AE BB DB Explorer


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


form_srcid: damitall

form_srcid: damitall

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 107.20.30.170

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: damitall

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 'damitall%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #4

Date: 2009/01/27 09:58:26, Link
Author: damitall
I'm relatively new to the UD tard-watching game.

I'd like to thank all contributors to this board for confirming that the UD - ites over there haven't a clue what they are talking about - I thought  for a while it was me who'd lost the marbles. The words are English, but they are strung together (at inordinate length) in a way that contains little if any meaning (or "information")

Very odd indeed.

Even odder that they think their particular delusion will change the face of science-as-we-know-it.

(Proud to have had a polite post to UD about heterology in norovirus proteins deleted - I gather one is a complete nobody until either that or a complete ban)

Date: 2009/01/27 10:45:37, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 26 2009,16:05)
It would def have to track the sun, but not to a very high degree of precision. So there are some options that aren't too expensive that I have to find out about. One thing that appeals about this is it's such an obvious idea that I bet the patents are already expired. Soon I'll get a cheap PV cell and see how temperature goes up with intensity. I've seen that the cells can be run to at least 75ºC. I'll also see what effect a heat sink and a small fan has on the setup.

I've been working with (for other purposes) "hot mirror" - in this case the SIR material made by Prazisions Glas & Optik GmbH

here

It has good transmission of visible wavelengths, but reflects pretty much all IR. There's a transmission spectrum on the website

Any good?

Date: 2009/02/02 04:49:45, Link
Author: damitall
Was I dreaming, or did I see somewhere that UD intends to put up an ID FAQ page - with replies composed by gpuccio, kairosfocus, et al?

So any interested lurker will turn to the FAQ to find out what ID is all about and... and what? How will they overcome the resultant catatonic shock?

Merely to get to the end of one of kairosfocus' bore-a-matic megaspiels requires a certain amount of masochism. Does BarryArry really think this is a strategy that will win converts? Or is this a subtle way of ensuring that only those already possessing the arcane knowledge are permitted to penetrate further into the cabal and discover more complexity, more specification,more information?

As a method of making ID more accessible to the unenlightened masses, I can guarantee it'll score Epic Fail doubledoubleplus.

Date: 2009/02/04 13:55:38, Link
Author: damitall
There must be many, many, people who see how evolution & speciation are reckoned to work, but dimly. They may not be biologists, or even scientists, but can see the inherent value of the hypotheses, and the relative strength of the evidence - nested hierachies and all that relatively easily grasped stuff, with pictures

But there are many, many more who perfectly well recognise that ID's thesis of "Life started with bloody great big functional proteins, and the chances of making a bloody big functional protein from a dilute soup of amino acids are vanishingly small, so someone musta dunnit!" is just plain silly.

Many many more who can smell the ordure covering the IDers' inability simply to exemplify one of these "obvious" CSI calculations for a biological system.

Many, many more who have simply slipped into a coma trying to get to the end of one of kairosfocus' bijou answerettes, or one of gpuccio's stupefying ponderosities.

(Today, for the first - and last - time, I dipped into kf's blog. I'm a strong-minded bloke, so made it out alive; but by Eros' little willie, with someone like that behind it, ID cannot fail to fail)

The point being that if UD represents the most developed bits of ID philosophy, then the real world has little to concern itself about, and the Darwinistas can strut about unscathed, with sardonic sneers on their cruel (but handsome) faces

Date: 2009/02/05 16:27:55, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (KCdgw @ Feb. 05 2009,15:15)
And don't forget to read  Goodnight Moon to the little ankle biter when old enough. And  The Wind in the Willows later. Its a great way to drain away your own stress.

KC

Good grief, is Goodnight Moon still popular? My eldest is turned 21, and he  (and the others) loved it when they were tiddlers. By the third nipper, I could read it whilst being half asleep myself.

Congrats, Louis. I hope yours turns out  to be as much a) fun; and b) a source of paternal pride as mine did.

Date: 2009/02/11 14:25:44, Link
Author: damitall
Jerry is a stellar performer when it comes to clarity of expression and depth of knowledge

Quote
The designer might want an organism to exist with different types of other organisms because an organism may need to metabolize the other organism or the organisms are needed to change an environment to meet the need of the organism in question. There is a science which studies this and is called ecology.


Ah, now I see!

Date: 2009/02/12 09:49:32, Link
Author: damitall
Yep, the school board who "had the audacity to want to teach...."

And some of whom lied through their teeth, to the extent of being in peril of being charged with perjury.

No wonder they were voted out by ordinary folk

Date: 2009/02/16 14:41:27, Link
Author: damitall
Tardstorm warning!


Walter ReMine and his dratted Biotic Message have surfaced!


Peepses

Batten down yer baramins!

Date: 2009/03/03 10:44:16, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 03 2009,10:21)
I think 'frit' is supposed to be some archaic Anglo-Saxon equivalent of 'frightened'.

Not so archaic. In common use where I used to live, in the North Nottinghamshire coalfield country

Date: 2009/03/04 03:10:39, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,13:57)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 03 2009,16:44)
Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Mar. 03 2009,10:21)
I think 'frit' is supposed to be some archaic Anglo-Saxon equivalent of 'frightened'.

Not so archaic. In common use where I used to live, in the North Nottinghamshire coalfield country

Eh up me duck.

Louis

Good try, Louis.

But we know you're a posh git, who wouldn't know a pickaxe from a pizzle.

And it's "Ayup"  - from the archaic "ay" - show us; and "upp" - yer tits

Date: 2009/03/05 08:43:18, Link
Author: damitall
Yeah, have a good one, BWE; and thanks for teh laffs as well as the srs stuff, here and elsewhere.

Date: 2009/03/06 07:04:45, Link
Author: damitall
Having donned the tard protection, muttered the incantations, invoked the guardianship of Darwin and Dawkins, I have marvelled at the (no word sufficiently derisive) posted at UD.

But this.............I dunno; how deep can tard get before it drowns its producers?

Date: 2009/03/06 11:05:22, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 06 2009,10:41)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 06 2009,10:29)
tardma
Tardmatic
Tardlie
....
Someone should produce a glossary of terms.

I think tard comes in small but finite quantities.  Hypothetical particles carrying tard shall be known as tardons.  

Empirical evidence of tard quantization comes from kairosfocus.  He emitted 18 tardons this morning.  He called them bleats, but I think he was being too modest.

Indeed, so high was the tardon flux density that even so seasoned a tardminer as Mark Frank was disabled.......

New strategy? Dishearten the opposition by sheer weight of gibberish, in the form of KF's Friday Fountain - not so much a meltdown, more an eructation of formless froth.

Date: 2009/03/20 12:41:22, Link
Author: damitall
Jerry says

 
Quote
You hide behind some terms as “the absolute basics of scientific epistemology.” I have had courses in the philosophy of science and read and watched videos on it and never saw anything meaningful discussed that used terminology such as this. Come down to earth.


See? Jerry's watched videos, for gosh-sake! How can he be wrong?

And how dare RB use words like "the", "absolute", "basics", "of", "scientific" and "epistemology"? Who knows those words? Elitism run riot!

Date: 2009/03/28 10:35:08, Link
Author: damitall
tribune7 is convinced of ID's winningfulness, at any rate.

Guess we might as well pack up and go home then.

Date: 2009/03/28 12:36:04, Link
Author: damitall
WAD's expeditions from on high to move amongst mere mortals are getting a bit frequent, aren't they?

Hasn't he got something better to do?

Date: 2009/03/31 07:29:25, Link
Author: damitall
It's going to be interesting to see just how many times KF can be induced to tell everybody that it's a waste of time further to discuss "Weasel" - and then to follow that declaration with thousands of weary words of all-but -incomprehensible bloviation

Onlookers - please count

Date: 2009/03/31 10:17:19, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 31 2009,10:05)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 31 2009,05:29)
It's going to be interesting to see just how many times KF can be induced to tell everybody that it's a waste of time further to discuss "Weasel" - and then to follow that declaration with thousands of weary words of all-but -incomprehensible bloviation

Onlookers - please count

I'm ahead of you on that one, damitall:

 
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 30 2009,14:12)
     
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 30 2009,01:12)
As of now, kairosfocus has 'contributed' 8,220 words to the Simulation Wars thread.

4,755 of them follow this statement:
         
Quote
There is actually very little point in onward extension of the issues over minutiae of Weasel and/or the latest neo-Weasel, the real matters on the merits having long been settled.

KF, seek professional help immediately.

He's now up to 8,793 and 5,328, respectively, and still going.

I'll update this later today.

Yes, I hoped you were still counting! Thanks for your efforts - I can't even look at the stuff without brain-pain

Date: 2009/04/15 04:30:07, Link
Author: damitall
This has given me many a belly-laugh, interspersed with periods of glorious bafflement. IMO, it's wingnuttery of the very highest order

Date: 2009/04/21 15:36:27, Link
Author: damitall
Happy birthday ERV.

Chew on an IDiot and relax!

Date: 2009/04/28 07:02:21, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Zachriel @ April 27 2009,15:14)
Quote
Joseph: Would the sketch artist be able to draw something with the input of "father of"? Absolutely not.

Well, knowing the father would certainly narrow the possibilities. Here are two fathers, for instance,





You have to look closely, but I think you should be able to tell the difference.



Yeah, easy.

But what kind of tree is that blue bird at the bottom sittin' on?

Date: 2009/05/05 03:02:08, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,20:00)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 04 2009,06:04)
Quote (sTARTERkIT @ May 04 2009,05:55)
The body truly is self-healing, except of course when people decide they know better and start hacking away at body parts and declare "Science!".  

That must be why life expectancy has gone from 20-30 in Medieval Britain, 30-40 in the early 20th Century to it's current world average of 70.

If the body is truly is self-healing and has been all along, how do you explain this observation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy

Actually, if you could wrap your brain around it, you would understand that plenty of folks back then lived long lives.   The knowledge and means to live long lives existed but were held by the privileged class.  Nowadays, knowledge and means are more evenly spread out, thus the mean lifespan increases.  

Remember, the mean lifespan has increased, but there are plenty of people today that have short lifespans.  Modern science can do nothing  about this.  For every solution found, new maladies crop up.  Think about it, how many stress related deaths do we have today that did not exist hundreds of years ago?

IOW, it was accessto knowledge and means, not the knowledge and means itself, that was lacking.

To have a creationist explain the obvious; now that's gotta hurt.  Ouch.

I wonder what the CAUSES of modern-day "short lifespans" are that modern science "can do nothing about"?

And how many "stress related deaths" were there, say, in 2005? How does one decide whether any death was related to stress?

Date: 2009/05/11 10:31:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (k.e.. @ May 11 2009,10:22)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ May 11 2009,17:29)
On the Walter Remine thread, Ray Martinez has a classic comment.  
Quote
Evolutionist Scott L. Page has a review posted at Amazon. He points out that you support undisputed claims ad naseum but fail to support disputed claims.

I haven’t read your book but I can tell that Page has made a careless blunder or deliberate misrepresentation. Knowing evolutionists, I am quite confident that the latter is true.

Can we get him over here for a little dust up?

I would, ever so respectfully, suggest that you read some Martinez threads in other fora before you start handing out invitations.

The man represents nothing but universal denial of anything sciency. It's funny for the first page, but one soon realises that Martinez is to rational discussion as Kairosfocus is to succinct prose.

Date: 2009/05/12 11:02:06, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (carlsonjok @ May 12 2009,10:42)
Quote (khan @ May 12 2009,10:29)
Quote (Louis @ May 12 2009,10:53)
 
Quote (huwp @ May 12 2009,15:03)
[SNIP]

Anyway, I've just remembered why you should never make jokes about chemists - you just get a rude retort.

[SNIP]

Excellent work. Abusing chemists does occasionally indeed result in unpleasant reactions.

Louis

But are you part of the solution?

Oh noes!!! A pun storm!!  I hate those.  What in Sam Hill precipitated this revolting development?

There must be a Mole somewhere.

This is Normal

Date: 2009/05/15 04:26:26, Link
Author: damitall
And to add to the general hilarity, Robert Byers makes a flying visit from whatever corner of the multiverse he is currently infesting...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-317797

Date: 2009/05/15 05:12:28, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 15 2009,04:56)
 
Quote (damitall @ May 15 2009,05:26)
And to add to the general hilarity, Robert Byers makes a flying visit from whatever corner of the multiverse he is currently infesting...

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-317797

He showed up earlier on the "Grill the IDiot" thread. It was my first time seeing the name. Is he an internet classic tard?

Certainly is, and has appeared on most evo discussion fora.

His main stock in trade is to "insist" (he never simply believes anything, he insists that it is so) that a lion could become a marsupial lion, or an aquatic mammal a terrestrial one, within its own lifetime, by some form of hyperfast adaptation

Unfortunately, he is unable to propose any sort of mechanism, because his scientific knowledge is somewhere below zero - i.e. what he does "know", he has got very wrong: so the lulz-potential is not what it could be

Date: 2009/05/28 11:54:30, Link
Author: damitall
StephenB claims that kairosfocus "doesn't waste words"


Kairosfocus says "1 –> As the “fire triangle” teaches us, when we have a fire, we must have (i) fuel (which is of course a substance capable under the circumstances of the heat-evolving chain reaction we call burning), (ii) heat and (iii) oxidiser (often, air . . . 21% O2). [Fires can burn in other media; indeed, in some cases already burning metals can dissociate water and burn on the released oxygen!]"

It's hard to think of a better example of wasting words. By my count, at least 45 of those 62 or so are completely superfluous to (what I think is) his point.

And, by Golly, I hope kf never "expands" on that explanation
(I think KF should be promoted as global champion of ID, with maximum media exposure. How's about it, Disco Institute? A world lecture tour?).

Date: 2009/06/10 14:44:58, Link
Author: damitall
Congratulations to Louis & Mrs, welcome to Nicholas, and good fortune to all.

If it helps, Louis and Mrs, we have survived three of the brutes (male variety) growing to near-adulthood, and are 'strordinarily happy with the results, however lacking in sleep and wealth because of them. May you be at least as lucky

Date: 2009/06/12 04:29:12, Link
Author: damitall
Seriously, are these folks, the regular proID/religious posters like jerry, joseph, uptight biplane and the oil-soaked, alwayslinked, hypergullible, wordsaladtosser kairosfocus, the best proponents of ID anywhere?

OK, I see the fun side - but is there any other reason to engage with these onanists?

Date: 2009/06/12 04:33:08, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (mammuthus @ June 11 2009,18:08)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ June 11 2009,15:57)
Sanford's "genomic (mutational) meltdown" scenarios are a hoot. Even DaveScot was bright enough to see that Sanford's proposed mutation rates were out of line with reality: fast-reproducing sexual species that have existed a few million should have all been extinct by now, but they're not. Sanford inflates deleterious mutation rates and disregards compensatory mechanisms.

His argument is a little more involved than that.  It seems to revolve around genome size; the smaller genome size of something like P.falciparum prevents genetic meltdown, but it would occur with larger genome sized mammals.  So genetic entropy is a problem for the latter (if not on Sanford YEC timescales).  You can't just take fast reproducing things like P.falciparum and apply the Genetic Entropy failure in this case widely.  At least that's how I read it.

   
Quote
It occured to me recently that Sanford’s projected rate of genetic decay doesn’t square with the observed performance of P.falciparum. P.falciparum’s genome is about 23 million nucleotides. At Sanford’s lowest given rate of nucleotide copy errors that means each individual P.falciparum should have, on average, about 3 nucleotide errors compared to its immediate parent. If those are nearly neutral but slightly deleterious mutations (as the vast majority of eukaryote mutations appear to be) then the number should be quite sufficient to cause a genetic meltdown from their accumulation over the course of billions of trillions of replications. Near neutral mutations are invisible to natural selection but the accumulation of same will eventually become selectable. If all individuals accumulate errors the result is decreasing fitness and natural selection will eventually kill every last individual (extinction). Yet P.falciparum clearly didn’t melt down but rather demonstrated an amazing ability to keep its genome perfectly intact. How?

After thinking about it for a while I believe I found the answer - the widely given rate of eukaryote replication errors is correct. If P.falciparum individuals get an average DNA copy error rate of one in one billion nucleotides then it follows that approximately 97% of all replications result in a perfect copy of the parent genome. That’s accurate enough to keep a genome that size intact. An enviromental catastrophe such as an ice age which lowers temperatures even at the equator below the minimum of ~60F in which P.falciparum can survive would cause it to become extinct while genetic meltdown will not. Mammals however, with an average genome size 100 times that of P.falciparum, would have an average of 3 replication errors in each individual. Thus mammalian genomes would indeed be subject to genetic decay over a large number of generations which handily explains why the average length of time between emergence to extinction for mammals and other multicelled organisms with similar genome sizes is about 10 million years if the fossil and geological evidence paints an accurate picture of the past. I DO believe the fossil and geological records present us with an incontrovertible picture of progressive phenotype evolution that occured over a period of billions of years. I don’t disbelieve common ancestry and phenotype evolution by descent with modification - I question the assertion that random mutation is the ultimate source of modification which drove phylogenetic diversification.



Here is an abstract which might inform this particular question

Date: 2009/06/26 05:50:29, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (didymos @ June 26 2009,02:35)
Quote (sparc @ June 25 2009,23:34)
BTW, for us non-native speakers following the Judge Jones thread: Does "learned hand" have some co-notation UD commons miss?

Well, in general a "learned hand" would just mean "competent", which I suspect has something do with the choice of name,  but specifically it's actually the name of a particular American jurist:

Billings Learned Hand



I'd never heard of him either.  He seems to be famous within the legal profession, but otherwise obscure for the most part (nowadays anyway, as he apparently was relatively famous for a time in the US).

Those eyebrows deserve fame - and respect. Possibly even a little terror.

Date: 2009/07/20 04:16:03, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Quack @ July 20 2009,03:02)
Quote
This is now literally Biology 101.
...

To measure the complexity of the DNA string just as one measures the complexity of a word, sentence, paragraph, line of code, module or program one calculates the likelihood of the sequence of symbols, or in the genome, the DNA sequence to assess its likelihood.

