not testable, falsifiable or supported by scientific evidence. It only just becomes pseuoscience.

It is all a poor attempt to force bad theology into science.

Date: 2017/09/05 07:59:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works.


Gaulin, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is other than an emergent property of an evolved brain.

Go for it!

Date: 2017/09/05 08:05:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously.


The only trouble here is that all the other pioneers are heading West and you are heading East into the ocean.

Date: 2017/09/06 13:08:23, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Surely you're not trying to confuse him with facts?


No, "facts" aren't in Gaulin's pseudo-theory or his dictionary.

Date: 2017/09/09 01:16:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I had a long tiring work week,[..]


Number 1 on the list of excuses used by Gaulin, it will be the teeth next!

And then the meaningless diagram... again.

Wait for the obligatory music video and we have the trifecta of avoiding the questions asked of him.

¬†  
Quote
and need to try getting some work done on the next generation computer model for explaining the basics of how intelligence works (at all levels of biology).


Have you tried stand-up comedy, Gaulin? This made me laugh out loud! "Next generation"! You cannot breed from your eunuch of a "theory"! So there is no "First generation" to even discuss (not that you do discuss any thing to do with your crap).

Coldfire, remember rule 1 of Gaulin thread.

Date: 2017/09/09 07:15:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin, here is a series on BBC which will make you throw your "theory" out with the other trash.

The human Brain

Enjoy or not as you will.

Date: 2017/09/10 02:51:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The "publish or perish" mentality is rearing its ugly head again. Help figuring out how to explain this outside of the how-to environment that I thrive in is not allowed.

Those who do not do everything on their own then crawl on their knees to a publisher will have their work trashed, until they do. Then after that there is one more paper in one of thousands of journals few people actually keep up with, especially in the how-to community. After factoring in how much is kept a trade secret or for some other reason was never published it's actually a bad way to try keeping up all happening in science.

I'm very against this form of academic snobbery, I'm now helping to make gone. Get real please.


And we are back into Gaulinese. The words are English but in this order are otherwise meaningless.

Here are a few "how to" questions for you Gaulin;

1) How to determine "molecular intelligence?
2) How to determine "Cellular intelligence"?
3) How to determine if single cell clusters are "intelligent"?

Feel free to ignore answering these questions because you can't even attempt them with your "theory".

If your "theory" cannot provide evidence for any of these it is bullshit. (yes, I know it is bullshit).

And "real" has been added to the Gaulinese dictionary as another word Gaulin doesn't understand.

Date: 2017/09/11 03:19:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Beep! Beep! I'm a Gaulin bot!

I only type the words in random order. It is up to you humans to make sense of them

Quote/: Long screed of self-pity and gibberish. /unquote.

Date: 2017/09/11 07:40:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Paging Texas Teach, paging Texas Teach.

Translation required at the rear of the 'plane.

You know the rear where all the waste is extruded.

Date: 2017/09/13 02:37:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This would at least help explain why I ended up the first to model the spatial reasoning network that works by self-generation of brainwaves. For at least myself the challenge required the basics from David Heiserman. With it there is a body/platform to plug such a network right into the circuit, like it's just another RAM chip. Without these basics I would probably be lost, too.


And Gaulin's delusions deepen.

Where in your "theory/model" do you "self-generate" brainwaves?

How many times have you been told that your analogy to RAM chips is seriously flawed?

The only true statement in the above is that you are lost, totally lost, out in the wilderness lost.

Texas Teach, thanks for the translation. It clarified that the original was piled high and deep BS.

Date: 2017/09/13 16:20:23, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Ah, but a picture is worth a thousand wrong words...


SSSH! you'll invoke that bloody diagram again.

Date: 2017/09/14 09:48:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Yammering about "natural selection" gets old, real fast, when science calls for a cognitive model for answering the biggest remaining question in cognitive science and a testable "theory of intelligent design" that also does not need to once mention it.


If my translator has this right, it thinks you are saying that there is no such thing as natural selection. This is something that you have yet to demonstrate.

A "testable" "theory of intelligent design? Really? Really! Where is it then? Your vague ideas come nowhere near testable. For once put your money where your mouth is (No, Gaulin, that's your foot) and give us the test.

All you have is a strange Pacman clone that only does what you programme it to do. Nowhere near to the biological reality of bugs, rats or even cognitive science.

Here's an idea, Gaulin, why not look up the definition of "cognitive" to see where you are going wrong. Clue; it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

And whilst you have some free time on your hands please supply us with a test for "molecular intelligence".

Date: 2017/09/18 04:02:28, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
With the horse before the cart even the premise for "theory of intelligent design" goes on its own on into "science" just fine, as a weird fun thing to at the same time more or less control the destiny of. This is another plus, best likened to being the icing on the cake.


Paging a translator, paging a translator!

"Sorry, all our translators are busy at the moment, please hold and we will connect you as soon as they stop rolling on the floor laughing."

Date: 2017/09/18 09:40:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Go ask A.L.I.C.E., I think she'll know...


I think Gaulin must be taking the "mother pills" that do nothing at all.

Date: 2017/09/23 09:21:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: [...]


Getting ahead of yourself again, Gaulin.

You have first to show that there is a thing you call "molecular intelligence". First define what you mean and then, with scientific data and experiments, demonstrate this idea without it being just your assertion. As this is the first step in your "trinity" unless you can scientifically provide said evidence your wild "theory" falls at its first hurdle. Everything that follows after that can be dismissed as rubbish.