It may be just me, but I wonder if complexity really is eligible for measurement. But with FCSI being like biology 101, I thought maybe I could find the formula for calculating FCSI. But what I got was this and I don't know what to think any longer

Quack, me duck (an affectionate and courteous form of address from where I spent my formative years), I should think that you should continue to think as you probably always have done: that anyone who purports to be able to calculate complexity as applied to biological macromolecules and whatever "information" is contained therein and come up with a meaningful answer is a Bit of a Wanker.

Anyone who tells you that evolution is impossible because of the improbability of being able to assemble a functional protein of x aa's length by random search of all possible protein sequences of length x aa's is a Total Wanker

See? You were right all along!

Date: 2009/07/20 04:17:00, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Quack @ July 20 2009,03:02)
Quote
This is now literally Biology 101.
...

To measure the complexity of the DNA string just as one measures the complexity of a word, sentence, paragraph, line of code, module or program one calculates the likelihood of the sequence of symbols, or in the genome, the DNA sequence to assess its likelihood.

It may be just me, but I wonder if complexity really is eligible for measurement. But with FCSI being like biology 101, I thought maybe I could find the formula for calculating FCSI. But what I got was this and I don't know what to think any longer

Quack, me duck (an affectionate and courteous form of address from where I spent my formative years), I should think that you should continue to think as you probably always have done: that anyone who purports to be able to calculate complexity as applied to biological macromolecules and whatever "information" is contained therein and come up with a meaningful answer is a Bit of a Wanker.

Anyone who tells you that evolution is impossible because of the improbability of being able to assemble a functional protein of x aa's length by random search of all possible protein sequences of length x aa's is a Total Wanker

See? You were right all along!

Date: 2009/07/20 04:19:00, Link
Author: damitall
Apologies for the duplicate post.

Date: 2009/07/23 05:36:07, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 23 2009,04:59)
Gordon actually says something that's not a copy and paste!
 
Quote
I happen to believe that designers will be informationally based, and am open to the possibility of both materially based and immaterially based designers, just as information is not locked down to any one material expression. [It is materialists who are a priori committed to the idea that all must reduce to matter-energy and space-time, acting through chance + necessity. As I have linked, that runs such into serious difficulties, often expressed today as "the hard problem of consciousness." It is hard because it is trying to resolve a self referential absurdity, implicitly.]

Link

Yeah, maybe - but he has a list of idiot-phrases in his own head from to copy/paste

E.g. "self-referential absurdity" - just one of the expressions used by Gordy to describe any concept to do with thinking he doesn't like

Date: 2009/07/23 05:37:26, Link
Author: damitall
Or even "from WHICH to copy/paste"  :(

Date: 2009/08/01 10:33:35, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Aug. 01 2009,10:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Aug. 01 2009,10:42)
male escort?  

KF: "What do you like?"

Consumer: "I like fantasy. Say, 'sadly amusing.'"

KF: "It is sadly amusing to see how a crankshaft being a part of a car is turned into a car being a part of a “sculpture” of a crankshaft..."

Consumer: Jesus! Crankshaft! That's good. Say, 'oil soaked strawman'"

KF: (steps closer) "As the slander oil soaked strawman erupts in flames, filling the air with noxious and blinding smoke, all too many will be taken in...

Consumer: "Uuuunnnh. Wow! Say, 'red herring.'"

KF: (kneels) "There are two distinct problems with a red herring leading out to a strawman that one burns in a claimed 'victory'"...

Consumer: "No no no, don't start mixing them yet... say, "selective hyperskepticism.'"

KF: "Radical skepticism becomes self-referentially incoherent, as one cannot live consistent with that, and, so is selective hyper-skepticism whereby one applies radical doubt to what one is inclined to reject, but not to what one is inclined to accept..."

Consumer: "NOW, combine them!"

KF: "You resort to one red herring after another, leading out to one strawman after another, soaked in oil of ad hominem and ignited to cloud and poison the atmosphere through polarisation and confusion as radical skepticism becomes self-referentially incoherent and the slander oil soaked strawman erupts in flames, filling the air with noxious and blinding smoke, and all too many are taken in. Sadly!

Consumer: "Call me ONLOOKER! Speak in tongues!!"

KF: (Unlimbers to his full height, opens his arms) "Onlooker, so very sadly, it is now increasingly evident that he is either only superficially glancing at what others have to say, then dashes off to attacking the resulting strawman, typically on yet another tangent to the issues for the thread in the main, which he has consistently distracted from, or else is that he is a willful distorter of what others have to say, with intent to mislead onlookers! This is a matter of science, not theology. The inference to design is a reasonable principle in science not a theologically speculative, ill-founded heresy!!"

Consumer: "Yes. YES!!"

POTW, surely!

Date: 2009/08/03 14:49:10, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 03 2009,11:47)
Is UD going the OE way? No post since July 31.
Or has DO'L taken her summer break.

Actually, it's been so long since kairosfocus posted, everyone is cowering in silent terror lest someone inadvertently give him cause to unleash such a torrent of pent-up incoherent verbiage as would destroy us all

Date: 2009/08/11 14:27:07, Link
Author: damitall
Been catching up on UD, talking donkeys and slander-soaked oilmen.

Good Grief!

Is there any IDer left over there who is even slightly sane?

Date: 2009/08/24 09:06:51, Link
Author: damitall
It is but a sad reflection on the quality of our lives that we gain such entertainment from watching the denizens of UD (but in particular, the Mullings species) contort their own grey matter as well as the English language in the cause of never, ever, admitting that they might have got something wrong.

You would think that they would realise, however dimly, that the whole of the rest of the rational world could be following those threads and be pointing and laughing at the very idea of ID as well as at the individuals pushing teh lying mad crazy; but no, they can't get it at all.

It's almost inspirational, in a perverse way, to observe at close hand the human capacity for denial + dumbfuckery

Date: 2009/08/24 11:12:38, Link
Author: damitall
[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/uncommon-descent-contest-question-9-is-accidental-origin-of-life-a-doctrine-that-holds-bac

k-science/#comment-331122]Here,[/URL] a poster remarks that abiogenesis requires there to have been a sterile environment. Obvious, really, if the environment is not sterile, then biogenesis has already happened.


But [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/origin-of-life/uncommon-descent-contest-question-9-is-accidental-origin-of-life-a-doctrine-that-holds-bac

k-science/#comment-331127]Densey leaps in[/URL] with  
Quote
naontiotami at 1: You wrote, “You have to have a sterile environment for abiogenesis to take place.”

So it is happening in operating rooms all over North America?

Details please. A Nobel Prize awaits you if you are the first to explain.


Why does Densey think that abiogenesis inevitably happens in a sterile environment? Weird, or what?

Date: 2009/08/24 11:14:01, Link
Author: damitall
Dunno what went wrong with that one! Haven't time to repair it, on the run

Date: 2009/08/27 06:41:02, Link
Author: damitall
OK. Which one of you reprobates is Feebish ?

Date: 2009/09/03 03:16:57, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 02 2009,23:54)
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 02 2009,07:17)
 
Quote (CeilingCat @ Sep. 02 2009,05:52)
     
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 02 2009,05:22)
Oh my Designer, the game is up!
         
Quote
Equally startling is that these genes were discovered in what had been considered “junk” DNA, non-functioning strings of repetitive DNA that do not seem to do anything.
[...]
Scientists have long assumed new genes could only evolve from duplicated or rearranged versions of preexisting genes, passed on by our ancestors, Dr McLysaght said. But then scientists began to discover a very few novel genes in species such as flies and yeasts that arose from apparently inactive junk DNA.


I, for one, welcome our new junk DNA overlords.

       
Quote
Research leader Dr Aoife McLysaght and Dr David G Knowles, of TCD’s Smurfit Institute of Genetics, conducted comparisons of human, ape and monkey DNA.
Honestly, you heathens will believe anything!

Aoife is also quite the cutie...she's in front here:


Darwin Day!


I was seeing if she had a preprint or anything of that paper up and got all sexcited when I saw a .pdf icon next to the title-- but, alas, it was not to be.

I made do with ogling pics of her and other lab denizens here http://www.gen.tcd.ie/molevol/

Sex and the Single Scientist!  Loved that book!

The one on the right in the first picture is also foxy, although she seems to get her sweater sense from Dembski.  But on her, it looks good!

Both of these pictures will join my growing selection of science porn.

The lady scientist in front (Aoife?) had a brief soundbite/interview on the splendid BBC last night (Radio 4, no less!).

Sounds as good as she looks - mind you, I do get  a bit sweaty hearing pretty women speaking with an Irish accent.

Date: 2009/09/03 09:46:59, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Amadan @ Sep. 03 2009,09:37)
Quote (damitall @ Sep. 03 2009,03:16)
  ... mind you, I do get  a bit sweaty hearing pretty women speaking with an Irish accent.


Like our dear Minister for Health?

Watchit, buster! I stipulated PRETTY women. That one may be a wonderful person in all sorts of ways, but doesn't make my cut.

One has one's standards

Date: 2009/09/08 04:09:41, Link
Author: damitall
Well, I seem to have precipitated a TardTorrent from kf, by asking politely-framed questions at UD not specifically addressed to him.

Do I get a small prize?

Date: 2009/09/11 07:32:23, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 11 2009,06:26)
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 11 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Sep. 11 2009,01:12)
Zac how did you yo get the greek alphabet to show?

He cheated. It's not text, it's an image file.

Cheating? That's how the Greeks did it.

Typical atheist materialist evilutionist behaviour, cheating with image files.

Date: 2009/09/12 15:05:43, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (deadman_932 @ Sep. 12 2009,13:39)
Someone mentioned a while back that GAB of TALKY makes a kind of sense when one hypothesizes that words are magickal to him.

We've seen that before among religious fanatics, but not to quite the same degree as in Gordon Mullings.

 
Quote
"Far away across the field,
The tolling of the iron bell
Calls the faithful to their knees,
To hear the softly spoken magic spells."
(apologies to Roger Waters)


In Mullings' case, the words don't have to be soft, or make a valid point, or even sense. There just has to be lots of them, arranged in magickal patterns that can be repeated ad nauseam to placate the angry gods and comfort the believers.

If one word is majickal, a thousand must be really potent. One just has to keep including the neccessary formulae, like "oil-soaked ad hominem strawmen" which he sometimes chants many times in the same clause-ridden post.

When I look at his posts that way -- as droning liturgies --  they do make a kind of sense.

C'mon, everybody! In the true spirit of the pantomime that is a kairosfocus megatardtorrent

1.....2.....3..

"OH, NO THEY DON'T!"

Date: 2009/09/16 10:19:57, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (KCdgw @ Sep. 16 2009,09:42)
Gil Dodgen:

Quote
I'm like Joseph.


<snicker>

KC

Why should ANYONE want to admit to that?

Sheesh!

Date: 2009/11/05 10:52:32, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 05 2009,07:04)
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 05 2009,05:43)
Enjoy JoeG while you can.  He's decided that Hydrogen Peroxide will prevent Swine Flu:    
Quote
Swine Flu (H1N1) Vs. H2O2
OK flu season is here.

I am not going to get a flu vaccine but will rely on the science that says that the virus cannot live in an oxygenated environment.

However this means that I have to try to get back on track with my H2O2 intake.

I need to drink it 3 times a day however I have only been drinking it in the morning.

Now my wife is against this because she thinks that I will get the flu and pass it onto them. However the rest of my family are getting the vaccine(s), so they should be covered.

I have already been adding H2O2 to all the humidifiers in the house. This protocol has seemed to help keep us healthy- it only takes 2 oz of 35% food grade H2O2 per gallon of distilled water to keep your air clean from viruses.


Stay tuned...
posted by Joe G @ 7:26 AM

Link

P.S. If I were a right-wing screwball, I could also say that JoeG also has a drinking problem.

At least we know his family is at least partially sane.  What a crock o'shite.  Is his drinking problem alcohol, or is he actually drinking hydrogen peroxide?  I just did a google search on this and wasn't surprised at the amount of woo.

I guess if you believe in magical sky daddies, you might as well believe any BS.

If he doesn't object to his family being vaccinated, why does he not want the vaccine for himself? Seeking martyrdom?

Date: 2009/11/13 08:00:35, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (REC @ Nov. 12 2009,22:35)
Frosty's melting!!!

Quote
I would like to know where all of these new names are coming from all of a sudden? It seems like a sudden barrage of weak minds have decided to attack UD.


Is there dissent in the ranks of the descenters?  A lot of critical posts are getting released from moderation. Wonder who is behind it. Maybe someone with a brain in the ranks realizes the moral opining against Darwin, and the praise the morality of Jesus isn't all that great an argument for ID?

The moderation corral is like a sort of game reserve. They let a few in to the main forum  to be picked off by the bannination cannon; and when the population goes down too far, they let a few more in from the corral.....

They know they would be overwhelmed by uncontrolled evilutionist population growth, but would die from either or both of rampant insanity and boredom, if left to themselves

Date: 2009/11/23 16:32:18, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Robert Byers @ Nov. 23 2009,16:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 20 2009,11:04)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 20 2009,10:40)
I wonder if Robert believes the marsupial cat and the house cat are more closely related than the cat and dog or the Tasmanian wolf and marsupial cat?

I mean, cats are of the same kind right?

From what he has said, that would be correct, as long as we are not talking about humans, since we are special.  Why his god decided that the ape was a good shape to copy from I'll never know, since the upright posture causes so many problems for us.  Maybe his god is an idiot?  Does his god talk like him - maybe that explains so much....

Yes all cat shaped creatures are the same creature. marsupial, credontal (sp), or our kittys.
The ape body in fact is excellent. Gynastics shows how useful.
Perhaps any minor problems is just a post fall development and not the original creation.

Well,well.

Byers redux.

But (against all reason) even less coherent than in previous appearances.

According to our Robert B, a wolf could become a marsupial wolf in its own lifetime.

He insists.

Date: 2009/11/24 03:14:20, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 23 2009,18:40)
Robert is a walking cautionary tale. This is what happens when parents lock their child in the closet under the stairs for 16 hours a day with nothing but a Bible and a plastic ark.

Please note: In most countries, this would be considered child abuse. Here in the U.S. it's just called "Christian Homeschooling".

I may of course be wrong, but I believe Our Robert is Canadian.

If so, Canada has something to answer for, having foisted both this tard-twat AND Densey on to the world.

Date: 2009/12/30 18:26:29, Link
Author: damitall
About this "need for speed" business...

Isn't it a rather serious design fault to depend on the marsupial pouchy method, if the need is so great?

Rabbits don't do it that way. Pigs don't do it that way. Cats and dogs don't do it that way.

Seems to me that the ability to drop a good big litter of squirming young is a much better way to populate a territory rapidly.

But I realise that Bubba Byers is for some reason fixated on marsupials, so multiple pregnancies will be abhorrent to him

Date: 2010/01/23 08:22:12, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 22 2010,19:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 22 2010,12:01)
   
Quote (AdmiralAckbar @ Jan. 22 2010,08:36)
What is the obsession of Chopra-types and fundamentalists with string theory?  God, universal consciousness, fairies and unicorns hiding out in extra dimensions?  Last refuge of those looking for them?  And the crazy irony is the blind acceptance of string theory as proven fact in the same breath where they dispute evolution.

1.  It's sciency.
2.  It's difficult to understand.
3.  Most people have heard of it, without knowing much about it other than (1) and (2).
4.  Unless there are any scientists in the congregation, it can be dropped into a stream of tard and used as evidence for just about anything you like.  You'll sound really clever.
5.  Therefore Jesus.

See also: relativity, quantum mechanics, black holes, dark matter...


edit - I know you referred to string theory first, but I've seen more quantum woo than anything else, thus my post.

Don't forget that you can use it in any situation.  Consciousness - It's Quantum.

Free Will - Quantum!

Mechanism for Design - Quantum!

Creation from Nothing - Quantum!  (ok, so this one may be true for some particles, if I understand the theory correctly - or has this been observed?)

God Communicating to people - Quantum!

Virgin Birth - Quantum!

See - the word Quantum (which koalas hate, IIRC  :p ) can spice up any hypothesis you like, and works great in soda and casseroles.  I do wonder what people think of when they hear Quantum, since it refers to really tiny things.  Calling a man "quantum dick" is like calling some "built like a gorilla."  Does this mean Quantum Gods are really, really, really tiny?  That might explain a lot  ;)

Over at TalkRational, there is a prolific poster (hight "Socrates") claiming to have a Total Theory, which (amongst much other good stuff) posits teams of supernatural intelligent designers poofing new genera into existence from teh Quantum Plenum.

He's also obsessing about Archaeopteryx fossils being Teh Fakes - apparently because Haeckel needed money to support a mistress.

Should you need a different flavour of tard, visit here

Date: 2010/02/10 16:51:52, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Dr.GH @ Feb. 10 2010,16:10)
Well, we shall see if I pass "moderation."

I feel I have come a bit late to this particular party. However, I have been a long time student of the intelligent design movement. I would like to add a comment to Nick Matzke’s observations regarding ID and common ancestry, or speciation.

William Dembski and Jonathan Wells writing in their recent book, “The Design of Life”  deny common ancestry as it is used by mainstream biologists. They wrote that ID “neither requires nor excludes speciation,” and  that “ID is sometimes confused with a static view of species, as though species were designed to be immutable.” These remarks would seem to leave the door open to common ancestry. But, in their concluding remarks on speciation, they insist that “there are strict limits to the amount and quality of variations that material mechanisms such as natural selection and random genetic change can alone produce.”  So ID accepts speciation, but not by mutation, and natural selection- not by biology. No, rather their claim is that, “intelligence can itself be a source of biological novelties that lead to macroevolutionary changes. In this way, intelligent design is compatible with speciation. (pg. 109)”

Both authors are on record that the “intelligent designer” is the biblical God. So, their “speciation” is exclusively the result of Devine intervention. These acknowledged intellectual leaders of the ID movement wasted a great deal of ink just to say “goddidit.” Henry Morris or Duane Gish said it clearly and honestly.

And that is all that distinguishes ID from special creationism- honesty.

A pretty pass when one has to characterise a movement like creationism, surrounded and supported as it is by inveterate liars, as "more honest" than ID

I suppose their lies are more easily spotted by Joe Public

Date: 2010/02/13 10:26:30, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Zachriel @ Feb. 13 2010,08:17)
Quote
GilDodgen: The problem is that living systems are not just transparently intelligently designed; they are intelligently engineered. It’s not just ID; it’s IE.

ID, i.e. IE

Quote
GilDodgen: Those of us who design and engineer functionally integrated systems, especially information-processing systems, know what is required.

I engineer, therefore I am.

Quote
GilDodgen: Trial and error do play a role, but the trials are always planned in advance, based on what has been learned so far, so as to minimize wasted effort.

Except that every fossil organism is adapted to its own environment.

Quote
GilDodgen: Mindless, unplanned trials are never considered, because their number is essentially infinite, and the probability of success as a result of such an approach is obviously zero.

Which is why evolution only samples a tiny portion of possible solutions.

Quote
GilDodgen: Once a proof-of-concept study has been completed and validated, and initial prototype engineering has shown promise, a team of engineers with specialized expertise (in our case, electrical, mechanical, aeronautical, and software engineers) pursue the final goal with much teamwork, thought, planning, and dogged determination.

So the Intelligent Designer Engineer was a committee?

Oddly enough, there is a poster "Socrates" over at TalkRational who claims exactly that there are or were "Intelligent Designer Teams" or committees.

If you go say "hi" to him, whatever you do don't address him as "Socrates" He prefers "Soccy"  or "Idiot"

Date: 2010/07/27 09:25:27, Link
Author: damitall
From Ken Ham's blergh...

Quote
Where England is today spiritually (it is all but dead),...


Proud to be English!

Date: 2010/07/28 14:49:19, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Robin @ July 28 2010,10:55)
[quote=Kattarina98,July 28 2010,03:53][/quote]
 
Quote
 
Quote (Ptaylor @ July 27 2010,20:50)
     
Quote
The Intelligent Design Facts Institute Launches Top Rated New Website To Defend Intelligent Design Through New Scientific Research

The site itself is here.
This could become a lot of fun.


     
Quote
Intelligent Design Facts has no theological agenda or perspective.

Si tacuisses ..


My personal favorite:

Moderator:

"Maria, it is not the goal of this website to make any declarations that fall anywhere outside the strict and rigorous scientific research process. Any individual of any faith or lack thereof must be able to read the articles on this site and be able to make a determination based strictly on facts. We do not want to cross the line into a religious discussion as that is clearly outside our purview. We deal exclusively in demonstrable and verifiable scientific research."

Uh huh...

For want of anything better to do I sent a comment.
Mildly critical but polite.

Hasn't appeared

Four hours ago and counting

Date: 2010/09/07 04:12:38, Link
Author: damitall
Ooooh, that MathgGrrl!

Lobbing grenades of courteous requests for calculations into the cockroach colony, and stamping on them as they come scurrying out, dodging and weaving - but with no calculations.

Date: 2010/10/11 15:04:50, Link
Author: damitall
The positive case for ID has become even stronger?

In the last 5 years?

How? What's changed? Has anything even interesting, let alone new, come out of the ID "movement" in the last 5 years?

Must have missed it

Date: 2011/03/21 03:48:11, Link
Author: damitall
Seems to me Frilly Gilly is going bonkers - slowly, but at an inexorably accelerating rate.

Give it 6 months, he'll be up to BatShit77 standards

Date: 2011/03/24 09:07:47, Link
Author: damitall
kairosfocus:


"I have a crisis coming to a head to deal with..."

Can anyone imagine any type of crisis that would benefit from being dealt with by this... person?

Unless a world shortage of malignant prolixity could be considered a "crisis"

Date: 2011/03/28 08:53:25, Link
Author: damitall
Abso-fuckin-lutely hil-fuckin-arious.

The whole thing.

Such a scurrying of cockroaches away from pitiless light - too late!

Date: 2011/03/28 09:25:12, Link
Author: damitall
KF-

"7 –> The reaction was almost predictably that I did not provide a calculation. I do not think I need to. That we are dealing with well past 125 bytes of information to simply describe the regulatory network on a nodes, arcs and interfaces basis is obvious, and many items sitting at nodes are complex information rich molecules integrated in a co-ordinated way. 1,000 bits is of course the FSCI threshold..."

Well, if he wants not to be laughed at, he DOES need to.

C'mon KF, give us a calculation!

Just relying on Big Numbers convinces no-one; even some who might, given a calculation as specified, be sympathetic to ID.

Major opportunity missed, KF, blown away and kissed off.

Date: 2011/03/29 06:55:49, Link
Author: damitall
Kairosfocus

4400 words in 3 heaps

Digs up Durston, long since buried in fragments

Doesn't mention Lewontin

Date: 2011/04/06 07:08:29, Link
Author: damitall
Joseph asks:

"Is there a bright side if you are an atheist?"

If UD were unmoderated, the answers would be fast and furious, beginning with "yeah, atheists don't have to tolerate aggressive, ignorant, fairy-tale-believing morons like joe"

As things are, I guess no-one will bother.

Any forum that gives the likes of Joseph free rein whilst moderating polite criticism into irrelevance is terminally broken.

Date: 2011/04/07 07:25:49, Link
Author: damitall
I posted (well, tried anyway), to the songs/atheists thread, asking if kf was trying to imply that faith and religion had never given rise to factions, strife, tyranny - all the things he says are a result of "impiety"... and pointing out that historians would disagree, if he was so implying.

That was about 17 hours ago.....

Date: 2011/04/08 06:50:37, Link
Author: damitall
What influence can Gordo have on " constitutional and economic crises"? (apart from burying them so deep in meaningless verbiage that no-one can see them any more)

Perhaps he's lobbying for an impiety tax, to be inversely proportional to the length of girls' skirts.

Or an incivility tax (which many would happily pay on the spot to be able to tell him face-to-face what a twat he is - perhaps we could sell vouchers online)

In any event, he does seem to be slightly ahead of Frill in the descent into frothing insanity.

Date: 2011/04/12 15:18:36, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 12 2011,14:08)
The Parkinglot avenger:

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/progress-mathgirl-concedes-that-specified-complexity-is-a-meaningfull-concept-if-her-frien

ds-are-using-it/#comment-376904]http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-376904[/URL]

Quote
7

Joseph

04/12/2011

12:04 pm
So MathGrrl has an issue wth the metric system?


That boy is so dense.

I'm swithering.

Either he IS that dense

Or that's a joe-joke.

But then again... I don't CARE

Date: 2011/05/12 02:56:09, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 11 2011,07:49)
Well, we are not yet troubled (much) by creationism in school here in France, but I'm getting a bit worried about another move regarding education in general.

The PS (Parti Socialiste, Left) has just adopted a project that would simply eliminate grades from classrooms. The argument is that grades are traumatizing and discriminatory towards less apt pupils. The grades system will be replaced by a more "positive" system (which I am not aware of). Seeing the way general knowledge and basic skills such as reading and writing have gone down in the last 15 years here*, I am really starting to be concerned about these potential reforms.

And I am, for all intent and purpose, left-leaning. Sometimes I wonder if there is truth in the famous French statement that we have the dumbest left in the world...


*Seriously, my nephew came home one night with an assignement in french poetry: learn the 4 first verses of a song by french "artist" Diam's (make a google search and cry). He was 13. At his age we were reading Balzac, or Hugo**.

**And walking to school and back 8 miles every morning in the snow, without shoes, and it was uphill both ways!!!

Yeah, we did all that "don't upset the kiddiwinks" thing in the UK. It SERIOUSLY harmed education, and we're only just beginning to get out of it.

In my experience, kids aren't harmed at all by knowing that other kids are better at stuff.

Over-ambitious parents can be a  real bad influence, though!

Date: 2011/05/26 02:24:55, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (MichaelJ @ May 26 2011,01:54)
Quote (Seversky @ May 26 2011,13:58)
And again, over on UD, junkdnaforlife indulges in a little (slightly premature) gloating:

 
Quote
the glory days of atheism are long gone. gone are the days of the eternal universe and the jello cell glob. now time has a beginning and the cell is digital code. All they have left is neo-darwinsim. what is left of the glory days when atheism was the cool high school quarterback is the residual media mess. Instead, atheism is now the shirtless fan watching the game in the stands covered in paint making a lot of noise.


Apart from having a problem finding the Shift key this character seems not to have noticed that, in biology, evolution is the only game in town and it's the rather forlorn little band of IDiots who are left jeering from the sidelines, largely ignored by the real players.

Strange that if you look at PZ's blog every atheist event seems to sell out almost immediately.

It's evidently IDiots buying tickets so they can go along and jeer!

Except I suspect that coherence, even in jeering, would be beyond them

Date: 2011/06/11 12:03:30, Link
Author: damitall
Looks like Lizzie's got 'em scared.

They seem to be brown-trousered with fear that she could write a simulation to THEIR specifications and rules, yet that would show something they couldn't accept.

There's a deafening noise of shifting goalposts and rising bars.

Date: 2011/06/14 15:27:49, Link
Author: damitall
We can hardly be surprised that KF is incoherent with rage. In days of yore, such ass-handing posts would never have seen light of day at UD.

Deprived of that protection from humiliation, he must feel the sky has fallen in on him.

Good thing too.

Date: 2011/06/14 15:54:02, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Alan Fox @ June 14 2011,15:43)
Quote (damitall @ June 14 2011,10:27)
We can hardly be surprised that KF is incoherent with rage. In days of yore, such ass-handing posts would never have seen light of day at UD.

Deprived of that protection from humiliation, he must feel the sky has fallen in on him.

Good thing too.

Maybe it's dawned on the powers-that-be that GEM is not their greatest asset in their struggle against Darwinist materialism and he's quietly being hung out to dry. No, I don't think so either, they're not that Machiavellian!

More like it's finally clicked they get more site traffic if hey allow an interesting  (or in this case, amusing) dispute to develop.

Just self-interest, and if KF's amour-propre gets kicked on the way, no harm done. I suspect a good few of the less unbalanced IDists regard him as a crashing bore, and something of a liability.

Date: 2011/06/16 07:21:34, Link
Author: damitall
It's like the good old "weasel" days.

GERM of TAKI would rather cut  his own liver out than admit he's ever been wrong

Date: 2011/06/16 13:46:40, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 16 2011,13:31)
Quote (Learned Hand @ June 16 2011,13:29)
Quote (Zachriel @ June 16 2011,11:56)
   
Quote
DrREC: *crickets*

Hmm. There seems to be a pattern. They went quiet for a while, as if they were having their memories erased, and the system rebooted. Then they start right where they left off.

   
Quote
bornagain77: And yet the ‘fitness’ (functional complexity) never increased over the parent species in the parent species native environment!!!

Of course it didn't increase over the native environment, but evolved to fit the environment it was actually in.

Oh gee whiz.


Did the environment change in this experiment?  My (ill-informed) understanding was that the environment was held static.  Isn't the result therefore that fitness did, in fact, increase "over the parent species in the parent species['] native environment"?

Actually, on re-reading that BA77 comment, is he describing this experiment or Lenski's?

Why on earth would anyone "re-read" a BA77 comment?

That way lies madness!

Date: 2011/06/19 03:46:05, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Kristine @ June 18 2011,21:09)
All I see is that it took a supernatural creature to deceive the woman, but it only took a woman to deceive the man. ;)
:D

He wasn't deceived.

He took the risk in pursuit of a little hanky-panky.

As we all would

Date: 2011/06/27 06:08:48, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Driver @ June 26 2011,18:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 26 2011,17:06)
Gordy is reduced to a one sentence post at one point!

Elizabeth is truly a miracle worker.

True, dat.

I wonder if she'd like to try for immediate apotheosis by convincing Grumpy Gordon to stop the "drumbeat repetition" of Teh Argument From Stupidly Big Numbers.

Galloping Gordo is, after all, a doughty opponent of "drumbeat repetition", whilst at the same time being a mainline user.

Date: 2011/06/30 15:07:10, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 29 2011,23:36)
Quote (Woodbine @ June 29 2011,18:51)
Just to give a sense of how far up his own backside Gordon Mullings lives, take a brief wander through his 'Transformational Leadership Seminar' blog.

http://transformleadershipsem.blogspot.com/

It appears to be an action plan for re-Christianizing the West Indies in these dark days and Gordon is the man with the plan. And what a typically Mullings affair it is! Page upon page of soul destroying, bureaucratic, power-pointed dreck that Gordo revels in.

I wonder what kind of response he's got so far....

http://transformleadership.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general

....oh.

That second URL is pretty good.  Up since last October 13th and 1 reply so far - from Gordon.  38 viewers (39 now) and I wouldn't be surprised if all but one of them came from here.

Very influential man, Mr. Mullings.

Yeah, well...

I don't think anyone really listens to Gordo any more, even at UD.

His logorrheic diatribes used to attract a few sycophantic responses each from the usual loonies, but not so much now; and few people bother to argue with him even in these days of comparatively relaxed moderation at UD.

AND his posts seem to be getting (on a moving average) shorter.

Perhaps he's too busy settling Caribbean Constitutional cCises and transformationally leading something-or-other.
But when you only have the likes of Luskin, Behe, Dembski as your authorities: and only BatShit77, Mung, Joseph, and that crew to talk to; you're bound to be dispirited

Date: 2011/07/01 06:53:58, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (CeilingCat @ July 01 2011,04:18)
The blood of Scotland courses through Gordon's veins:  
Quote
And FYI, proud and disrespectful mockers, that G in my name that you and your ilk so lightly play scornful games with is there because the self same blood that stood on that hill courses in my veins.

A name that is a war cry.

For good reason.

DM et al, don’t you ever underestimate the grim resolve we have to stand in the face of your patently wicked agendas. (And my Ashanti, Irish and Indian bloodlines grimly concur with my Scottish lineage on this.)

Our civilisation and our liberty are at stake, as PZM so plainly let the cat out of the bag on.

The line is drawn in the sand, and we are going to stand here, for liberty and civilisation.

GEM of TKI

So don't mess with him!
Tard

If that 'orrible little man kf is trying to absorb some glory somehow by mentioning the Gordon Highlanders, he should be aware that even they have a history of losing when defending indefensible positions at times (St Valery-en-Caux, Singapore)

Which is exactly what he is doing.

And there is not and never has been a single Scottish soldier who would give kf the time of day: or anything else for that matter, save perhaps a swift bayonetting

Date: 2011/07/01 10:27:24, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Lou FCD @ July 01 2011,09:53)
Man, Gordy is getting all kinds of bent out of shape over at UD. He's getting his ass handed to him in a jello bowl. Too funny.

What's more, Batshit77 is very politely, but very firmly squished flat - run down and reversed over -  by Lizzie Liddle.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....omments

Does my ol' heart good.

Wa-hey the Scots! (for so she is)

Date: 2011/07/01 10:45:43, Link
Author: damitall
And in the same "junk DNA" thread...

Mung flails helplessly

Barb needs reading remediation, to relieve the confusion between "ethologist" and "ethnologist"

That thread is a rich vein of comedy gold!

Date: 2011/07/03 14:36:56, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ July 03 2011,14:02)
how long before elizabeth liddle gets tired of playing nice with these dicks?

Kairosflatus may already have pwned himself, and admitted that evolution is possible

In his bloviant screed about"calculating Chi_500...", he asserts

[/QUOTE] So, as long as an intelligent agent capable of choice is possible, choice -- i.e. design -- would be the rational, best explanation on the sign observed, functionally specific, complex information.][QUOTE]

Dr Liddle, of course, has often said and is quite definite that evolution/natural selection IS an intelligent process or agent - relying on the etymology of the word "intelligent" - meaning to be able to choose between.

So I do hope that she will be able sweetly to point out to the Caribbean Crisis Cruncher that he already accepts evolution, and need argue no more.

Date: 2011/07/06 03:09:00, Link
Author: damitall
Oh,  all you damned radicals!

I bet you're trembling in your boots about the Damocles' Sword of the expose of your agendas held over you by the Montserrat Mountebank.

Just stop trying to insist he actually answer a question without evasion or equivocation- his hand may be mercifully stayed.

Date: 2011/07/06 16:31:32, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 06 2011,15:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 06 2011,15:03)
Snap.

The offending comment:



Luckily I had, er, a browser window open.

FOR SHAME, GORDON E MULLINGS.

Gordo's on a sticky wicket here.

He seems to think he's influential in politics on Montserrat.

But, (I believe) he is subject to British law, which forbids discrimination and bigotry on grounds of sexual orientation. Claims that religious belief trumps the law have been tested and struck down.

If, therefore, he holds or aspires to any public office or influence, he has to be rather careful about what he says.

Although he's hardly been careful on his own website.

One can only hope that any opponents he might have in any attempt to gain public office or influence would be quick to point to his overt bigotry.

Date: 2011/07/08 02:47:45, Link
Author: damitall
I see the Montserrat Mountebank is trying to take ownership of the word "kairos"  (Scots regimental mottos, greek words - nothing is safe from this twit)

Richly ironic then, that the second result on a google for the word is for "Kairos in Soho" - a group "Promoting the health and well-being of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community".

Drop the word, Gordon - it's TAINTED!

Date: 2011/07/13 15:20:07, Link
Author: damitall
By Golly!

Not only is Lizzie Liddle maintaining her habitual patience and courtesy at UD in the face of blatant provocation - she is killing them with kindness!

To a silly post by Chris Doyle ending with an invitation to join (IDiots) if she "values truth above prejudice"...

she replies with "Bless you Chris " plus a smiley.

Masterful

Date: 2011/07/14 15:43:44, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
 
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

Date: 2011/07/16 06:03:27, Link
Author: damitall
Thing is, Dr Liddle is good at writing simulations to illustrate aspects of evolutionary theory.

Uptight Bi-Twat is likely scared shitless that if he ever did operationalise definitions as requested, he would rapidly be faced with a simulation showing that which he doesn't want to be shown; and would have to spend the rest of his life wriggling feebly on its hook - just like k-flatus and Weasel.

Plus, of course, Dr. Liddle is of the female persuasion. Most of the denizens of UD are very uncomfortable with smart women.