As has been pointed out on the various forums you pollute, what you are doing is not remotely connected to scientific research and in fact are the ravings of a god-obsessed IDist.

Feel free to ignore this as you usually do. But it blows any credibility you have remaining right out of the water.

Date: 2017/09/23 09:24:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I could have used the plural "fora" but didn't want to confuse Gaulin further with the English language.

Date: 2017/09/24 03:58:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Then all I can say is get used to it. Here's your Compressorhead Blitzkrieg Bop:


Gaulin loses yet another round and resorts to crappy music videos.

 
Quote
I found out about this in another forum:


You may have "found out" about it but the odds are on you not understanding any of it. Nor learning anything from it.

Date: 2017/09/24 15:20:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
...and evidence that the system will also work for generating human level intelligence.


Where is this much-vaunted evidence? It has been singularly lacking despite repeated requests for you to present it.

Make sure it is scientific evidence that can be empirically examined and not your usual baseless assertions.

Date: 2017/09/26 01:45:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Refresher course:


Another round lost in spectacular fashion! Back to the crappy music. It is easy to see why his "pirate radio" was shut down, he was polluting the airwaves as well as science.

Will it be much longer before the towel is thrown into the ring? How much more punishment can Gaulin take? Or does he enjoy "punishment"? His "fans" wait with bated breath for "Eye of the Tiger".

Date: 2017/09/28 09:15:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
That's Bullshit.

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


I couldn't agree more!

Damn, I'm agreeing with Gaulin, I need a large single Malt and a lie-down to recover.

Date: 2017/10/01 02:30:19, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

I have often found that many see new ideas, especially those that are presented in a simple and precise manner, as trivial.


But,Gaulin, your "ideas" are not simple or precise. They are a mish-mash of bad English with no science attached.

You cargo cult science is so far behind trivial that it hasn't even left the starting line.

Get back to us when you have a way of determining "molecular intelligence", you know the first step in your rubbish where it fails completely.

Date: 2017/10/03 09:15:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
And please stop moving the goalposts by adding things into the premise of the theory that are not in there like "intelligent designer" instead of "intelligent cause".


So "intelligent cause" doesn't have an "Intelligent designer" (peace be unto him)? So is it designed by committee, which would explain a lot, or is there no "cause" inside the material universe? Is this "cause" transcendent or non-existent?

Perhaps you can force your Methodist god in there as the cause but then you would have to provide testable evidence. Oh! that's right, you don't provide said evidence. The second rule of Gaulin thread.

Date: 2017/10/04 06:26:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Well then here's a scientific theory for explaining the primordial deity of the Earth, Goddess Gaia:

www.gaiatheory.org/overview/


I see your problem now Gaulin. You do not know or understand what a "scientific theory" is. In your world anything made up and presented in pseudo-scientific terms like "paradigm" becomes a scientific theory. Anything with science in the title, like the "science" of theology is a scientific theory. A "scientific theory" is on the level of a guess to you, hence your continued mistaken usage of guess to mean a biological function.

Your lack of understanding is why you keep on trying to force your Methodist god into science.

Date: 2017/10/06 09:17:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Maybe GinGout can explain why these are not equivalent.

I'm betting he can't.


Quote
I don't have to. It's clear enough that they are fabrications best left to shitty philosophers to try making sense of.


Well done, got it in one, fnxtr!

So ID, "cause" and "Designer" are fabrications. Thanks for the clarity for once, Gaulin.

Date: 2017/10/07 15:18:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Did we finally get Gary to admit defeat and shut up about his pseudo-science woo-woo? Was that really all it took? Not letting him weasel out of a basic question he can't answer?


Cue crappy music video in Five..Four.. Three...

Date: 2017/10/11 08:51:34, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFq3TGa2Q9c


You shouldn't self-diagnose, Gaulin. Seek professional help for your psychosis.

Quote
Is Perception a ‚ÄėControlled Hallucination‚Äô?
www.bigquestionsonline.com/2017/09/06/perception-controlled-hallucination/


Excellent article but it has nothing at all to do with your "theory" or "model". Totally irrelevant, completely, utterly and decisively nothing to do with your bullshit.

Date: 2017/10/15 13:48:12, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Firstly, may I wish your wife a speedy and complete recovery.

 
Quote
Forums like this one only makes our problems worse.


No, Gaulin, it isn't the forum that is at fault. It is your pig-headed reluctance to admit that your "theory-model" is, scientifically, a busted flush. The fatal flaws in your rubbish have been pointed out here and in the other fora you pollute. You don't answer questions about your evidence for your ideas, you don't accept that you are not doing science, you provide no way of testing your ideas and all in all make it harder for yourself.

Now is the time to abandon your religious blathering and look after your wife and family, yourself included.

Date: 2017/10/23 03:21:52, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What a delusional response from Gary. That didn't answer any of the outstanding questions.


Wesley, the first five rules of the Gaulin thread are that Gaulin doesn't answer questions.

Sorry, that should read "the only rules...

At least whilst he is mucking about with his Pacman look-alike he is not harming anyone other than his family.

Date: 2017/10/27 15:55:08, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My job is to develop a MODEL that is still doing amazingly well making cognitive science related predictions that result in increasingly complex behavior in shock zone and other tests.


OK, list the "predictions" your so-called "model" predicts, I bet you can't.

It is still nothing more than a VB copy of Pacman. It shows nothing about cognition, nothing about biochemistry, nothing about genetics and definitely nothing about biology.