Date: 2011/07/16 06:42:53, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,06:37)
Quote (BillB @ July 16 2011,06:29)
 
Quote (iconofid @ July 16 2011,12:08)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 15 2011,17:59)
     
Quote (Tom Ames @ July 15 2011,18:41)
         
Quote (KCdgw @ July 15 2011,14:41)
         
Quote (Seversky @ July 15 2011,07:54)
           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,23:10)
           
Quote (Cubist @ July 14 2011,21:44)
             
Quote (Henry J @ July 14 2011,20:40)
             
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,19:37)
               
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2011,20:15)
                 
Quote (sledgehammer @ July 14 2011,18:30)
                 
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 14 2011,16:18)
                     
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,18:01)
                       
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 14 2011,14:22)
                         
Quote (JohnW @ July 14 2011,15:55)
                           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,13:50)
                           
Quote (damitall @ July 14 2011,16:43)
                             
Quote (Freddie @ July 14 2011,14:48)
                             
Quote (keiths @ July 14 2011,14:05)
                               
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 14 2011,04:45)
Unpleasant Blowhard, wordsmith:
                               
Quote
It seems as though you asked for an operational definition, then got one, then later found out what kind of dynamic structure would be required for such a phenomenon to exist, and have since gone on a rant to eviscerate yourself from the position you are in.

Apparently, it wasn't clear to her what his argument entrails.

That's my gut feeling as well.

Is that colon intentional?

I hope there's not going to be another nested pun-fest. I couldn't stomach that

(Here incorporate AtBC policy on nested puns as an appendix to the above.)

That would be quite a tract.

I villi think this is not a good idea.

Butt colitis get on with it.

My reflux is not to ruminate on this tripe.

Is this the right time to point out that the ID folks should spend less of their time in theorizin' and more intestine?

Maybe we should spleen that to them.

Bile means keep on with the alimentary witticisms. This must be that polyp fiction people speak of. Don't let it get too serosa, though.

Just duodenum others as you would have them duodenum you.

Maybe at this point we should liver be?

Naah, we just need some authoritative advice on how to deal with it. I'm sure the Army can supply a G.I. Tract on the subject.

That's it? Shit.

That's right.  What he means is the Army can supply a Jack Shit Tract - rather than a Jack Chick Tract - because that's what they really know about anything.

What gall.

I don't find this conversation at all humorous.

I don't know about you, but it boweled me over.

Me too. But I find it all rather hard to digest.

Pfft. I see that my own comment on this got skipped over. I'm gutted.

You don't need to get anal about it

I thought there were strict forum rules about this sort of thing. But I see you've rectum

Date: 2011/07/17 10:42:09, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ July 17 2011,08:46)
Quote (k.e.. @ July 17 2011,13:56)
Quote (iconofid @ July 17 2011,15:43)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ July 17 2011,07:06)
   
Quote (iconofid @ July 17 2011,14:52)
     
Quote (utidjian @ July 17 2011,06:20)
       
Quote (noncarborundum @ July 16 2011,21:31)
         
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 16 2011,17:24)
I think we broke it.  I'm on a 19" widescreen and I still can't see the fist 4 or 5 posts in the stream.

Ah.  Then our work here is dung.

And sealed with mucous.

Excretions eh? Urine for a long one, and it'll end in tears.

You may be thin skinned but I'm flushed with hide.

'Snot my fault I'm thin skinned.

Yes it jizz.

Cool down, guys. It's just a misunderstanding on sementics.

Eh? Come again?

Date: 2011/07/17 11:43:59, Link
Author: damitall
Meanwhile, over at the tardmine, Liz Liddle has just put herself beyond the ID pale (although she may not yet know it - but she will, she will...) by suggesting that the cdesign proponentsists do "some rigorous science"

That's like offering pork scratchings round in a mosque

Date: 2011/07/18 10:06:35, Link
Author: damitall
Meanwhile Gpoochyo defines "conscious intelligent being" as - conscious intelligent being!
Rigorous!



Date: 2011/07/18 10:08:15, Link
Author: damitall
oops, dunno what happened there - looked OK on preview

Date: 2011/07/18 11:15:20, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 18 2011,10:55)
Quote (damitall @ July 18 2011,10:08)
oops, dunno what happened there - looked OK on preview

If you didn't preview it and instead just posted, it would have worked but the link itself would probably have had a <br> embedded in it which would have stopped it working until it was removed. For some reason it works the first time. Preview twice and it would appear as it does now.

In general and especially with KF's UD posts tinyURL is more reliable.

Thanks oldmanetc!

Date: 2011/07/18 15:39:09, Link
Author: damitall
A message was posted to UD

"I should like to observe that, in my view, Dr. Liddle invariably posts in good faith, good humor, and with enormous patience and courtesy.
The treatment meted out to her on this forum, often by those who would like us to believe they uphold the highest standards of decency, is nothing short of deplorable.
For shame!"

it was in moderation for a few hours, then binned.

If it wasn't  already well known that UD was a nest of nasty,  lying, pusillanimous, hypocritical blowhards,  this would have been surprising

Date: 2011/07/26 17:03:37, Link
Author: damitall
I like this

Over at the UD swamp, in the Norway shooter thread,
one Ben H says

"kairosfocus

I appreciate your profound insites of the mind of a madman. Don’t let these darwinists tell you that you don’t know what how such insane peopl think.

Ben"

To which The Bloviator replies

"Ben H

Thanks.

I think we need to diagnose this cancer right, to get it rooted out.

GEM of TKI"

Yep. Takes one to know one.

Not sure kf took that message on board there

Date: 2011/08/02 06:01:07, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 02 2011,01:21)
Quote (sparc @ Aug. 02 2011,05:20)
BTW, is anybody here currently really following UD? I am not.

UD, as entertainment, died with DaveTard's departure. With no 'Grand Buffoon' running things and with no Friday meltdowns any more from Dembski the place has become, inevitably, a pulpit for ever more lunatic preaching. Which is amusing for a while, it's just that you can get those things easily elsewhere on the interwebs.

I really want to watch UD wither and die; following in the footsteps of ARN, Telic Thoughts, ISCID, Overwhelming Evidence....

I wish we could extract Febble, Allen McNeil and anyone else attempting to communicate with the wretches over there. Without any opposing views UD should soon dry up.

If only people could show some restraint and leave it alone*.


* I'm guilty of the occasional prod, I admit. But then my posts never get through.... ???

It may not be as entertaining as it was in the DaveTard days, but in the attempt to get more traffic at least some of them are continually exposing themselves as some of the most obnoxious individuals on the planet; and simultaneously exposing the utter vacuity of everything that goes with ID.

Can't help but wonder how long it'll be before arbitrary bannination is reinstated

Date: 2011/08/08 16:27:48, Link
Author: damitall
I see EL is pushing the right buttons, since KF has weighed in with a "selective hyperskepticism" followed by a "self-referentially absurd"

I hope she's well-armoured against automated indignation, because that's what she'll get if she keeps arguing.

Date: 2011/08/11 02:08:45, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sledgehammer @ Aug. 10 2011,21:29)
Elizabeth Liddle:      
Quote
Your insistence that I lack integrity remains unfounded and unsupported.
Mung:      
Quote
You’re belief that HGT occurs by breaching the cell membrane was a big clue that you hadn’t read the book.
 IOW, I had a reason to believe that what I was saying was in fact the case, unlike some folks around here who will just say anything.
Elizabeth Liddle:  
Quote
whut?

Mung, as a general guiding principle: if you think you know what I’ve said, it’s something else.

OK?
Mung:      
Quote
We all know what you say.
It’s what you mean by what you say that has many of us puzzled.
More Mung:      
Quote
Yes, I could ask Dr. Liddle what she means by what she says, but then she would say something else, and then I’d have to ask her what she means by what she says…

Best to avoid all that and assume she means what she says.

Then after we point out the meaning of what she has just said, she can deny that she meant it, and assert that we misunderstood.

I should try that. We all should try that. Think of the meaningless conversations we could have, void of all misunderstanding!

Here's what Lizzie actually said:      
Quote
81

Elizabeth Liddle

08/08/2011

7:36 am

There are indeed some walls in bacterial evolution (breached by HGT however).

These walls are not present in sexually reproducing populations, in which mutations can propagate independently of the rest of the genotype.

So Darwinism is in no danger from Lenski, even if your interpretation were correct.

But you are not correct, because you are equivocating with concepts developed for sexually-reproducing species applied to cloning populations.

Mutations don’t “fix” in a bacterial population, because they don’t jump lineages. What you get is competition between one lineage bearing a mutation and another that doesn’t, and that competition occurs within a specific environment in which “beneficial” is defined only within that environment.

So, Munge, who's being dishonest here?  Or is this a case of: "never attribute to malice that which can be explained by sheer stupidity"?  My bold.

You know, every time I think Mung has reached the ultimate in stupidity/wrongness..

He proves me wrong.

Fact is, he is utterly unable to read for comprehension. And he fails to comprehend that fact, too

Date: 2011/08/12 02:17:13, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (MichaelJ @ Aug. 11 2011,21:07)
No thread yet on how the riots in England is caused by people who are atheists on a daily basis?

Chris Doyle said something much like that at Elizabeth Liddle's "The Skeptical Zone", blaming "rational atheists"

I asked him how he KNEW the rioters were all atheists, or indeed rational (listening to some of the interviews, a number of them were monged out of their skulls)

He didn't answer.

SO disappointing.

Date: 2011/08/26 03:47:13, Link
Author: damitall
Amazing how atheists enjoying some public recognition factor are always "notorious" to the religulites - never just "prominent" or "famous" or "well-known"

Gotta be Notorious

Date: 2011/08/31 16:05:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 31 2011,13:59)
Quote (Louis @ Aug. 31 2011,12:02)
Quote (Patrick @ Aug. 31 2011,16:31)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 31 2011,11:01)
If KF is engaged in politicking and appears in public places, his image is fair game.

Besides, doesn't he approve of outing when it's someone else?

Why yes, he does!

It's the asymmetry that justifies his hypocrisy, you see.

That being said, I do agree with Louis* that compiling dossiers on the UD denizens borders on creepy stalker behavior.  Gentlemen don't read each other's mail, and all that.

* Is that a bannable offense here?

Usually, yes.

Louis

ETA: I don't think anyone here is compiling dossiers! I hope they're not....you're not are you?

This post suggests that whoever is behind that blog is collecting personal information about UD regulars.

If it's a slow night on /b/, that information could be (mis)used.

Yes, that IS "over the line"

But Mullings seems so desperate to find things at which to take offence, so keen to have an excuse to clutch his pearls, that it's an almost superhuman effort for good-natured folk like us to resist fulfilling his need (in this respect only, I hasten to add - any other needs he may have can go un-met, I'm sure)

Date: 2011/09/03 05:20:52, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sparc @ July 31 2011,02:42)
Holy shit! They also list what they beleave are  answers by their god.

Their god seems to have lost interest in the prayer-phone after 2008, having picked up 25 or more times in that year, but only once in 2009, three times in 2010, and straight to voice-mail in 2011 to date.

Take the hint, Ken! Stop with the ask-ask-asking!

Date: 2011/09/29 15:20:05, Link
Author: damitall
Do we take note of the KF "Lewontin" quote-mine count any more, or just accept its inexorable upward trajectory?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwini....-401119

Date: 2011/10/04 03:56:32, Link
Author: damitall
It says quite a lot (and nothing good) about UD that they take BozoJoe Bozorgmehr seriously.

If you read some of his earlier stuff at TalkRational (as "Atheistoclast"), not only is he ignorant of biology, but, under the "look at me, I'm a bit of a clown" facade, he has some pretty unpleasant characteristics.

On second thought, he'd be right at home at UD

Date: 2011/10/08 04:46:11, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 07 2011,17:50)
Is there any way to extract Febble from UD? Does anyone have her ear?

Reason I ask is that looking at the front page it's become obvious that UD is increasingly spamming their site with absolutely anything they can in order to appear relevant; the "illusion of affairs" to steal a phrase from Conrad.

Most of these 'articles' attract zero comments, the only ones that seem to do so are the ones in which Febble engages the Tard. If she would only let them be we could watch UD sink further into obscurity.

We've seen what happens when the inmates have no one to condescend to; they start eating their own. Febble (and socks) are interfering with nature's course in not letting UD consume itself and die.

I know it's tempting. And as much as i've enjoyed this monument to tard over the years I'd really like to watch UD wither and die.

Just me?

Trouble is, Febble has a) a sense of humour; and b) the courage of her convictions, which have not been lightly arrived at.

I think she also enjoys puncturing pretension and inflated egos, both of which abound at UD

However, given another forum where she could express and discuss all those things WITHOUT being constantly accused of lying and intellectual dishonesty (such accusations being blatantly false) and from which kairos-fucking-focus and Chicken Joe were absent, she may well shake the dust of UD from her feet.

Her own blog -"The Skeptical Zone" - has housed some interesting discussions (a bit rarefied for me, but then I'm a lout). A few denizens of UD have been seen there, like William Murray, but I don't think any of the sillier ones have contributed- apart from Chris Doyle, who for some unrevealed reason managed to delete a thread he had started, and all its comments.

Which was kinda weird

But we all know that UDers are shit-scared of commenting anywhere that they're not protected from derision or effective argument by biased moderation and rent-a-mob sycophants

Date: 2011/10/08 14:10:38, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (noncarborundum @ Oct. 08 2011,10:13)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 08 2011,09:53)
Quote
Eugene S October 8, 2011 at 8:43 am
Elizabeth,

This is simply not nice, to me. Adam and Eve were real people, like your or my parents, not scientific or religious concepts. Would that be okay for you to be addressed as mitochondrial Liz? I don’t think so.

Yes, Adam and Eve were Two Absolutely Real Denizens of the garden.

If there's one thing these twats lead the world at, it's taking offence.

Permanent spluttering indignation is their ground-state.

Date: 2011/10/10 14:42:08, Link
Author: damitall
I wonder how many people actually READ BatShit77's posts and follow all the links. I kicked the habit after the first couple I encountered- took no willpower at all.

I recommend this sanity-preserving strategy. (I suspect a good few of his fellow tard-generators have discovered it already)

Date: 2011/10/12 15:44:41, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 12 2011,14:29)
DeNews on drug design:
Quote
Which is why progress will depend mainly on outsmarting the proteins with new strategies.


In essence, outsmarting the Designer, ie God.  Sure you want to go there?

Oh it's ok.

They're FALLEN proteins

Mired in sin

Date: 2011/10/23 15:05:36, Link
Author: damitall
It's wonderful to see how the most prolific pro-ID posters at UD are, jointly and severally,  just about the biggest embarrassments to "ID-is-science!-it-is!-it-is!" it's possible to imagine.
I think they embarrass each other, as well.

Date: 2011/10/28 02:26:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
Maybe we should start isolating one UDer at a time and tag-teaming them with clear, easy to understand replies to every cliched argument they throw out until they finally either learn something or at least go away.


But they've been positively INUNDATED with clear and easily-understood replies for YEARS.

Some of them have occasionally gone quiet for a wee while, but they're back when they judge that the fisking has been forgotten.

Must seem like groundhog day to some of 'em - or it would if it wasn't for that pesky lack of awareness.

Date: 2011/10/28 07:25:47, Link
Author: damitall
This from "ScottAndrews2" at UD

Quote
Let me rephrase this as an evolutionary prediction.

Evolutionary theory predicts that living things should possess features or behaviors that are necessary for their survival or reproduction, or were at some point necessary for the survival or reproduction of their ancestors.

Is that an accurate prediction of evolutionary theory?


Which
Is
Pure
Tard.

No wonder Liz upped and left. It's SO FUCKING DISPIRITING to argue with those who will not understand the thing they're arguing against.

Date: 2011/11/01 17:12:25, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
You are playing with a nuke tripwire here.


I wonder what terrifying fate will befall the careless evolutionist/materialist/atheist who, all unknowing, trips the "nuke".

20 megatons of pompous indignation? A final tsunami of tard?

Does he - can he - realise what an ineffectual little prick he is?

Having said that, he does serve a purpose - single-handed, he must have turned legions of potential converts away from whatever it is he is in favour of.

Date: 2011/11/02 03:54:11, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
Montserrat, on the other hand, is a British Overseas Territory, and perhaps people who live there that regularly spew poisonous invective on a US-based web site should perhaps consider their own position with respect to the making of potentially libellous statements.


Quite so. In fact, the nasty little twonk seems to have toned down his overt homophobia since he was reminded of this before

I think that whatever Scots regiment now incorporates the Gordon Highlanders should sue him up ben and down glen for misappropriating their motto "Bydand!"

Its rightful use is earned by brave and honourable folk, Mullings - soldiers who front up to immediate and personal danger of death - not cowardly, contemptible little sacks of invective like you, hiding behind censorship and the denial of rights to reply.

I suspect it's only your obvious proximity to the edge of sanity that prevents you from getting a regular fistical drubbing from your fellow islanders

Date: 2011/11/02 09:09:28, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 02 2011,08:43)
Quote (noncarborundum @ Nov. 02 2011,08:31)
Quote (Fross @ Nov. 02 2011,00:09)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Nov. 01 2011,09:59)
     
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 01 2011,09:55)
     
Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 01 2011,13:51)
       
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 01 2011,06:45)
       
Quote (CeilingCat @ Nov. 01 2011,07:17)
         
Quote (Patrick @ Oct. 31 2011,09:30)
Sorry, that was GinoB, not Chas D.

This is amazing!  From the same archy thread, BA77 has a link to a video that's actually worth watching!!

http://www.dogwork.com/owfo8......8....o8

An owl, flying directly towards the camera at 1000 frames per second.  I pity any small rodents that ever see a sight like this.

Owls are proof that God hates mice.

Yeah he doesn't give a hoot.

Wisecracks like that will put you in contempt of parliament ...

Flocking hell! That was a stretch. Made me screech it did.

Louis

I don't know, I think he's got a talon for puns.

Who?

 ;>

If you ask my pinion, it's no beak deal.

Oh well one good Tern deserves another

For old Marty Feldman fans

You to-wits all seem to be avian a good time now, but you can't duck out of paying the bill one day.

Date: 2011/11/09 10:19:39, Link
Author: damitall
Not one of them has produced - or even could produce - any example of Dr. Liddle being "intellectually dishonest"

In their increasingly barmy world- and I mean that "increasingly" - simple disagreement and/or insistence on proper definition of terms to be used in a discussion constitute "intellectual dishonesty"

I'm pretty certain that none of them could actually define "intellectual dishonesty"  - which is rather ironic.

Me, I'm a bit of a softie. I'm beginning to feel a little guilty about laughing at the poor saps. It's what my dear ol' mum used to call "mocking the afflicted"

But I'll get over it.

Date: 2011/11/18 02:46:36, Link
Author: damitall
Some of the quotes from Mein Kampf in that rebuttal of Weikart are eerily similar to some of Gordon E Mullings' spewings.

Date: 2011/11/21 16:04:34, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Badger3k @ Nov. 21 2011,13:37)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 21 2011,11:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 21 2011,09:09)
StephenB:
 
Quote
We apprehend the natural moral law through our God-given concsience, which is innate. It is the same conscience that tells us that murder is wrong–the same concience that tells YOU murder is wrong. However, one may not know that kllling a fetus is wrong unless someone else has the kindness to provide the scientific evidence which shows that the fetus is more than a mere blob of tissue–that it is, in fact, whole and is just as much a part of the human family as anyone at any stage of development.


Where to begin.....

Tard.

Up to this point, entirely science.

Is this the same "god-given conscience" that says that genocide is ok if commanded by said god, or that it is worthy to attempt to kill your child to appease said god (who also commanded it)?

Er - yes it is, actually.

Pretty flexible things, gods and consciences - one might almost say they had political dimensions

Date: 2011/12/08 03:33:26, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Patrick @ Dec. 07 2011,13:03)
Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 07 2011,12:57)
Mistah Tard, he dead!

???

EDIT: Nevermind....must've been a glitch in the matrix.

Or wishful thinking.

I don't know if UD going under would be a good or bad thing.  On the one hand, they're not much fun anymore (bitter and vile, in addition to the usual ignorant).  On the other hand, it's nice to have the hard core intelligent design creationist camp followers in one spot -- wouldn't want them running willy nilly about the 'net.

I don't think there's much danger of them "going rogue"as individuals. They need the mutual sycophancy too much - without that, they'd end up wailing to themselves on their own blogs, having to suppress any adverse comment.
Just think - how many people would actually read any such thing belonging to the frilly-shirted one? He has nothing to say other than how he was once obnoxious in atheism, but is now differently obnoxious.

Date: 2011/12/23 16:42:37, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 23 2011,14:38)
One must not forget that the Catholoic church considered beavers as a kind of fish whose meat could be eaten during the Lenton season.

Lenton is a part of the fine city of Nottingham, England (Indeed, the very city in which works the saintly Elizabeth Liddle; and in which I too worked for many a year), and is inhabited by many students

I can assure you that beaver was always in season in Lenton.

(Me, I don't mind being obvious)

Date: 2012/01/16 10:55:28, Link
Author: damitall
Looks like WAD may be prepared to give up some ground in that interview

Quote
So, in answer to your question, nature can produce information and in doing so it need beg no questions about external designers. That said, external designers can also produce information—as I am doing now by typing out my answer to your question. What makes the design inference work is a coincidence between information produced by nature and information produced by designers.


If nature can produce "information", why be so unparsimonious as to postulate an unnecessary source of information?

Date: 2012/01/19 07:23:55, Link
Author: damitall
How long will it be before BatShit77 posts a screed showing how saint-soaring is all quantum?

With irrelevant videos.

Date: 2012/01/23 18:15:29, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (midwifetoad @ Jan. 23 2012,17:55)
It's almost as if dFSCI = sequence length multiplied by the  hocuspocus constant.

You know, there are probably folk at UD who haven't realised that yet, EVEN THOUGH hocuspocus is their very stock-in-trade

Date: 2012/01/31 14:53:36, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Patrick @ Jan. 31 2012,06:46)
Elizabeth Liddle explains quotemining so clearly that even kairosfocus should be able to understand it:
Quote
It is quotemining to extract lines that imply that they are advocating church-burning when in fact their lyrics clearly condemn it.

In fact it’s the very paradigm of quote-mining – to take a quotation out of context to make it appear that the author meant the actual opposite of what s/he intended. I don’t blame you or Gil, because the source seems to be Fox News, but now that the actual meaning has been pointed out, it should be corrected.

Sure they use rude words about religion. But that is a whole different issue.

kairosfocus, unsurprisingly, is constitutionally incapable of admitting error:
Quote
perhaps it escaped you that all along I had linked the entire video? That I took time to start from its images and discuss the song in context, or that I have now provided essentially the whole song above?

That doesn't change the fact that you quoted two lines out of context with the deliberate intention of misleading people into concluding that the lyrics meant exactly the opposite of what the band intended, kairosfocus.

One wonders how such arrogance survives contact with reality which continuously emphasizes how unfounded it is.

It'll no doubt become quasi support for church-burning in the mouth of kf

Date: 2012/02/01 12:53:14, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 01 2012,12:33)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 01 2012,04:29)
Joe:
 
Quote
We have evidence that intelligent entities exist or existed other places than earth.

Yeah, it's in the box next to all the evidence for ID!
Link

There isn't room. The ambiguity has put on weight.

And have you seen what he gives as evidence?

UK Gov't files on UFO sightings!

Date: 2012/02/06 03:40:51, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 06 2012,00:32)
From that master of turgid prose, KF:
Quote
What is conspicuously absent from those who are latching on to such statistics on nominal Christianity coupled to a want of serious discipleship or even serious attempts at discipleship that struggle to overcome a widespread cultural influence sanctioned by leading voices and institutions that shape views and perceptions in profound ways, is the just as valid and longstanding pattern of life and community transformation by living relationship with God in the communion of the saints, across 2,000 years with millions of cases, down to today.

And:
Quote
So also, above [and pardon if this post misses its proper place, I find the threading scheme a problem to work with . . . ], we have a case where evidence of just how corrosive evolutionary materialism and its wider influences through radical relativisation of thought and of morality are, has been transmuted into the false notion that serious living encounter with God through the risen Christ, the life transforming gospel, the indwelling and empowering of the poured our Spirit in the communion of the saints do not work.

I'm shocked/horrified to find I agree with k-flatus on something.

That threading scheme is indeed a bastard to work with.

But then it's not the job of intelligent design proponents to design anything intelligently

Date: 2012/02/06 12:34:22, Link
Author: damitall
Ah - a specific, risky prediction from kairosfocus

Quote
We are now in the phase of revealing the absurdity and the clinging to ideology in the teeth of sound evidence and analysis. (And, contrary to the views of many, that is where something like UD is not a backwater, but the pivotal context for the debates that are playing out. For, there is a sea change coming, and it is going to have to be fought in the forum where the ideologically locked in magisterium cannot control what is going on. this is equivalent to Samizdat of the 1970s and 80s in Russia. Guess why the Russians exiled Solzhenitsyn, when they found his manuscript? Just one little voice of truth was too much for the system!)

And that is exactly where we are, in the life of this culture debate: the era before final collapse, when more and more people are going to wake up and realise they have been had.

Over the next ten years, it is going to get really interesting as the powers that be desperately try to stop the crumbling dam. they are going to find they have not got enough fingers to stop all the holes, and the holes are going to eat out the dam until, one morning, there will be an almighty roar, and the proud edifice will collapse.

Ten years from now, it will be over.


Now,where have I heard something similar before?....

Date: 2012/02/11 09:57:33, Link
Author: damitall
So after that classic Friday Meltdown, what are you guys going to do?

Sock up again and keep on stirring the Tardheap?

Or just let it fester into nothing more than a bad smell?

Date: 2012/02/15 09:06:32, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 15 2012,07:09)
i wonder why that sad little twat has never come here?  maybe he just doesn't know about it

If Chris Doyle thinks The Skeptical Zone is a nest of vipers, there can be no words to describe what he thinks of these hallowed halls.

We won't ever see him here.

This is a Good Thing.

Date: 2012/02/15 11:09:46, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Robin @ Feb. 15 2012,10:40)
Uh oh...a few of the denizens are beginning to realize that without the long-haired, hippy, pinko commies to kick around, the fun factor approaches zero:

 
Quote
BydandFebruary 15, 2012 at 10:15 am

markf reports that he is not permitted to post here any more.

This has become beyond ridiculous.

G’day

I think you'll find "Bydand" is not a "denizen"; more, so to say,  a visitor; and possibly playing a "long game" before the Arrington Asshattery set in.

With a name like that, it's a wonder he's lasted this long.

Date: 2012/02/17 08:26:54, Link
Author: damitall
"Bydand" was a little acerbic about the current raised level of hypocrisy at The Tardpit, suggesting that if they felt that tedious and stupid materialists ought to be banned, they might, in equity, look to banning those of the Home Team who were at least as tedious and stupid.

"Bydand" thus joins the Glorious Fallen, or Legion of the Silently Banned.

Date: 2012/02/17 09:10:38, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Freddie @ Feb. 17 2012,08:55)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 17 2012,08:26)
"Bydand" was a little acerbic about the current raised level of hypocrisy at The Tardpit, suggesting that if they felt that tedious and stupid materialists ought to be banned, they might, in equity, look to banning those of the Home Team who were at least as tedious and stupid.

"Bydand" thus joins the Glorious Fallen, or Legion of the Silently Banned.

A tribute.

Farewell Bydand

Bydand's shade is swinging his sporran in appreciation!

Date: 2012/02/18 04:04:40, Link
Author: damitall
I was idly thinking that maybe I could set up a small Foundation to run an essay competition in certain islands; for teenagers, say, to write about how they think their lot might improve without religion

All straight up, of course - properly judged and a small cash prize offered and paid as promised.

With luck, kf might explode on learning of it.

Date: 2012/02/19 10:32:51, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (keiths @ Feb. 19 2012,09:54)
Quote
Our Gil Dodgen now contributes at Elizabeth Liddle’s Skeptical Zone

Yes, Denyse.  And Elizabeth's status at UD is?

Not quite, I think, a "contribution".

He posted, yes.

But he has been invited, politely, to support certain assertions. He has so far failed to even try.

Date: 2012/02/21 14:42:34, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Feb. 21 2012,14:32)
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 21 2012,09:27)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2012,08:46)
So, Joe gets a free pass on being an obtuse autistic prick on yet another blog.  Is there some kind of affirmative action for creationist retards that i have not heard about?

Everybody gets a free pass, but some posts don't.

However violations of site rules aimed at me tend to get a pass, because they don't bother me.

Also he was right, and I was wrong.

Joe is quite often right, actually.

Quite often?

That endosymbiosis theory relies on "looks like" for evidence of bacterial origin?
That molecular evidence of common descent is better explained by common design? Or, if he's feeling frisky, convergence?
That there is an 'essence' to species that resides somewhere other than the genome?
That ID (as practised) is not anti-evolution?
That common descent does not predict a nested hierarchy?
That life violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics?
That neutral sequences cannot remain identifiable for long enough to be markers of common descent?

I realise this is all a reverse argument from authority - just because he's wrong on just about everything does not make him wrong on everything. I also understand you have an open house policy, so whichever netkook happens to latch onto your site has to be tolerated within broad limits of civility (Atheistoclast and "Socrates" may start homing in any time soon!).

But quite often right? Sorry ... just no. I have already wasted far too much life time reading that bozo's arguments. It's like arguing with a particularly stubborn 10 year old. He has nothing to offer, and apparently limitless time in which to offer it.

Joe's an arsehole, of course; and Atheistowotsit is a clown; but I can tolerate them.

If that malignant madman "Socrates" gets to post more than once at Febble's place, I'm outta there.

I should have thought that the very existence of him and Densey was reason enough to Cut Off Canada.

Date: 2012/03/01 11:29:02, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 29 2012,22:57)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 29 2012,21:14)
I know thqat Doug Axe dabbled a bit in modifying coding sequences, but has anyone ever proven that any protein coding sequence cannot tolerate change?

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that there are many AA substitutions that can be made without really changing the protein.

Now a change to the active site itself, that would be bad, but much of the protein is just there to make sure the shape is correct.  In places you could replace a hydrophobic AA with any hydrophobic AA and there would be effectively no difference in the function of the protein (or hydrophilic, or whatever else).

That was the common understanding when I was taking these kinds of classes some 20 odd years ago.

Changes to the active site of an enzyme?

Not necessarily that bad

And yes, I put that up at UD, where it was comprehensively ignored

Date: 2012/03/13 06:18:40, Link
Author: damitall
Paranoia

Mullings:
 
Quote
I notice we are running at a better than 100:1 views to comments ratio, about ten times the usual ratio for UD, which strongly suggests that this thread is under hostile observation.


Couldn't be any other reason, could there?

Date: 2012/03/15 06:42:44, Link
Author: damitall
Liz reports that kairosfocus has attempted to post at TSZ, but got caught in a spam-trap.

(I haven't bothered looking to see if she's set it free, since I might be tempted to read it, and I'm nearing the limit of my capacity for being told that Western Civilisation is on the steep slope to perdition, because chi-squared and Plato, or something)

Surely that post, from that poster, means UD has twitched its last anti-evolutionary spasm?

Do we get to dance on its grave?

Date: 2012/03/16 13:00:27, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 16 2012,07:03)
KF is trying to proof Elizabeth Liddle wrong - by posting his comments over at UD.

I haven't yet decided if he is a coward, a weirdo, or both.

Link points to TSZ, of course.  :p

He's both, of course - but I think he's probably trying to lure a fresh drawerful of socks over there to liven the place up a bit.
But we remain in an attitude of hostile (and amused) observation!

Date: 2012/04/18 08:57:46, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (carlsonjok @ April 18 2012,08:03)
Well, my setup is a Canon EOS T2i matched to a Tamron DiII 18-270mm travel lens.  I'd like to get something with a little faster continuous shooting (the T2i is only 3.7 fps), but I'm not ready to shell out the greenbacks right now.

This is probably my favorite picture. I realize it is more than a little derivative, but I like it anyways.



ETA: Lake Quanah Parker in the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge.

Derivative, shmerivative.

I really LIKE that image

Date: 2012/04/22 07:27:55, Link
Author: damitall
With Byers and Joe on side, how can ID lose?

Date: 2012/04/30 08:21:48, Link
Author: damitall
The thing that struck me most about that "fallacy" thread was the manufactured indignation at the picture of three philosophers assumed to be mocking god; not because of anything said, done or written, but just because there are three of them.

But then I guess manufactured indignation is a state of being for some of 'em - especially kairosfocus, whose life would be a desert wasteland if he had nothing to take offence at.

Date: 2012/05/03 17:35:43, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (clamboy @ May 03 2012,13:50)
TSZ is most excellent, I always learn something new each time I catch up with the goings-on there, and the "assumption of good faith" is a fine rule for those discussions, since it lends itself to much self-peTARD hoisting. Many thanks to the good doctor for all her hard work and patience!

But, I have to say one thing. Joe is a troll extraordinaire, true, but  he's always going to be a harmless, silly little goof. That William J. Murray character, though?

What...a...dick!!!!

What a pusillanimous pusfart!

What a bloviating bumtrickle!!

What a...what a...what an asinine assleak!!!

I'm sorry, but I just had to delurk to express how vile I find William J. Murray to be. So, um, there.

clamboy, I salute your inventiveness with invective.

Rightly targeted, too.

Date: 2012/05/24 04:02:55, Link
Author: damitall
I do like Jerad's line in deniable snark. Wounding, but bannination would be seen to be very heavy-handed.

Date: 2012/05/30 05:33:24, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Kattarina98 @ May 29 2012,06:09)
Neil Rickert over at TSZ made me watch Denyse O'Leary: Catholics & Evolution - after the first minutes I had to give up; she is just too incoherent. The video has a bit more than 400 views, a couple of nasty comments and mostly "dislikes". Looks like not even her readers went to the trouble to watch it.

I watched and listened beginning to end - morbid fascination, I guess.
It was both horrible and sad. Why the organisers put her up in the first place can only be guessed at - why they then published the video can never be guessed at, unless it was to make other speakers look better. Surely they can't think it does ID any good to have that poor woman drivelling away on public view.

Date: 2012/06/07 11:52:04, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (The whole truth @ June 06 2012,20:54)
Got this in my email today:

Friend request

You have received a friend request from TINA123
(amsalutina@yahoo.com) Hi, Dear My name is miss Tina, l saw your profile today @ (http://theskepticalzone.com),doing my search in Google, and after going through it then l made up my mind to contact you as my friend. so l want you to write back to me through my email address (amsalutina@yahoo.com) so that l will give you my picture and for you to know more about me. I hope to see your mail soon. Cares Tina. (amsalutina@yahoo.com)
Go to The Skeptical Zone...

Please don't reply to this email
Powered by WP Symposium - Social Networking for WordPress v12.05.14

-------------------------------------

miss Tina, eh? Sounds legit. I'm really tempted. LOL

miss Tina seems to be playing the field, the little minx. I got that very same message.

But hey, I'm all fixed up for Nigerian princesses and that kind of thing - you guys can fight it out between you.

Have fun, now!

Date: 2012/06/25 16:58:59, Link
Author: damitall
Speaking as a Brit, I should like to point out that we are broke, yet give millions per year to Montserrat
Therefore, should the people of Montserrat wish to get out from under our cruel imperialist yoke, they should feel free to do so.
And renounce their British citizenship whilst they're about it.

Especially that nasty little homophobic sanctimonious pseudointellectual Mullings.

Date: 2012/07/26 13:54:39, Link
Author: damitall
Mr Mullings.

The only known, cast-iron, warranted cases of design originate from material beings.

You have not observed a material being designing anything approaching life, although efforts to copy have been made.

What is your warrant for introducing as a matter of claimed fact an immaterial, unobserved, undetectable being with these fantastic capabilities?

Hint: Wishful thinking does not constitute a "warrant"

All you have is a collection of writings,  hundreds, thousands of years old, which have been variously mistranslated, forged, plagiarised from other religions, edited, deleted, reinstated, and generally buggered about with for religio-political purposes.