I have no cognitive "model" because that is not my field, chemistry is. So perhaps you can answer the questions I have asked about your crazy assertion of "molecular intelligence" or is this your example of semantics, another word you do not comprehend. Unless and until you provide testable, repeatable evidence for this claim your "theory" becomes nothing more than a waste paper recycling exercise.

After you don't answer that question we can move on to the absurd claim of "cellular intelligence". How do you differentiate this from basic physical and chemical reactions apart from trying to insert your Designer God into science, again a "theory " without a shred of science in it.

For crying out loud Gaulin, get some help for your delusions and put  the well-being of your family before your ego.

Date: 2017/10/30 03:20:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm modeling the neural spatial reasoning process neuroscientific research has been documenting.


No you are not. You are, as Wesley says, animating a poor imitation of Pacman. There is no cognitive modelling involved especially as your insect has a hippocampus. This alone eliminates any scientific value of your "model".

Perhaps you would care to name any cognitive scientist who finds any use at all in your "research.

 
Quote
But I can understand why some need to make believe that's not true by calling it "Animating research" in order to suggest I'm making cartoons.


If you "understand why..." perhaps you can start answering the backlog of questions about your "research". Unless and until you answer your critics then your "model" is totally irrelevant to the science of cognition.

Date: 2017/10/31 03:50:29, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm none the less successfully modeling the behavior of populations of neurons, while my critics just throw defamatory insults.


HaHaHaHaHa---- Oh! Bloody Hell, you are serious---- HaHaHa.

It must be Manic Monday!

Bangles

Date: 2017/10/31 10:42:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Not here. Here it was 2:50 am Tuesday when you posted that.


Gaulin's post was Monday.

My excuse is the time difference!

Date: 2017/11/01 03:31:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Oh, you were referring to his post time, not yours? In that case, ignore my comment.


No problem. Gaulin's post was 17:06 Monday, with the time difference that is way past my bedtime! So I don't get to reply until the next morning. This happens all the time when I post on what is essentially an USA site.

Date: 2017/11/02 11:59:44, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My work has likewise been towards modeling "small groups of crude virtual neurons". I focused on the motor navigation side of the system while Geoff Hinton was focusing on the sensory input side.


And what reaction has Professor Hinton given to your "model"? Has he praised it as a major breakthrough in cognitive science and robotics?

What! You haven't sent it to him? I wonder why not.

Date: 2017/11/05 05:06:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm only concerned with the scientific turf for intelligent causes of one kind or another.


Is that AstroTurf, you know, the intelligently designed by man artificial stuff? Please post a full list of what you think the "intelligent causes of one kind or another" are, Gaulin. Then we can discuss your "theory-model" in the light of these causes. Does kind here mean a biblical kind or something else, it's so difficult to tell the way you mangle language.

Quote
My making it look so easy is a part of what makes this a greater challenge than what you were expecting.


No, you spelled easy wrongly. It should read "My making it look so stupid..."

Quote
So be thankful Darwinian territory is still all yours to rule.


At last! An admission from Gaulin that his bullshit has nothing to do with evolution.



Quote
It's also not my fault that what works too good to be a coincidence boils down to a simple wave geometry related process. Your need to complicate things with ANN's and such even has Occam's Razor butting back by shaving more than your beard off. The remaining explanation then pertains to all levels of biology the systematics apply to.


I recognise the words are English but I think you have typed them in the wrong order as they make no sense at all.

Quote
Your having to get out of the way of this much head butting alpha-ness tested model/theory frees it to boldly go to the only place left, where you can say deserves whatever stomping around happens after that out there. The Power of science does this way work in your favor, may the force be with you.


And for the grand finale, total gibberish and a keyboard covered in spittle. One of your "best" posts yet, Gaulin!

Date: 2017/11/07 13:33:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Intelligent cause is all over the place, waiting to be further explained.


It certainly is "all over the place", incoherent would be a better description though. To be "further explained" it would have to be firstly explained. Something you have signally failed to do.

   
Quote
Science is all about explaining how things works.


When are you going to start then?

   
Quote
Therefore that's what I do.


No it isn't. See how easy it is to refute your bald assertions? What you are doing is called pseudoscience just like homeopathy, astrology, ID (what you choose to call IC) and the woo that Chopra spews forth. Your catchphrase is trivial. You first have to establish "IC" before you can use it as any sort of explanation. A total failure on your part.

Let's start at the beginning, again. Why should we take you seriously when your first assertion about "molecular intelligence" is unsupported by any evidence or test-ability? So use science to explain that.

I bet you can't.

Date: 2017/11/08 05:24:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
To take one paragraph at random;

 
Quote
To establish a benchmark that assumes error free signals from parts of the brain that use dead reckoning to convert what is seen through the eyes into spatial coordinates in its external environment the program simply uses the already calculated X,Y positions that are used to place things in the virtual environment. In the real world our brain oppositely converts visual signals to these spatial X,Y locations, which a virtual environment has to instead start with. Where this dead reckoning system were added to this model and working perfectly that's what you would get for coordinates. Using the exact coordinates that the program already has provides ideal numbers to work from, which in turn gives this critter an excellent sense of where visible things are located around itself even though in this Lab its eyes cannot visually see them.


Total and utter gibberish. A random word generator would make more sense.

 
Quote
What you are doing is the same as demanding Wesley to explain the origin of a godlike entity the premise of Charles Darwin's theory (according to you) named the "Natural Selector".

You can expect a similar kind of response from me. Use proper phrases, or you do not deserve to be taken seriously.


Who in biological science has proposed an evolutionary "Selector"? Do you not see the major flaw with this quote, Gaulin? I'll give you a clue, read your signature about it being random.

If you still don't get it a "natural selector" cannot be random. Either change your sig. or use the "proper phrases".

 
Quote
The Intelligence Design Lab-5


Should that be "The Intelligence Cause Lab-5"?

 
Quote
The further theory it way at the end mentions but does not explain is from before the Discovery Institute even existed.


I'm sure that there must be some disjointed sense in this sentence but I can't find it. Perhaps Gaulin would make the ideal lab-rat for experiments on cognition, then he would be useful to science.

Date: 2017/11/19 01:24:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Coldfire

You forgot the rules, again!

Date: 2017/12/03 05:33:23, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I was again hoping to have the new model done by now but after studying what's new on Goggle Scholar I ended up able to make it much further along than expected. I found that by starting the wave at the mouth location and attractor/food reflective by not inverting the pattern it receives (to make a wave one neighbor signals while the other no longer does) it echo-locates like a bat while at the same time broadcasting outward going double waves where length of time from one to the next is determined by how far away the attractor is. Each place in the network more or less (as in sports) is receiving a "next best thing to being there" play-by-play of what's going on in the external environment. There are also conditions where spiral waves are generated, like shown in the first paper I linked to for visual cortex traveling and reflecting waves. This is also good in regards to accounting for bats being able to navigate without one after another continuous waves, like the ones I was previously using with a steady 58% signaling ratio. We too have the ability to judge size and other properties by its reflected wave, echo.


We can add Bats to the Alligators and Salmon on the long list of subjects that Gaulin knows nothing about.

At the risk of repeating myself, this does not have anything to do with the biology of Bats. It is just your effort at forcing your cheap Pacman imitation into your crappy idea of IC/ID.

Every post you make takes you further and further away from the understanding of what science is.

You still have to demonstrate that any of your ideas are based in science and until you do we will continue to laugh at your efforts and shake our heads at your ignorance.

Date: 2017/12/20 11:39:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Posted on Dec. 13 2017,19:04
Camp sent me something for Christmas, worth putting on your last minute educational toy shopping list:


So we know what Gaulin is getting from Santa for Christmas! It will be played with along with his Lego Jurassic Park.

Date: 2017/12/21 03:35:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Certainly a better use of his time than his "model".


I don't know about that. His Pacman imitation does keep him off the streets.

Date: 2017/12/31 04:11:46, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

All I wrote at Kurzweil AI is soon to be gone. I don't know what to do but to "let it go" too.


The same advice should be applied to your pseudoscientific "theory" and your poor imitation-of-Pacman "model" as well. "Let it go".

Date: 2018/02/11 04:05:22, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
If even only half of it is true then this will be a scientific breakthrough for the theory I'm still developing.


Only in your religion-addled thinking.

Date: 2018/02/14 04:04:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Coldfire,

Gaulin is a typical creationist. Anything discovered by genuine scientific researchers automatically becomes part of his 'theory'.
Usually with a sneering "I told you so, read my "scientific theory", I predicted this there".

Gaulin is so steeped in myth and magic he cannot understand why the scientific community reject his crazy ideas.

Date: 2018/02/14 04:07:24, Link
Author: ChemiCat
I somehow missed this one;

 
Quote
A new (and very invasive) species of crayfish has been reported:


These crayfish will be added to the salmon and alligators in his theory in 3...2...

Then his Pacman variant will gain two claws.

Date: 2018/02/14 16:40:40, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Which part of this didn't you understand, Gaulin.

Quote
@Gary Gaulin

You have already been warned once about spamming my blog with your kooky ideas. This is your second warning.


"Kooky" doesn't mean biscuits. It means stupid, stupid.

Date: 2018/02/17 04:01:48, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
My example helped show who the leaders in science discovery now are.


You, KF, Barry Arrogant, Chubs and Klinkleklopper are leaders of scientific discovery?... let me stop laughing first...

That's better now I've wiped the tears off the keyboard.

I'm surprised that you can even work out how to get out of your basement let alone be a leader in science discovery... sorry started laughing uncontrollably again... and again.

Date: 2018/02/17 04:04:42, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Well he's said before that he's been tweaking his Roomba for FORTY YEARS...


That explains why he's blind but where does the stupidity come from?

Oh, I get it now...

Date: 2018/02/18 04:52:06, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
The Mattick lab currently has availabilities for prospective Honour's, Master's or PhD projects through UNSW. If you are interested in such undertakings, please send your CV, academic transcripts as well as a summary of your research interests to one of the following lab members:


Here's your big chance, Gaulin.

Go for it!

ps this has nothing at all to do with your pseudoscience.

Date: 2018/02/19 06:57:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Here you go, Gaulin, should save you a lot of trouble.

Robot

No need for your Pacman-type now.

Date: 2018/03/14 04:40:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote
I'm not bothered by rope connected treehuggers getting in touch with their inner cells by networking out as neural networks and such by following the most basic communication rules they live by, learn their language.


Yes this was my comment on the absurd language used by Gaulin. It has disappeared.

Date: 2018/03/14 04:59:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Below is a HD sized peek at what the ID Lab critter now looks like.


I cut the rest because it has no relevance to the biology of living entities. It has nothing to do with biology, science or even IDC. It ignores everything that shows it is rubbish and compounds the many errors it produces. To adapt a quote, it is not even pseudoscience any longer. It is the product of a mind warped by religious fervour to reinforce his shaky faith.