Your uncritical belief in that lot, plus your obvious YEC leanings, plus your continued ignoring of the very many rebuttals of your ineffably stupid pseudo-probability arguments make it impossible for any rational person to take you seriously.

Date: 2012/08/22 14:12:22, Link
Author: damitall
If Hypocrite Mullings is thinking of resorting to British law in his unreasoning hatred of Dr Liddle, he should consider carefully what British law might have to say about hate speech directed at gays.

I wouldn't mind betting that internet access on Montserrat is heavily subsidised by the UK government, who might be persuaded to take a dim view of its being used for such stuff.

Date: 2012/08/22 16:06:15, Link
Author: damitall
Joe is kept around because he licks KF's arse and runs to him to tell him all about things he can manufacture indignation about.

A more deeply unpleasant pair is hard to imagine, even among so vile a crew as infest UD

Date: 2012/08/29 11:41:59, Link
Author: damitall
UD seems to have transmogrified into the kf'n'Joe show.

Must be a nightmare for any remaining rational supporters of ID

Date: 2012/09/01 14:58:44, Link
Author: damitall
That's the Joy of Joe, isn't it?

Completely and utterly unable to admit he made a mistake, he'll defend the error to ridiculous and hilarious lengths.

You know, like kairosfocus and latching in Weasel.

Date: 2012/09/02 05:54:27, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (rossum @ Sep. 01 2012,17:19)
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,13:15)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Aug. 31 2012,06:30)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 31 2012,01:32)
That's one way to toe the line?

Why? They're all lion down.

That's just purr-fect.

You're my mane man.

You should take pride in that

Date: 2012/09/03 10:17:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (keiths @ Sep. 03 2012,02:09)
Joe says 'fart' and KF blows a gasket:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 11:46 am)
velikovskys-

In the words of Monty Python-

“I [vulgar reference deleted-- KF] in your general direction”

Have a nice day

Joe, you probably have an inch of leeway left if so much. Kindly watch tone and manners. KF

And:
Quote (Joe @ August 27 2012, 8:15 pm)
And KF that line you thought was vulgar was from a very funny Monty Python movie- I definitely need to tone it down but you need to lighten up, just a little

Joe: All that did is to further reduce Monty Python in my already low estimation. The language reference to flatulence is vulgar, and should not be used. KF

What a useless, insufferable, hypocritical, sanctimonious priss KF is.

Apologies if someone already commented on this little episode.  I can't be arsed to go back and find out.

P.S.  Hey KF -- I said 'arsed'!

All that is, of course, true.

There is one good result.

People with those characteristics (and a complete lack of a sense of humour) have zero chance of influencing young people in any way they'd like to.

Any teenager I've ever known would be absolutely repelled by kairosfocus

(Any rare teenager who did cleave to that set of attitudes and behaviours would be a lost cause anyway)

KF may be instrumental in saving a generation of Caribbean kids for rationality

Date: 2012/09/05 05:08:55, Link
Author: damitall
Gotta love the way a guy people cross the street to avoid thinks he has the influence to - to - well, anything really.

So far, I'm confident that Gordospew has had zero effect on any action or policy of the Montserrat authorities.

He stands a chance though with the British Government, now the idiots have seen fit to make homeopathy-acceptor Secretary for Health.

(Name of Hunt, once famously "inadvertently" called "cunt" on BBC Radio 4, to everyone's great delight)

Date: 2012/09/12 13:37:32, Link
Author: damitall
Dear Diary

Unfortunately, there seem to be no Constitutional Crises requiring my attention just now.

However, this gives me a chance to spend some time scouring the internet for evidence of Sinfulness and Evil, preferably young-looking and unclad, to share with my friends the Chief of Police and the Attorney General.

They seem to have changed their phone numbers and email addresses, though.

Date: 2012/09/14 11:29:50, Link
Author: damitall
AFDave (as Dave Hawkins) has recently been infesting TalkRational.

His latest thing is that he can feed 9 billion people with mob-stocking grass-fed beef, (never mind those that won't eat beef for religious/cultural reasons) grass-fed milk, and honey (which cures everything, apparently)

In spite of sterling efforts by TalkRats, he denies utterly that ~ 75% of the world population is lactose intolerant - 'cos that's genetic, that is, and genetics is not Godly.

He now regards himself as an agricultural expert (he has 4 horses. a cow and a calf - a pretty cheap and measly effort for one who describes himself as a millionaire) ) and is doing the rounds of the Prophets of Sustainable Farming  - All you Need is Woodchips and Bullshit.

He took umbrage at Talkrats asking for facts and figures about his plan to feed the world (and asking why grass-fed milk wouldn't affect lactose intolerant people), and flounced off - I think to infest some forum where organic gardeners go

Date: 2012/09/27 12:42:25, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 27 2012,12:15)
At TSZ someone mentioned something about Upright and the Huffpo (spit). Anyone got a link/know more?

Does this help?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social....omments

He's been at it some time, it seems

Date: 2012/10/05 10:01:30, Link
Author: damitall
Hi, kairosfocus (I know you dabble your feet in the fever swamp every so often)

You know, I'd be quite prepared to write 6K words as you suggest.

But I wouldn't publish it at UD.

Why?

For one thing I've been twice banned there after trying to post perfectly civil comments pointing out items in the scientific literature that refuted the ID arguments being made at the time. Censorship, pure and simple; and a thing I despise.

For another thing, I couldn't write anything that hasn't been said hundreds of times before, and which you and your sycophants have always ignored.

For yet another thing, I despise the cowardice shown by the denizens of UD, who, with one or two honourable exceptions, are too weak-kneed to take part in debates in fora where censorship is not used, and bad arguments are quickly exposed.

Yet again, I loathe the habit of those same cowards of calling folk who are making strong arguments against them liars, and accusing them of incivility where there is
none.

And lastly, what is the point? Even if I were to be able to post 6 thousand well-crafted words, I'm absolutely certain that I would not be allowed to respond to any objections or questions from the ID side.

No, sir. UD is hoist by its own censorious petard; and will continue to be a laughing-stock and a shrinking echo-chamber for that diminishing band of people who believe that the arguments for ID have any merit at all

Oh, and lastly... I should like to say that your own drum-beat-repeated Argument From Very Large Numbers is either the silliest, or the most dishonest, (I'm not sure, it may be both) I've ever seen.

So you can take your "challenge", add it to your censorship, wrap it in your utterly closed mind, fold it until it has many sharp corners, and shove it.

Thank you for listening

Date: 2012/10/08 16:23:58, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 08 2012,16:13)
Quote (keiths @ Oct. 08 2012,17:00)
Yet another hysterical rant from KF. You can tell that he desperately wants to ban me or demand an apology.

I half expect him to unban me just so he can have the satisfaction of rebanning me or censoring my comments.

post it so i don't have to go there to read it!

Quote
The design inference is very simple, based on the premise that empirical, inductive explanations of the deep unobserved past or the like, are based on traces we observe and known empirically reliable causes that give rise to the same type of result. So, for instance we know on billions of cases that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as key cause. Indeed, the only observed cause, never mind ever so many dubious attempts to cloud the issue. genetic algorithms, from the very statement of a fitness function that points uphill start in a target zone and are chock full of the information built into such. The challenge is to get to such an island of function in a vast sea of configs that quickly exhaust cosmos scale resources without hardly sampling the space of possibilities.


That's the only bit you need to read.

I'm still not sure whether he's thoroughly dishonest or stupidly uncomprehending, or both.

Ineducable, certainly

Date: 2012/10/09 13:33:24, Link
Author: damitall
Mullings just can't help inserting his obsessions into everything

On his blog (http://kairosfocus.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/breaking-fly-montserrat-air-crash.html) he takes it on himself to repeat news-as-it-happens about a tragic plane crash on Antigua.
No harm in that, even though one can't help but feel he's more interested in being self-important than in doing a service to anyone.

And even though I have no doubt that local news channels did a better job of reportage, and are seen by rather more people than would be prepared to suffer Mullings' insufferably patronising style for more than 10 seconds.

But  he just can't help inserting this gem:

Quote
PS: I have deliberately built this report around an initial item and updates as they flowed in, so that the reader can see how news develops, how multiple sources come in with diverse, divergent details, and how core facts can be true even as details diverge then converge. Notice in particular how the time of the crash clusters around two points in time, and in the end reverts to the 4 pm number of the second report based on convergence of multiple sources. This pattern of breaking news and reports with a convergent core and circumstantial secondary details that are diverse and perhaps partly conflicting or at least hard to reconcile is a well known pattern of truthful and independent, witness-based reports on events. The pattern is instantly familiar to anyone who has studied the breaking news aspect of the resurrection narratives in the NT across that first Easter, and it is also a feature of the tests for verisimilitude of testimony highlighted by Simon Greenleaf in his The Testimony of the Evangelists.  We should make use of this pattern as a part of our ability to assess credible, well warranted truth and differentiate it from spin-based manipulated fiction.



Even tragedy is a vehicle for Mullings to be a prick

Date: 2012/11/01 03:15:43, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 31 2012,17:51)
Gary, if you visit Uncommon Descent and speak to Kairosfocus he may allow you to present your theory for discussion. All the finest minds in ID post there and they might enjoy helping to debug and refine your work.

Gary "Giggles" Gaulin is convinced he is "doing science" - indeed, he is adamant that, once his "Theory" is more widely published, it will unseat mainstream science in all sorts of areas.
He might be welcome in KF's world - he is invariably polite, and virtually impervious to insult - and to being educated. Furthermore he is expert at the "wall-o'-text" approach, although much of it is written in Giggles's -er- idiosyncratic English, which is impenetrable to us benighted folk, who generally act as if words have commonly accepted meanings.
Sadly, he is doomed to be one of the "Most Misunderstood" folks of all time

Date: 2012/11/02 16:02:02, Link
Author: damitall
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

Date: 2012/11/07 15:11:49, Link
Author: damitall
I can only get that Giggles thinks that;

1. Everything of which life is made, from molecules on up, is intelligent.
2. Therefore, all life intelligently designed itself
3. But without natural selection, no sir!

I don't think he's ever postulated an external intelligent agent, but who knows what's hidden in the crawling mess that is Giggles Gaulin's idea of the English language?

I've marked very many student exam and test scripts. I've never seen anything quite so incoherent as Giggles's efforts. Still, his spelling is nearly impeccable.

Date: 2012/11/09 12:00:00, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Nov. 09 2012,10:42)
Quote
all the flying things in one group, all the swimming things in one group, all the land things in another group
Believe it or not, over at TalkRat there is a guy who is currently defending this idea - cetaceans from mosasaurs, birds from pterosaurs ... Great fun!

"Socrates" benefits from TR's lenient moderation - he's been banned from most other places

His style is an unpleasant droning whinge, replete with nested self-quotes.

And he has a phobia re. apostrophes

Date: 2012/11/16 03:59:33, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 16 2012,01:11)
Joe G. (the not creationist) is pluging "Not By Chance” by Dr Lee Spetner" on every thread...

Isn't that the book that Joe claims is full of evidence for "directed mutations"and the like?

Evidence that Joe (nor anyone else) can't actually find, let alone quote or link to.

How unexpected.

Date: 2012/11/17 05:14:34, Link
Author: damitall
It occurs to me, Giggles, to wonder if you have any German ancestors.

Your sentence construction is - er - unusual in conventional English, even Merkan English

I hasten to add that there's ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG with being wholly or partly German.

Date: 2012/11/23 10:11:25, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,09:26)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 23 2012,08:25)
keep googling troll

I was refreshing my memory. Still did not run across the list of papers pertaining to molecular intelligence, but found this one:

Solving Traveling Salesman Problems Using Molecular Programming

Note: Solving a Traveling Salesman Problem is a "programming" challenge, not an indicator of "intelligence".

What, you mean like making virtual critters move towards targets on a monitor screen?

Date: 2012/11/26 09:44:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 26 2012,09:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 26 2012,06:20)
 
Quote (blipey @ Nov. 26 2012,01:37)
Are you saying that bacteria self-modify?  It really seems like this is what you are saying?  Is it?  Bacteria modify their own genes?  Please try to keep your answer under 17,000 words and no music links.

As long as "self-modify" is not loaded with anthropomorphic and/or religious meaning and is kept scientific as in the phrase "gene modification" then yes, bacteria can (self-)modify their own genes. There is no scientific controversy over that being true.

So are you saying that bacteria choose to modify their genes?* That nylonase was a deliberated response to exposure to nylon, and not just an advantageous variation that resulted in differential reproductive success?  Or do you consider random variation part of your "molecular/cellular intelligence" paradigm?

* eta If so, Did this deliberate variation happen within an existing bacterium (or subset), or was the variation chosen to happen during division?

I'll be very surprised if you get a straight answer to that question, fnxtr.

Date: 2012/11/27 07:36:57, Link
Author: damitall
I see Giggles is using the "intimation without explanation" method of weaseling - as perfected by "Socrates"/Doug Dobney at TR, but used by IDiots everywhere

he INTIMATES that he knows that known evolutionary mechanism cannot account for this or that new phenotype, but consistently fails to explain what other mechanisms are responsible, let alone give any evidence for the existence of such mechanisms IRL

He's desperately trying NOT to say that he believes that organisms actively and with foresight as to result change their genomes to reach a specific goal, because he knows he has no evidence.

Nevertheless that is what he believes. That's what his "molecular intelligence" bafflegab is all about.

Date: 2012/11/30 05:42:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 30 2012,01:00)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 30 2012,00:00)
Before you leave Gary: Does your theory say that hypermutation increases cellular intelligence and the number of intelligent solutions a cell can find?

Quote
REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

To molecular intelligence a random change includes often damaging cosmic ray recoding of part of its genome. Although it is possible for chance improvements the living genome maintains control of the integrity of memory contents using error correction systems, for as few “random chance” memory changes as possible.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, without some form of good-guess genetic recombination for systems on the scale of chromosomes the learning rate of the system would be very low, offspring would be clones of their parents.  Therefore a part of the cell cycle has “crossover exchange” where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better.  This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge.  It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would be fatal to it.

Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs.  The cell responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Another vital guess mechanism is called transposition (jumping genes), where a coded region of DNA (Data) physically moves to another location, effectively changing its Address location within the cell.  Guesses are also produced by code changes of genes and address change mechanisms such as duplications, deletions, crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission. Conjugation (cell addressed communication/sharing) may possibly include good guesses which are shared.

So, Giggles...

You're lumping together all the known mechanisms of genomic variation, (other perhaps than single-base mutations caused by stray radiation) and calling them "guesses"

But we have perfectly good and descriptive words already for those mechanisms.

And you're still INTIMATING, but not supporting with evidence, that such mechanisms are in some way directed.

Not moved forward at all, have you? You're simply implying volition by using the word "guess"

I honestly don't think you'll ever find a forum where you'l get the recognition you crave.

Your ideas are a) largely incomprehensible, b) completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, and c) self-evidently wrong

Date: 2012/12/02 14:18:25, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 02 2012,14:09)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 02 2012,13:42)
Quote
Of course, you won't get a naturalist on this board to admit it: but there is NOTHING in the fossil record to suggest that more complex organisms evolved from some more primitive common ancestor. It's just not there. There is no gradualistic evolution at all in it.

Then why is it routine to find examples of later species that have only minor differences from some earlier, usually nearby, species? Why is it routine to find series of these cases? Why do the earlier members of these series tend to resemble each other way more than their successors?

And pointing to gaps in the fossil record won't answer that. Gaps are inevitable given how rare fossilization is comparison to the number of species that have lived.

Henry

It's a valid question.......

Please understand that no one I'm aware of....certainly not me or the circle I hang with....denies evolution.

Evolution changes populations.........but it does NOT cause new species to emerge from extant ones.

Take the ape-like creature morphing into homo sapiens....at some point in this supposed evolution, an ape has to cross the get-go line and birth a human....the species has to change in order for speciation to occur.

Yet, if Earnst Myars' definition of a sexual species is followed (and it's taught in every bio 101 textbook I'm familiar with) it CANNOT happen:

Species: Any two organisms that can interbreed and give birth to viable, fertile offspring.

If that ape-oid SHOULD cross that speciation barrier, any offspring would not be viable (it wouldn't live), or it would be infertile just as is the other instances we are familiar with where different species interbreed such as mules and ligers.

Good grief.

He really is that uncomprehendingly stupid.

Date: 2012/12/05 13:15:26, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,11:53)
[quote=Southstar,Dec. 05 2012,10:05][/quote]
Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

 
Quote

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

 
Quote
Which is it Jerry?


I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way..  :)

 
Quote
That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.


Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought?  We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly.
And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

 
Quote
Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.


Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

 
Quote
A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.


Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

When the wind designs a sand-dune, is it then doing it intentionally?

Or have you redefined the word "design" to include unintentional events?

Because if you have, you've just destroyed the whole Intelligent design "movement"

Date: 2012/12/07 03:54:09, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (sparc @ Dec. 06 2012,21:56)
The news has spread at theoplogy web and triggered some predictable reaction. After the book had been described as    
Quote
fraudulently misrepresenting itself as work from Cornell University
Jorge got mad:    
Quote
It was NOT "fraudulently misrepresented", you lying piece of recycled trash. Every title had been submitted to Springer months BEFORE the Symposium. This included authors, abstracts ... etc. Springer approved all materials submitted to them prior to the event and agreed to publish.

What happened was something entirely different than your lying reporting.
It is essentially another example of intellectual censorship based on religious ideology, not on science... another example of EXPELLED.

I certainly am not expecting for you - sick carcass that you are - to comprehend nor accept any of this.

Jorge

I haven't looked at TWeb for some time, but IIRC, Jorge is permanently irate.

It's his ground state.

Date: 2012/12/17 14:53:34, Link
Author: damitall
It's an absolutely hopeless task asking Giggles to explain anything.

He doesn't  understand the word "explain"

Date: 2012/12/17 15:46:23, Link
Author: damitall
I've not seen Giggles quite so rattled and snarky before. Perhaps reality is intruding and he's realising that his "theory" really is useless.

Date: 2012/12/31 10:30:09, Link
Author: damitall
I'm not convinced that Gigles understands the concept of "falsifiable" in context.