Gaulin, your garbage has been polluting the internet for many years and during that time nobody has said anything good about it. There is nothing in your weird notions that is of any use to science and you are wasting your time, ruining your health and neglecting your family. Give it up for them if nobody else.

Date: 2018/03/28 04:23:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Those who think that it's no big deal are unfamiliar with the unforgiving ways of science. The worse is when someone who believes they never mix science and religion does not hesitate to do so, right after "creationists" taught them how.


There goes a military grade irony meter.

Gaulin, are you so wrapped up in your weird little world that you do not see that science has disproved your worthless drivel. Over. And over again?

Your "model" ignores all of cognitive science, biology, chemistry and physics. Computer games are more realistic than your Pacman imitation.

There are whole passages of your "theory" that go against everything that biology has learnt since Darwin. "Molecular intelligence" being the worst concept ever. This blows your "theory" up on the launch slipway, it doesn't even get to float.

Oblivious doesn't come close to explaining your not-even-wrong ideas.

Date: 2018/03/28 12:39:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
At least Mad Mike achieved lift-off. Something Gaulin could do if he stuffed his 'theory' where the sun don't shine and lit it.

Date: 2018/04/01 04:24:39, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
This is important to note:
numenta.com/blog/2018/03/19/thousand-brains-model-of-intelligence/


So still plagiarising the work of scientists to add it to your fake science?

This is NOT evidence for your rubbish, Gaulin.

Date: 2018/04/05 18:37:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You're going to need the first 5 or so of these pertaining to things such as each tiny cortical column likely being able to on their own identify whole objects, not a step by step hierarchy involving multiple parts of the brain. At 7 minutes into #5 is a discussion of the purpose of brain waves not yet known and a need for (one way or another) evidence:

The Neuroscience behind HTM Sensorimotor Inference (Part 1)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNc73-tHHgY

Now that you have the background information:

discourse.numenta.org/t/oscillatory-thousand-brains-minds-eye-for-htm/3726

Our models/theory being this similar made it easy for me to trust the opinion of the Numenta team. They have the ability to repeat my results, Jeff likes to write papers and at least Matt had some prior knowledge.

What I needed to say became most like a routine "theory of operation" using terminology found in theirs for the HTM model. This at least spares a journal from having to find someone who can make full sense of it and are willing to review what I have so far. I guess we have to stay tuned, for more.

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


No, no idea what this means, if it has a meaning at all.

Date: 2018/04/07 01:47:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What I have is something else that cannot go down with them, so on the way to the proverbial "rock bottom" of what checks out as religious addiction based denial it's like either cling to the only thing left floating or sink for good into oblivion. And for you ChemiCat you'll just remain a clueless troll, but will likely take pride in that. Too bad it's not yet possible to model your weird mind. I would also love to see what causes a condition such as yours.


What causes my "condition", pseudoscientist Gaulin, is the way religiously motivated idiots like you try and distort science to squeeze your idea of god into our school science classes. This is because your god-addled brain is unable to grasp the fact that science cannot investigate your god by any logical, reasoned approach. If you ever (not holding my breath) provide anything to support your mythical "intelligent cause" then we might start to consider to think about your crazy "theory".

Godbots such as yourself have nothing but presuppositions to support your mindless bullshit.

Where is your testable, empirical evidence of your "designer"? You haven't any, none at all. Where is the testable, empirical evidence of your ridiculous "molecular intelligence"? You haven't any, none at all.

All you are is an irritating little flea riding on the back of the scientists who are improving our knowledge and understanding of the world and universe in which we exist. You and similar godbots would drag us back into the pre-enlightenment time when the churches controlled people with violence and death.

Your English is execrable, your "science" is nothing but plagiarism, your bullshit is an offence to bulls and you are incapable of nothing more than a poor copy of Pacman.

If you ever realise what a pile of shit your "intelligent cause" tagline is you will see why I will keep calling you out as an idiot.

Date: 2018/04/09 14:36:18, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
You have yet to demonstrate that molecular and cellular intelligence exist, and you have yet to show how to identify them and measure them.  You haven't even defined them in a way that other people can follow.  You merely assert them, which is one of multiple reasons that your assertions do not rise to the level of a scientific theory.


Well said, N.Wells. However Gaulin has been told this countless times and still doesn't understand it. Nor will he until he gets some scientific education for himself. All he does is cherry-pick words and phrases he thinks support him out of the work of serious scientists and add them to his pile of rubbish. He doesn't understand context, he doesn't understand the scientific method, he doesn't understand the concept of evidence and does not have the intellect to comprehend any of these points.

And all his stuff is written in his incomprehensible English that would shame a 5th grader. He knows that he cannot submit it to peer review because it will be returned as unreadable. Of course, he also believes that peer review consists of someone replying to him on obscure websites.

As far as I know nobody has taken him seriously anywhere on the web nor have they bothered to investigate his claims and assertions. This is because there is nothing to investigate but baseless, erroneous statements in his (There must be another word we can use for 'theory' as bullshit is getting old now) meaningless screed.

It is time Gaulin grew a pair and admitted that his speculations are just that, speculations.

Date: 2018/04/10 14:22:33, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
In thee beginning their was...


That's in better English than Gaulin will ever achieve!

Date: 2018/04/12 16:44:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
God ‚Äď Behavior of matter/energy process that exists throughout the universe and creates (life) living things, our ‚Äúcreator‚ÄĚ.


Non-scientist: Someone who swamps the internet with make believe and calls it a theory.  Gaulin

Date: 2018/04/13 08:36:59, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Iv'e had an idea for a comedy show.