I do believe that he thinks that if a theory is deemed falsifiable, it's a bad thing because then it has been or will be definitely falsified, no maybe about it.

(I could be wrong about that. Giggles's thought processes are, to say the least, difficult to follow)

Date: 2013/01/04 04:01:01, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 03 2013,06:02)
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 03 2013,01:45)
So, there's this site....

Attention Meter

....that apparently aggregates the data from a bunch of different web-traffic thingies. Here are the stats for Uncommonly Dense....







Looks good to me.

If only people would stop giving in to temptation and actually engaging the fools those graphs would look even healthier - you know who you are *scowls*.

No wonder Denyse jumped ship. She was probably paid a share of the revenue.

Quite obviously, Densey's departure has ACCELERATED the decline in visits.

She was, after all, an inexhaustible mine of comedy tard and ignorance, and unintentionally brightened many a gloomy day by posting the most amazing rubbish

Date: 2013/01/05 04:40:30, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (REC @ Jan. 04 2013,13:20)
Evidence for damitall's hypothesis:

O'Leary's transfer to www.thebestschools.org/bestschoolsblog coincides with a dramatic increase in traffic. Looks like it is pulling 4X the unique visitors to UD, and beats it in rank by ~250,000 sites.

http://siteanalytics.compete.com/embed_c...._c....m

There's a corollary to my hypothesis, viz;

Densey is (most likely) female: females are not really welcome in religious fundy groups of any type, except to make coffee and cupcakes and supply - er - certain personal services (sorry about that, - brain-bleach is readily available)

There have been very few female posters at UD

One only has to remember how the mild-mannered and generous Dr Liddle (Febble) was treated at UD - much of which was because,  am convinced, she is a female, and a smart one at that.

Date: 2013/01/14 03:51:17, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 14 2013,02:21)
From: Theory of Intelligent Design
Quote
Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence is a living thing that is emergent from (unintelligent) molecular machines which build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities, and is sustained over time by “replication cycle” that keeps it coming back again millions of times. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm within the one single self-learning memory system, but (where physics willing) the system could just as well at the same time replicate itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence.  If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could sustain itself virtually forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:



Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system.  With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

In living things such as plants and some bacteria, molecular intelligence can control the molecules which self-assemble from the Reverse Krebs Cycle, also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), Reverse Szent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse Citric Acid Cycle.

 

This is the core metabolic cycle of cells which consume carbon dioxide to provide food to sustain its growth. All together the molecules become a molecular factory where a dozen or so catalytic molecules (protein or mineral) form metabolic pathway assembly lines that make a new copy of the molecule it started with every time around the circle. It does this by adding a non-chiral (structurally identical) mirror image of the starting molecule then when the cycle is completed it breaks in half resulting in two identical copies.  At any stage through the assembly cycle a molecule may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby self-assembly interaction to where it fits. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle is catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once a part of common planetary chemistry.    Other clay/minerals may be useful for the self-assembly of protocells.  

Animals cannot produce their own food and must instead consume plants and their liberated oxygen to run the cycle in the opposite direction to gain food and energy by disassembling what was previously assembled. There is here a balance between the producers (plants) and consumers (animals) which maintain a relatively constant atmospheric oxygen level.

Intelligence to exploit these metabolic cycles could emerge in environments where the cycle already exists as an uncontrolled reaction. If true then we can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that metabolically produces all that is needed to produce a living genome from scratch, instead of a nonliving/nonfunctional genome first needing to establish this metabolic cycle. Where the energy to power the cycle is from sunlight, the system would have already been light sensitive. Rudimentary vision may have been the first “sense” to emerge.

Self-assembly and disassembly of cellular organelles is also easily controlled by molecular intelligence. For example, before division of complex cells the nuclear membrane must automatically self-disassemble to allow access to the chromosomes so they can be pulled by spindle fibers to opposite sides. After division of the chromosomes, internal environmental conditions change causing a nuclear membrane to automatically reassemble around each of the two sets so there are then two nuclei inside the cell. With there then being essentially two cells inside one, the outer cell membrane has two nuclei to self-assemble around which causes them to separate so each can go their separate ways.

Coacervates can resemble living cells, and can appear intelligent, but they only demonstrate uncontrolled (non-intelligent) propulsion.  They are not even protointelligence (where it is then at least almost intelligent).  When molecularly controlled by a “cell” these forces can power spinning flagella motors and other forms of locomotion, but coacervates meet the first requirement only.  We can say that coacervates are a twitching body with no brain/intelligence to control it.

Microscopic coacervates  can be made by adding red-cabbage pH indicator solution with egg yolk that provides membrane forming phospholipid molecules that form vesicles around other components of yolk.  Indicator solution is made by slowly adding fresh leaves from a grocery store red-cabbage to around 1/3 pan (around twice the volume of whole head before pulling each leave) of boiling water that should just cover after leaves soften down and lose coloration.  Use large basket strainer to remove liquid (can follow with finer mesh as from plastic fabric or stainless steel coffee maker basket), refrigerate.  Remaining solids will eventually settle to bottom.  For more pure supernatant you can later pour clear liquid into another container, or centrifuge.

REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSABLE MEMORY

In living things molecular intelligence cycles through time by continual replication of genetic Addressable Memory (chromosomes) where output actions are stored as coded genes (addressed by regulatory elements) that catalyze production of many kinds of proteins that control and maintain the cell.  This memory core is always made of RNA or DNA (threadlike crystal) that can be extracted then sequenced.

In biological Molecular Intelligence systems there is chemical Addressing of genes with specific molecules. No Data is ever moved through the Addressing system. The Data is what is coded on the gene that gets turned into a protein molecule able to perform some Action somewhere in the cell. The Addressing just turns a gene (or any data location) on or off (or throttle) and molecular streams and conveyors of different kinds inside the cell move the Data Action (protein) to its destination Address where needed. In 3D systems made of matter, many Data locations can be performing Data Actions and all at the same time yet there is plenty of space for Addressing and Data flow to the rest of the circuit.

Duplication of existing memory is how a new memory location is often added to a DNA based RAM system.  Single gene duplication is not the only way to increase information in some cases (not normally humans) it is also possible to duplicate a whole chromosome or all of them in the cell one or more times (polyploidy). Duplication of one gene (data element) adds a single functional new Data location to memory, but there can be more than one gene in each duplication event.  In all cases there is a more reliable way for memory to increase in size, than random single base insertions and other additions that would just keep scrambling the information already there.

When studying duplication events it becomes important to understand how genes moved to a new location in a chromosome (or to another). Where after replication the strand unwound to occupy the same chromosome territory it would have been duplicated to an adjacent strand that ends up in a different place after the chromosome supercoils just before separation to one of two sides of cell.  The chromosome later unwinds then starts protein production again.  It here important to have a 3D understanding of what the chromosome territories look like when genes are in full production inside the nucleus where there are molecular streams forming genetic circuits, which places genes that otherwise appear to be far apart in close proximity to each other. One or more genes can also be pinched out of a territory, or have other secondary function (such as recall of past experience somehow useful for producing a good-guess) even though it is not used as a protein production gene anymore.  Where duplication included a change in gene coding, what produced the change becomes important.  We cannot assume they are all random copy errors, where there may be a mechanism that works with experience stored in nearly all of its active and inactive genes it has in memory.

One way specifically adding a new memory at a given address is homing endonuclease genes (HEGs) that home in on a particular portion of the DNA, inactivate a gene and insert a copy of itself in the deactivated gene.  This homing/addressing occurs in the sperm cells, is passed on to successive generations.

Molecularly Addressed regulation sites turn genes on when they are needed, then metabolic pathway molecular feedback turns off before they start overproducing.  Replicating additional genes would help it build up levels of mRNA (for manufacture of their respective protein product) faster, but not necessarily change the amount present in the cell because of production rate of each gene being controlled to only produce what is needed.  There are then more than enough viable copies to replace ones that may go bad. Not producing anything useful could make it prone to being chemically switched off or eliminated by the epigenetic success gauging part of the mechanism not finding that useful to it anymore.

Chromosomes arrange into a network of independently addressable areas of molecular flow inside themselves called chromosome territories. There is here an organization present that allows each compartment to specialize in a certain gene driven function, a localized form of addressing where there are routes to travel to reach any given address.

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

In molecular intelligence the confidence levels are gauged as in cybernetics the interdisciplinary study of the structure of regulatory systems, including molecular systems that are required for basic growth and division of cells where most rudimentary confidence levels are as in homeostasis.

Where confidence in conditions being suitable for replication are great enough another replication cycle can be initiated.  Or where a dry spell threatens survival, some cells can take evasive action by becoming a spore (seed) with hard watertight shell around the most vital molecular intelligence (only) part of the system.  The next level cellular intelligence that once controlled flagella and other motor systems ceases to exist, until conditions improve and its cellular intelligence can again emerge from its molecular intelligence, to once more become a swimming/migrating cell.

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells.  Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory.  New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase  whereby a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess, the molecular intelligence system itself must produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only guess mechanism that it has, which may have existed at dawn of life, in the very first living things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. It is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled scrambling which would normally be fatal to it.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.

--------------------------------------------

X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf
Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry
Jack W. Szostak, Clays May Have Aided Formation of Primordial Cells, Howard Hughes Med. Inst.
http://www.hhmi.org/news.......k3.html

So much wrong condensed in such a small space - a black hole of tard.

It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness.

Oh, and we can add "substrate" to the lengthy list of words the meaning of which has escaped Giggles

Date: 2013/01/18 03:43:32, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, it's really very simple.

Your virtual critters are goal-directed. You have programmed them to be so, and to learn and store the "best guesses"  that enabled them to attain the goal you gave them.

The development of life-forms is NOT goal-directed. There was never any species that was directed or directed itself to speciate by changing its chromosome number (or any other method). There was never a non-human species that was directed, or directed itself, to take "guesses" about its chromosome number in order to become Homo sapiens sapiens, yet that is one of your claims.

Date: 2013/01/19 05:42:52, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 18 2013,08:29)
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 18 2013,03:43)
Giggles, it's really very simple.

Your virtual critters are goal-directed. You have programmed them to be so, and to learn and store the "best guesses"  that enabled them to attain the goal you gave them.

The development of life-forms is NOT goal-directed. There was never any species that was directed or directed itself to speciate by changing its chromosome number (or any other method). There was never a non-human species that was directed, or directed itself, to take "guesses" about its chromosome number in order to become Homo sapiens sapiens, yet that is one of your claims.

You sure are quick to spout-out statements to make it seem like all major biological changes are an accident, not worth investigating.

Whoever said accidents aren't worth investigating?
We learn an awful lot from investigating accidents, i biology as much as in anything else.

Date: 2013/01/20 15:32:16, Link
Author: damitall
I don't think Ken Ham and his ilk would agree that Giggles' "theory" is consonant with a literal reading of Genesis

But it's good to see the goof admitting that his "theory" owes more to religion than science. That should help (as if any help were needed!) to keep it out of schools.

Date: 2013/01/21 10:11:07, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, that demonstration of self-assembly of lipid vesicles you're so proud of...

Do you regard that as any kind of demonstration of "molecular intelligence"?

If not, can you propose a simple test-tube demonstration of "molecular intelligence", where some phenomenon occurs that is not explained by the undirected operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?

That would be a great way of getting your - ahem - theory into schools. Nothing like a demo to illustrate a point!

Date: 2013/01/21 14:07:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2013,13:01)
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 21 2013,10:11)
Giggles, that demonstration of self-assembly of lipid vesicles you're so proud of...

Do you regard that as any kind of demonstration of "molecular intelligence"?

If not, can you propose a simple test-tube demonstration of "molecular intelligence", where some phenomenon occurs that is not explained by the undirected operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?

That would be a great way of getting your - ahem - theory into schools. Nothing like a demo to illustrate a point!

No a vesicle is not intelligent. Theory explains that, more info there along with unintelligent coacervates which have been a source of trouble for science teachers from parents who protest(ed) making them seem more alive than they are, using the earlier classroom coacervate lesson plans that mostly marveled at their lifelike qualities not focus on what makes them scientifically interesting but not intelligent or alive.

Like I earlier said, science teachers don't need to teach the whole theory as a lesson to make use of how it helps explain things like self-assembly of vesicles or coacervates. It's help staying out of trouble in controversy ridden hard to navigate scientific territory where some things are how-to science these days, even though you just see its IDeas for without prejudice best serving all students and science, that you have a problem with.

Here, hang on!

If you recognise that self assembly of vesicles is not an intelligent process, then WHY does your "theory", or even part of it, "help explain self-assembly of vesicles or coacervates"?

Sane folk explain these things in terms of known physics and chemistry. No help from incoherent "theories" of intelligence is needed  - or actually helpful, being more likely to confuse the student.

I note that some hypotheses of abiogenesis specify coacervates as kinda protocells. Does this upset fundy parents? Does linking coacervaton with wishy-washy ID-ish bafflegab help with this?

Date: 2013/01/21 16:24:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2013,14:51)
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 21 2013,14:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 21 2013,13:01)
 
Quote (damitall @ Jan. 21 2013,10:11)
Giggles, that demonstration of self-assembly of lipid vesicles you're so proud of...

Do you regard that as any kind of demonstration of "molecular intelligence"?

If not, can you propose a simple test-tube demonstration of "molecular intelligence", where some phenomenon occurs that is not explained by the undirected operation of the laws of physics and chemistry?

That would be a great way of getting your - ahem - theory into schools. Nothing like a demo to illustrate a point!

No a vesicle is not intelligent. Theory explains that, more info there along with unintelligent coacervates which have been a source of trouble for science teachers from parents who protest(ed) making them seem more alive than they are, using the earlier classroom coacervate lesson plans that mostly marveled at their lifelike qualities not focus on what makes them scientifically interesting but not intelligent or alive.

Like I earlier said, science teachers don't need to teach the whole theory as a lesson to make use of how it helps explain things like self-assembly of vesicles or coacervates. It's help staying out of trouble in controversy ridden hard to navigate scientific territory where some things are how-to science these days, even though you just see its IDeas for without prejudice best serving all students and science, that you have a problem with.

Here, hang on!

If you recognise that self assembly of vesicles is not an intelligent process, then WHY does your "theory", or even part of it, "help explain self-assembly of vesicles or coacervates"?

Sane folk explain these things in terms of known physics and chemistry. No help from incoherent "theories" of intelligence is needed  - or actually helpful, being more likely to confuse the student.

I note that some hypotheses of abiogenesis specify coacervates as kinda protocells. Does this upset fundy parents? Does linking coacervaton with wishy-washy ID-ish bafflegab help with this?

It should be clear enough I am discussing "earlier classroom coacervate lesson plans" and other things that have been around to explain self-assembly of vesicles or coacervates.

Stop trying to making issues, where none exist.

Giggles, you are, it seems, constitutionally incapable of  clarity of expression.

I'm trying to work out what you thought the problem was that you claim to have solved with your coacervation demonstration and "theory"; and how your "theory" helps explain anything, as you claim.

A fool's errand, I know, but one lives in hope that you might, one day, disgorge a whole paragraph that is instantly comprehensible, and simultaneously addresses a question you have been asked

Date: 2013/01/22 05:08:50, Link
Author: damitall
GigglesGoof:

You have admitted that coacervaton is not intelligent.

You have failed to explain how your "theory" of intelligent design helps to explain the process of coacervation (which is adequately explained (and predicted) by mainstream chemistry and physics.

You have failed in designing any kind of practical demonstration of "molecular intelligence".

Having failed at the most elementary level to show that your "theory" is of any damned use at all, you are now proposing to "model" E coli.

E coli is one of the best-characterised organisms on the planet. It is incredibly easy to grow and manipulate. Hundreds of mutant strains are available. Science catalogues are crammed with the necessary media and reagents to do anything you damned well like with it. The scientific literature is replete with descriptions of experiments, methods, and results.

Why "model" it when you can so easily do the physical work? And if you do go so far as to build your "model", do you intend to test the predictions it should make?

Date: 2013/01/24 04:29:11, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles,there's still a small but important question you haven't answered...

Your claim is that your "theory" helps explain the process of coacervation - even though you say that process is not intelligent.

But you haven't said just HOW it helps.

My hypothesis is that your "theory" does no such thing, and is useless. If you don't know even this small thing, then what use is your "theory"?

Your lack of an explanation is added evidence in favour of  my hypothesis. Added to which is the fact that you are completely unable to come up with an example of "molecular intelligence" which cannot be adequately explained by known chemistry and physics.

Date: 2013/01/26 05:23:27, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,00:54)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 25 2013,23:25)
The claim was that I'm part of the subculture that tried to destroy Galileo. But I am not.

It was hidebound academics who most tried to destroy Galileo's ideas, because of not being the accepted academic view (based on Aristotle).

You no longer see yourself as an academic authority on what is and is not science?

Bollocks

It was people with a vested interest in maintaining religious power by insisting on the literal truth of the Bible on the arrangements of the solar system

And there is NO WAY you can ever emulate P Z Myers. As has been pointed out, he writes well; but not only that, he does answer critics and questions raised - again, clearly and to the point.

One only has to read this thread to realise how many questions you've dodged, and how garbled your writing is. Proponents of theories who cannot answer questions about their theories are doomed to fail. You in particular, BECAUSE NO-ONE CAN TELL WHAT THE BLUE BLAZES YOU'RE ON ABOUT!

Date: 2013/01/26 11:05:11, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 26 2013,10:16)
In the process of writing this theory I discovered (the hard way) why Galileo also had to give up on the "vested apologists of universities":

 
Quote
Soon, however, Galileo--flamboyant by nature--decided that Copernicus was worth a fight. He decided to address his arguments to the enlightened public at large, rather than the hidebound academics.  He saw more hope for gaining support among businessmen, gentlemen, princes, and Jesuit astronomers than among the vested apologists of universities.  He seemed compelled to act as a consultant in natural philosophy to all who would listen.  He wrote  in tracts, pamphlets, letters, and dialogues--not in the turgid, polysyllabic manner of a university pedant, but simply and directly.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty....nt.html

Because the universities of the time were set up and controlled by the church, using the "authority" of the bible.