Working title; "The Big Dumb Theory"

Starring Gaulin in a shared apartment with Joke Galien and R Byers.

Would you watch it?

Date: 2018/04/15 03:21:15, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Jeff Hawkins is a carbon copy personality of Jerry Poch, who owned PoChemco and when young I spent many hours with getting excited by the latest chemistry breakthrough including cold-fusion that later did not seem to be worth the palladium but was fun to include in the mix including ozone having been found to be an excellent antimicrobial agent. My still looking good chemical rack about 3 feet tall and little over 2 wide with mostly the ingredients for living things and biological analysis has the PoChemco labels still well attached, some of which I long ago printed and sure don't want those to have been the fall-off kind. I would get interested in the same kind of experiments he liked and he made sure I had the right supplies, by taking small amounts he didn't need money for from his mostly biochemically related ingredients used in his lab products. I was happy to be of help, such as super ozonator I by electronic instinct made with two glass spaced glass plates and oil burner transformer where the (made me nervous but was assured to be safe) pure O2 being pumped through becomes dielectrically broken down to become O3 that sterilized mostly single use ampule products, without need for antimicrobial agents best left out of the formula. It could blow out when overpressurized but the copper foil on the outside acted like a safety glass covering and was easy to make an even better one after the first did well to prove that it works good. Other designs put the high voltage inside with the gas flow and when there is a siphoning back to pump fills water and you know how the two don't mix. Safer to have glass between the two. And the way it was visibly overbombarding the O2 made it like there's no way to beat that, and he made good use of my gizmo for vats full of products.


I am sure that on some obscure little planet far beyond this one that this makes sense.

On this one, not a bit.

Date: 2018/04/15 03:28:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Minutes ago I had to propose some valid tests for my (and all other's) major claims expected to be applicable to models at all "levels of intelligence" while I was adding information to a thread for modeling V1 and related circuitry. The theme song ending was of course optional:


So where are these "valid tests"? You have been asked to state them for many years. Yet here we are still without any.

You are not a scientist, you are a poor advocate for religion. You are not a biologist or organic chemist as you don't understand the basics of the science.

Your brain needs a reboot to factory settings or an anti-virus to get rid of the damaging Godbot.

Date: 2018/04/24 06:52:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Coldfire

I agree that the only feeling I have for Gaulin is pity. I feel very sorry for his neglected family, though.

At least the trophy will look good on his virtual mantelpiece with his kiddy code medal.

Date: 2018/04/27 01:42:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Am I reading (translating) that correctly? Gaulin thinks that Salmon are mammals? Is that what he is bloviating?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Quote
then the explanation is expected to relate to earlier discussed salmon behavior,

Date: 2018/04/29 06:09:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
A computer related analogy is (read only memory) ROM for "instinctual" motor routines all animals are born with, along with possible design change. A "tweaking the circuit" to favor certain actions over others, and not necessarily a coded memory area with "information" in it as in a computer ROM chip.

Behaviors are this way passed to offspring. What smells and tastes good or bad eventually depends on whether the substance is what the critter such as a dung-beetle eats, or personally poops out as waste and/or may likely be hazardous to consume.


And Gaulin falls back into pseudoscientific gibberish.

Date: 2018/05/02 01:29:03, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
At least the theory with my name on it is still doing very well standing "the test of time".


Yet it has never reached the status of a theory. It is still without evidential support for its many assertions. There are no repeatable tests that can be carried out on it which makes it a non-scientific mish-mash of pseudoscience with a dash of theism thrown in.

 
Quote
I'm also not experiencing the uncertainty problems Charles Darwin had.


That is because your mind is closed to the many, many flaws in your rubbish. Start to address the various errors in physics, chemistry and biology in your POS and then you may possibly have a reason to brag about how you are "sciencing". A scientist would take on board the many criticisms of his basic science and either reject his hypothesis or do research to correct his errors. Something a closed mind will never do.

 
Quote
In twenty something years I have not had to change a single thing in its core model.


Which again shows that you cannot be advancing science in any shape or form. Such a closed and religion-addled mind cannot see beyond its worship of an unproven supernatural entity.

Your tagline, stolen from the IDC movement, is trivial in the extreme and easily dismissed without even beginning to take it apart in detail. Who said "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"? You have no evidence for any of the claims you make. They are just assertions moulded around a doubtful theology.

Your VB model is nothing but a kiddy-code without any biological significance to researchers in either biology or neurology.

In short, you do not understand science and your assertions are lifted straight from the cargo-cult science of the ID movement which is in reality a twisted theology. That you disparage them at every chance you get is a result of your being rejected even by them.

Date: 2018/05/02 01:32:43, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Nice one, fnxtr!

Date: 2018/05/06 14:52:01, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote

Quote
the process by which plants and animals that can adapt to changes in their environment are able to survive and reproduce while those that cannot adapt do not survive.



A gross simplification of natural selection. There is no reference to differential reproduction, no phenotypic variation etc. etc. No wonder the site is called Learnersdictionary.

All you have to do now, Gaulin, is follow this quote up with an advanced textbook on genetics and population dynamics. Then you will see where you have been going wrong for the last twenty odd years.

Oh, and BTW try a chemistry primer whilst you do and see where your ridiculous "molecular intelligence" shtick is so far wrong it cannot even see wrong.

Date: 2018/05/06 15:06:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Hey! Look Gaulin! NWells not only destroys  your assertions but provides links to references as to why you are wrong. Something sorely lacking in your pseudoscience.

Quote
https://1funny.com/faucet-....et-face
http://static.t13.cl/images.....lia.jpg
https://www.stihi.ru/pics.......276.jpg
https://bemethis.com/10-ever....look-at
https://www.pinterest.com/pin........3280472
https://rolloid.net/wp-cont....528.jpg

Not surprisingly, we infer sex and potential mating opportunities left, right, and center:
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....g......g....g
http://photos1.blogger.com/x....re....ree.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ey2xVv....ion.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/bjcKfR9....fR9.jpg
(minimum lines and maximum inference by the brain, courtesy of Picasso)
and of course  (.Y.)


Google Jenkins and Wiseman, Perception, 2009
Donald Hoffman, Construction of Visual Reality
[URL=https://qunki.com/23451....plained

Date: 2018/05/07 00:03:36, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Sorry for having to leave the trolls unfed for so long. It's like being stuck with pets who after a few hours of not getting attention start ripping apart the furniture and peeing on the walls.


I have always thought that you were the troll, Gaulin. Then the author of 40+ pages of non-scientific garbage has the cheek to call us trolls!

It is not trollish to point out the scientific flaws with your rubbish but it is trolling to not engage with the many corrections to your supposed science. Perhaps you can start answering the many questions posed to you about the errors in your basic understanding of how science works. You know, testable evidence, falsifiable theory, ground truthing, definitions of the unusual usage of well understood scientific terms etc.etc. all of which are missing in your bullshit.

Then you can explain why your tag is lifted from the DI without attribution and then you slag them off as not doing science.

You and them both.

Unless and until you correct the many errors in your bullshit there is no way you are doing science but just demonstrating how much your religion has closed your mind.

 
Quote
In my opinion it's unnecessary to suggest that Charles Darwin only had a hypothesis. But with his not having a flow chart and equations to (at least in the future) in that way computer model "common descent" I can accept that he only had an idea that can be tested and no testable model requiring a "theory" of operation for how his "common descent" model works.


Your "opinion" is just that, your opinion. As you do not understand the basics of the theory of evolution it is worthless in assessing how strong Darwin's theory is in biology and related sciences.

Darwin not having flow charts and equations means nothing to the  viability of his theory. It still remains the most tested and robust explanation of life on the planet.

Just because you have a pretty coloured CGI "bug" does not mean your assertions amount to more than speculation. In fact what you have is useless to cognitive theories.

You have wasted years of your life and neglected your family's welfare for your obsession. Try at least to correct that error.

Date: 2018/05/09 03:14:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Oh, that poor moth. What has it done to deserve this?

Date: 2018/05/09 10:23:37, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Did it eat somebody's sweater?


Not one of the clothes moths, so no. It is a Gelichiidae not Tinidae.

However it is seems appropriate that Trump has a micromoth named after him.

Date: 2018/05/13 16:45:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Camp just proudly checked in, with this link that spotlights his robotics work:

www.neatorobotics.com/neatonian-spotlight/may-2018-camp-peavy/


So what?

Date: 2018/05/14 06:19:05, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Like it says:


Quote
Camp is a ‚Äúrobot-builder who encourages others to participate in the greatest technological revolution in history.‚ÄĚ


I admire that attitude, and was hoping you noticed the impressive army of neato vacuum cleaning robots he commands.

With all the Roomba based ridicule in my thread I'm not sure where all that goes from here, because as you know this stuff writes itself.


As I said "So what?" This has absolutely nothing to do with your pseudoscience and Pacman substitute.

It would appear that you have given up all defence of your rubbish. So why not admit it and scrap the lot?

Date: 2018/05/16 00:38:49, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
3)  Similarly, I don't see how your model necessarily entails any predictions anywhere close to what the Guardian article is suggesting.


You are being too kind, NWells, Gaulin's dreck contains no predictions.

Unless, that is, you translate 'predictions' as biblical prophesies. Then retrofit them into your pseudoscience to resemble predictions. Just like his Cambrian Explosion insertion.

Date: 2018/05/17 02:44:45, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
What, you mean predictions of things already known don't count?


Only in the religious circles inhabited by the likes of Gaulin.

Date: 2018/05/25 09:26:14, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
For the sake of "theory of intelligent design" it's best to end the scam the theory is now [...]


You used three words too many, Gaulin.

Date: 2018/05/27 01:02:11, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Since the Discovery Institute had a premise for a theory but never presented a testable "scientific theory"[..]


So when do we get to see your testable "scientific theory", Gaulin? We haven't seen one so far.

Date: 2018/05/28 09:45:32, Link
Author: ChemiCat
From Gaulin on Numenta;

¬†  
Quote
(1) Molecular Level Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular systems that in time become molecular level intelligence, where biological RNA and DNA memory systems learn over time by replication of their accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, is a primary source of our instinctual behaviors, and causes molecular level social differentiation (i.e. speciation).


Gaulin, how many times must it be pointed out THIS IS UTTER BOLLOCKS

Molecules DO NOT "self-assemble". Chemical reactions are dependent on the conditions of the reaction. Any change in the parameters i.e. Ph, temperature, pressure and catalyst all change the reaction and give different results. The molecules react, they do not learn or exhibit "intelligence".

Chemicals react due to the laws of physics and chemistry NOT because they have learnt to react in that way. There is no intelligence in RNA or DNA.

If there was, these two polymer chains would produce no errors, they would produce identical chains in each and every reaction. There are plenty of errors in their transcription. You, Gaulin, have at least 100 mutations in your DNA that were not inherited from your parents. That is not intelligence at work.

Unless and until you start to learn about chemistry beyond 8th grade (Dinosaur Train) mini experiments and then take further study in biochemistry you are a waste of space, time and oxygen. You are unable to learn, will not accept correction and have no idea about science except at the most basic level.

One wonders whether you actually completed grade school.

Date: 2018/05/29 02:03:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Hopefully the video will help pacify the crotchety chemist, who I am (not so) sure can teach us much more about how this resonant system works.


Unless and until you either;

1) Provide testable empirical evidence for your "molecular intelligence" rubbish or;

2) Admit you are wrong and withdraw your bald assertion there is no point in discussing this further.

I suppose that you missed this bit;

"Like any organic compound, aromatics can undergo tons of reactions that produce all sorts of molecules".

All you have to do is isolate the reaction that makes a molecule 'intelligent'.

Go to it, Gaulin, a Nobel and fame and money waits for you!

ps I don't think resonance means what you think it means.

Date: 2018/05/29 02:07:58, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Gaulin, I see that you ignored the points of my post that totally undo your bullshit.

When are you going to grow a backbone and answer the many, many questions you have been asked?

Don't bother, we already know the answer. You can't.

Date: 2018/05/29 05:19:35, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Kathy Martin


I missed this reference whilst trying to interpret Gaulin's mangling of the English language.

Gaulin, did you mean the kooky creationist who was kicked off the board of education or the world authority on mountain grouse?

We know, even at your age, you still dream about her. (Hur, Hur)

Date: 2018/05/29 06:46:13, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Kathy Martin was later reelected.


What a crying shame. No wonder your state has such a poor record in education.

I notice your further evasion of the points that make your 'theory' nothing more than pseudoscience.

Date: 2018/05/29 06:48:09, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Your need to turn hypotheses into theories is something I thought only the Discovery Institute would need to do. Do you work for them?


Further underlining you total misunderstanding of how science works.

Date: 2018/05/29 16:02:00, Link
Author: ChemiCat
An excellent post, NWells.

I hope you haven't wasted too much time pointing out where Gaulin is wrong.

I offer odds that spineless Gaulin will ignore all of it and blithely carry on turning out drivel. Which he will then spread all over the internet like a farmer spreading manure. At least the farmer expects some results from his work. All Gaulin does is create a bad smell.

Date: 2018/05/29 23:47:55, Link
Author: ChemiCat
And all Gaulin can do is double down on his egregious error.

However he has diverted this thread away from his even worse set of errors he calls a 'theory'.

Date: 2018/05/30 13:53:54, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I am a resident of Massachusetts.


What crime has Massachusetts commited to deserve that?

Date: 2018/05/31 04:59:16, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Yeah, those could leave people out on a limb.


Waiting for the Big White Handkerchief?

Date: 2018/05/31 05:04:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Here you go, Gaulin;

Clarity

No need for thanks. Just take it to heart.

Date: 2018/06/09 03:07:38, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
I'm helping to make science fun, for generations to come.


No you are not, Gaulin.

Because what you are doing IS NOT science. What you are doing is collecting science-y buzzwords and throwing them into a mish-mash of really, really bad English grammar and calling it science. Your rubbish only just approaches being a bad idea. It is neither hypothesis nor theory in any scientific sense.

I provided you with a link to help you write an understandable science paper which you totally ignored. Let us see you rewrite your pathetic efforts for scientific clarity. At the moment your not-a-theory can be interpreted in so many different ways as to be useless for any purpose other than a classroom exercise in demonstrating how to write bad English.

All you are, Gaulin, is a thick-headed science wannabee with the arrogance of the ID/IC movement thrown in for good measure.

Your delusions are helping nobody least of all your health and family. Please seek professional counselling before you do any more damage to them.

Date: 2018/06/09 03:09:27, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
An otherwise OK (to follow evidence wherever it leads from) premise/hypothesis was presented as/for theory, which it was not.


This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Date: 2018/06/09 15:24:04, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

Date: 2018/06/10 04:39:57, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Quote (ChemiCat @ June 09 2018,15:24)

Quote
Does anyone know how to test my hypothesis?


Yes.

You are now either a troll, or are trying to be a comedian.

Then please explain how we test the hypothesis that I am "arguing with trolls who are purposely acting stupid."


That is not the question you posed.

Now do you see why clarity in language is so very important. Particularly when trying to convey science in an hypothesis or theory.

Unless and until you correct your many glaring errors in science, language and communication skills we will continue to point and laugh at you.

Date: 2018/06/17 12:50:31, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Please refrain from posting here until you learn how to use adverbs.


And nouns and adjectives and verbs and ... Oh, to hell with it! just learn English grammar, sentence structure and English.

Date: 2018/06/22 00:57:50, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Now I have to get back to my day job. Maybe this weekend I'll have time to get some of my science work accomplished


Sorry, Gaulin, but "accomplished" is NOT a synonym for "started".

And your bullshit so far is a long, long way from "accomplished".

Date: 2018/07/05 12:15:51, Link
Author: ChemiCat
Quote
Did I get lucky or what?

The Numenta forum is now discussing modeling of microglia cells and other things that have never been modeled before. Interesting discussions I'm (when possible) active in are:

discourse.numenta.org/u/gary_gaulin/activity


The answer is "or what.

Nothing, repeat nothing in that forum has anything at all to do with your "theory" or "model". You are still just plagiarising the work of people who know far more than you about neural networks.

You are like the little kid running after the baseball star to tell him how to bat.

 

 

 

=====