If you're trying to draw a parallel between modern secular universities and those in Galileo's time, you're a twit.

You only have to look at your own country. The bible-adhering universities and colleges are the ones who are "hidebound", accepting no new knowledge that doesn't fit with their religious preconceptions.

The productive research, the new knowledge, the ground-breaking theories,  come from secular universities. Not from bible colleges, nor yet from lone wackaloons who haven't a clue.

Date: 2013/01/27 06:28:26, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, you see to be forgetting that your "theory" falls at the first hurdle.

There is no such thing as "molecular intelligence" and you have failed to give even the simplest example distinct from well-known chemistry and physics.

Molecules act and react in highly predictable ways, dictated and constrained by their environment. They cannot make choices, and making choices is a defining characteristic of intelligence.

If you cannot demonstrate "molecular intelligence", what chance do you have of engaging interest in the rest of the effluent?

Similarly, you are unable to tell us how your "good guess" learning mechanism differs at the population level from good old Darwinian random variation+ natural selection.

There are very good reasons why Darwin's basic tenets have survived over 150 years of intense examination and testing. He laid out his thinking clearly and without equivocation so that everybody can understand; and they have survived every test made of them, even by those implacably opposed to naturalistic evolution.

You, though, are incapable of writing clearly; and one of the basics of your "theory" - molecular intelligence - does not even survive the most basic test - that of proving its existence.

This planet, Giggles, is liberally supplied with wingnuts who will say or do anything to try and overturn the theory of evolution.

Not one of them - not one - has glommed onto your ideas.

Reflect on this.

Date: 2013/01/28 04:22:56, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, now you have shown it impossible to defend your concept of "molecular intelligence" with description, evidence, or demonstration, should you not in all conscience now remove it from your wall-o'-text "theory"?

Or perhaps you didn't receive a conscience along with your mail-order ordination? - or even a tiny bit of intellectual honesty?

Oh, and you haven't yet explained why your coacervation demo shows anything but - well, coacervation; which is a pretty well understood process.

Date: 2013/01/30 08:05:50, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Jan. 30 2013,07:41)
"...a nonrandom force guided self-assembly process"

There is trouble with grammar and/or punctuation that renders this unintelligible.  I can't even suggest a correction because I have no idea what you're trying to describe.

I suspect that "guided self-assembly" or "guided assembly" might come closer to what he thinks he means.

It's a moot point as to whether "guided" and "self" are mutually exclusive in the context.

Whatever.

Date: 2013/02/03 15:24:03, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2013,14:31)
And for ones who do not know how "falsification" is easily used to stop any theory: Opponents simply reject any falsification that the author of the theory offers them.

I have been through this a number of times which is why I know that any theory can be stopped this way, even "evolutionary theory". But in that case the double standard easily allows that to be accepted even though in reality finding a Cambrian rabbit would only lead to new parallel evolution and alien pet bunny theories.

Wrong, Giggles.

The elephant in your rumpus room is that evolutionary theory has NOT been falsified, even though there are many ways in which it could have been, and even though many people have spent centuries of man-effort trying to do it. That it has survived shows it to be a valid theory - so far.

Your "theory", on the other hand is both incomprehensible and unfalsifiable.

If it's a "theory" at all, it's a very bad one, explaining nothing not already explained, making no testable predictions, and not capable of being falsified.

My personal opinion is that it's not a theory at all, just a rather trivial attempt to support an assertion that various aspects of biology can be simulated by simple electronics.

For fuck's sake, Giggles. A 14-year-old with a Raspberry Pi could do what you've done, with more efficient coding, and probably make a good video game to boot. Your ugly 2-dimensional critters are NOTHING to do with biology - they don't reproduce, they don't die, they don't compete for resources... Evolution is about POPULATIONS and envronments,not individuals.

Your claim is that "higher levels" of intelligence are a product of "lower levels" of intelligence. Where have you shown this? All you have is critters with the "intelligence" YOU programmed into them. Where's the next level? Where's the ability of your virtual critters even to produce the next level, anything more "intelligent"

Aftrer all your bitterly butt-hurt ducking and weaving you STILL can't give an example of ("slightly defined" you say - what utter bollocks) molecular intelligence, be it one molecule or billions.

Do you think that anyone sane is NOT going to see that the whole basis of your "theory" is undiluted arse-water?

You can't describe it, can't exemplify it, can't demonstrate it.

It's bilge, Giggles; dreck, crap, garbage.

Date: 2013/02/05 07:22:44, Link
Author: damitall
Here's some more Quantum for you, Giggles. Just your sort of stuff!

http://www.quantummansite.com/catalog....ial.php

Date: 2013/02/09 16:01:09, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, where in your "model" have you shown that any level of intelligence has arisen from any other? Nothing is any more complex than it was when it started. At best, your critters can only do what they started off being able to do, perhaps a little faster.And it was you gave them that ability in the first place.

Where's the "next" level? Indeed, what would the next level be, if and when it was to emerge?

I mean, congratulations on cutting a mess of superfluous verbiage - but what you have left is still Not Even Wrong

But here's a test.Take as many billions as you like of any molecules you choose. Mix them up under any set of conditions you like the look of. Show that some form of intelligence emerges. Remember, coacervation-type self-assembly is NOT, we are agreed, any sign of intelligence.

And since the properties of molecules under various conditions of concentration, temperature, pressure, pH and so on are reasonably predictable, someone of your skills could easily code up a simulation.

Hop to it! Fame awaits!

Date: 2013/02/12 14:14:26, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 12 2013,06:43)
I have a nice labeled line chart! It’s drawn out in .pdf format.

https://sites.google.com/site.......art.pdf

Only problem now is MS Word will not work with a .pdf and converting it to .eps did not work either so it’s in the theory as a .png image for now.

I uploaded the latest changes. Still can add some more to the text to help explain it, but the theory at least now has a new chart. Now just have the problem of getting a .pdf it into MS Word that only has the free trial features.

I don't think I've ever seen such a meaningless graph.

How are you measuring "foraging success"? What would have to happen for that measure to reach 90% of the maximum possible? What about 20%?

Somehow,I don't think mainstream evolution is in any danger from a "theory" whose progenitor thinks that graph adds anything but further obfuscation.

Date: 2013/02/16 10:26:06, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2013,05:00)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 16 2013,03:25)
It all depends upon the way that you think, and your thinking is neither clear nor objective, it is confused and contingent.

Before yoy dig yuorself still deeeper down in the bottomless pit, maybe you should try to redefine yourself.

Is it incoceivable that atoms, molcules and even bilogical cells can, and do - act on their own accord, because that's the way that it is - and not because the possess an both intelligence and the ability to predict the future?

What happened, did they just get together and decide 'now is the time to start an explosion', we're gonna show them?

Is it inconceivable that the time was ripe for a change - that race for survival had reached a stage where both the conditions for a change was abundantly available, and some cells experienced reproductive succes from banding together against the rest of them?

It is up to you to prove that that is not the case.

You seem to think that chemistry is intelligence. From the bottom up, the bonding of an H to 2O is an act of intelligence and is not just the consequence of the nature of particles and forces?

Is what we see really consistent with your 'theory'?  Wouldn't any chemical soup or goo posses intelligence enough to do much more than just sit there and let nature run it's course? Or do one goo particle say to the other: Brothers, "United we stand ..."? (And in due time Gary will tell the world about it!)

What is your personal definition of intelligence?

That is another "Evolution did it" answer. You did not explain anything at all about the molecular level details of the mechanism, or how fast it develops once started, because you have no model for that. Just have scientific sounding generalizations and speculations that you believe I have to disprove, that does not change the fact that I do have a working model. That's all I need to dust anything you think you have.

And my personal definition of intelligence is now book length. Don't want or need one sentence generalizations that don't really explain that either. What I need right now is to try averaging together program runs, to show what 4000 million years of intelligence looks like in a line chart.

Oh yeah? And where in your word salad have you even hinted at a molecular mechanism for one "level" of intelligence arising from another?

Nowhere, that's where.You haven't and you won't: you can't.

You just blindly assert that your primitive learning circuit models evolution.

It doesn't. Not even close. It can't.

I have a theory, Giggles. It is that your "theory" is meaningless and value-free.

I predict that it will never be taken up in any educational curriculum. Anywhere.

I further predict that its application (if it is ever applied) will lead to no new knowledge in the field. Ever

The test is simply time. I can wait.

Falsification of my theory would be simple and direct. That being so, it is a valid theory. Observations made so far support it.

Easily understood, it uses minimal resources to make its point. Learn from this.

Date: 2013/02/16 10:32:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 16 2013,10:24)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 16 2013,05:08)
You can do it whichever way you like, it is and always will be subjected to the rule of GIGO. How do you propose to get by that?

Don't you think it would be prudent to research the "I" part before trying to use whatever engine you chose to make "O" of it?

Wouldn't your "whatever we should call it" effort create the same output substituting "Intelligence" with "God" or "Magic"; would there be any difference?

Let us see you pass that test!

I'm not in the mood for playing religious games. All who need to believe that I'm talking religion, are just self-deluded, and talking trash...

I, for one, do not think that you are talking religion. But you might as well be - you have the same lack of detail, evidence, explanatory power, discriminatory power, mechanistic explication, and so on as every religion so far invented

Date: 2013/02/19 08:39:55, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 19 2013,08:05)
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 18 2013,23:28)
You do not write in a global style, whatever you think that means.  You are a terrible writer, Gary, in any language you want to go for.  You make up terms and have no context for them, leaving your audience in the dark.  Do you get that, Gary?  They aren't learning because you can't communicate, not because they're dim.

Writing is generally done for two purposes: to tell stories and to educate (there is overlap of these things).  Good writers do everything they can to tell the best story they can in the language they are choosing to write in.  There is no global style (this is just a made up Gary-cept).  Translators then communicate the story in the best possible way in another language; that's how things work in the real world.  Or a good writer will try to do everything he can to communicate as simply as he can the idea (say particle / wave duality) he is try to teach.  Get that, Gary?  Simplicity, either of idea or story is paramount.  This is not to say that the underlying ideas (Particle Physics or "Crime and Punishment") are simple, but that the manner of delivery is as accessible as possible.

As I've told you before, you need to acknowledge your deficiency in writing before you can hope to be taken seriously.

I write using "word-flow", which I was told is harder but has its advantages.

Maybe it's also for me a lone-ly life where no one understands you. But don't give up because the music do. Music do!Music do!

Giggles, there are NO advantages in the way you write - except, perhaps to electricity generators; for the cold fact is that at least 80% of the words in your overwrought drivel are superfluous to requirements.

Be that as it may, when are you going to tell us just how your graph of filling up memory locations and of "foraging success" in your skitter-critters relates to in increase in speciation such as apparently occurred in the "Cambrian Explosion"

Your critters neither gain intelligence, nor do they replicate (with or without variation and selection) or speciate. So what are you "modelling"?

Date: 2013/02/20 04:35:12, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 19 2013,09:06)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 19 2013,08:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 19 2013,08:05)
 
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 18 2013,23:28)
You do not write in a global style, whatever you think that means.  You are a terrible writer, Gary, in any language you want to go for.  You make up terms and have no context for them, leaving your audience in the dark.  Do you get that, Gary?  They aren't learning because you can't communicate, not because they're dim.

Writing is generally done for two purposes: to tell stories and to educate (there is overlap of these things).  Good writers do everything they can to tell the best story they can in the language they are choosing to write in.  There is no global style (this is just a made up Gary-cept).  Translators then communicate the story in the best possible way in another language; that's how things work in the real world.  Or a good writer will try to do everything he can to communicate as simply as he can the idea (say particle / wave duality) he is try to teach.  Get that, Gary?  Simplicity, either of idea or story is paramount.  This is not to say that the underlying ideas (Particle Physics or "Crime and Punishment") are simple, but that the manner of delivery is as accessible as possible.

As I've told you before, you need to acknowledge your deficiency in writing before you can hope to be taken seriously.

I write using "word-flow", which I was told is harder but has its advantages.

Maybe it's also for me a lone-ly life where no one understands you. But don't give up because the music do. Music do! Music do!

Giggles, there are NO advantages in the way you write - except, perhaps to electricity generators; for the cold fact is that at least 80% of the words in your overwrought drivel are superfluous to requirements.

Be that as it may, when are you going to tell us just how your graph of filling up memory locations and of "foraging success" in your skitter-critters relates to in increase in speciation such as apparently occurred in the "Cambrian Explosion"

Your critters neither gain intelligence, nor do they replicate (with or without variation and selection) or speciate. So what are you "modelling"?

David Heiserman and others who understand how the model works disagree with your inexperienced opinion that the critters are not intelligent. And I would have to be a fool to listen to you and others who have no interest in cognitive science. Science requires I study book(s) and other reading materials from respected authorities on this subject, not political activists who like to trash it because this area of science does not serve their political ambitions.

If an experimenter wants their model to replicate and possibly speciate then they can add that in. Your not being able to do so, does not change the fact that others do.

Giggles, your critters have no more intelligence at the end of a "run" than you gave them in the first place.

Prove me wrong.

And yet, in as much as one can understand anything from your junk text-tsunami, you claim that intelligence gives rise to more (and more complex) intelligence. You have not shown this, nor even attempted to show this

Furthermore, you cannot model the Cambrian Explosion without including replication and speciation - that's what the Cambrian Explosion was all about, you twit - an apparent "explosion" of new genera and species. Without replication and speciation, your "model" is completely meaningless.

Date: 2013/02/20 05:26:21, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 20 2013,04:51)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 20 2013,04:35)
Giggles, your critters have no more intelligence at the end of a "run" than you gave them in the first place.

Prove me wrong.

And yet, in as much as one can understand anything from your junk text-tsunami, you claim that intelligence gives rise to more (and more complex) intelligence. You have not shown this, nor even attempted to show this

Furthermore, you cannot model the Cambrian Explosion without including replication and speciation - that's what the Cambrian Explosion was all about, you twit - an apparent "explosion" of new genera and species. Without replication and speciation, your "model" is completely meaningless.

Then according to your definition of "intelligence" a newborn baby is equally intelligent as an adult genius. If that's your opinion, then that's fine by me.

I don't need to prove you wrong. The theory only has to cover the very basics of what makes a newborn baby (or anything else) intelligent, in the first place.

And I only have to provide what the computer model can (within limits of current computing technology) predict in regards to the Cambrian Explosion. Unreasonable demands, are another attempt to move the goalposts. I could do the same thing and demand Darwinian theory as easily predict the same curves or else you have no theory and must now throw it out of science.

Wrong, Giggles.

Your critters end up with no more intelligence than you programmed into them in the first place.
Oh, yes, you could say they have more "knowledge" - more memory locations are occupied - but that does not make them more intelligent. They can do no more than they ever could - maybe a little faster.

They cannot generalise from their experiences to respond to a new situation, as could Heiserman's "Gamma Robots". They have exhausted all possible experiences in their universe. There is no facility to give or test new situations.

You have modelled nothing except a very simple learning circuit. At the end of a run, the critter is not capable of taking any more different kinds of guess than it could at the beginning.

Most particularly, (and I repeat myself in the faint hope that you may actually take notice) you have NOT demonstrated or modelled or simulated your major claim - that "higher" levels of intelligence emerge from lower levels.

And yes, I would hold  that a newborn is every bit as intelligent as an adult - just has not yet gathered the experiences to to condition and enable the use of that intelligence

Knowledge is NOT intelligence, although intelligence is more useful the more knowledge it has to work on/with

Date: 2013/02/20 08:20:33, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (blipey @ Feb. 20 2013,07:49)
Alright! In the last page Gary has gotten somewhere. He's admitted that his bugs do not gain intelligence during a run. His model is thereby rendered useless.

To continue this promising progression, Gary, can you do the following two things:

1. Link to your excellent reviews
2. Link to David Heiserman's review of your work.

Plus, Giggles, if you would be so kind, we'd all be grovellingly grateful if you could lower yourself so far as to show unequivocally where you have demonstrated or simulated or modelled the key point of your life's work - the emergence of a "higher" (more complex, more capable) form or level of intelligence from a lower, simpler one.

You have not done this.
You cannot do this.
Demonstration of a memory filling up with data won't cut it. Your critters have no more capability and run end than they did at run start

Oh, yeah, and I still violently disagree with you that adults are more intelligent than children - and I think science agrees with me. It's one of your biggest mistakes, moving willy-nilly between the popular, casual, conversational notion of intelligence, and what scientists mean by intelligence.

And this is all about science, no?

Date: 2013/02/22 09:12:55, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles has slithered over to TR to drone on about "chromosomal speciation"; apparently because there is a thread about a gene that's near a fusion site.

Funnily enough, no-one there takes him seriously, either.

Date: 2013/02/22 09:39:41, Link
Author: damitall
For some reason, Giggles has a visceral hatred of the concept of selection, natural or otherwise.

That's why it's never, ever, included in his "theory" or "models"

Perhaps he thinks all extinctions are actually mass suicides. Who knows?

Date: 2013/02/22 14:45:38, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, why do you hate selection?

Date: 2013/02/22 17:34:09, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles.

What you don't seem to realise is that, on every forum and thread you've infested with your slobbery puppy-with-a-new-toy stuff, your readers have found it extremely easy to point out holes - that is to say, bottomless abysses and gaping chasms- in your garble.

Large parts are beyond the ken of mortal man, being apparently random collections of words. The readable parts are Not Even Wrong, but betray a profound lack of basic knowledge of that which you wish to supplant.
Now, lay off the solvents and the weed and the alcohol for a day or two.

Then ask yourself "Is anyone ever going to take the wibblings of an obsessive crank seriously"?

Answer yourself "No"

Forget it. Have a nice life. Earn a little extra money with all the spare time you'll have. Take your wife on a great vacation.

If you don't do these things, you'll be not just a crank, but a bitterly disappointed crank.

Date: 2013/02/27 03:10:36, Link
Author: damitall
Whenever I see a scriptural reference to a verse from Ecclesiastes with the abbreviation "Eccles", I cannot help but think of the character from the Goon Show (a British radio comedy show from the 50's)
Eccles was a very silly person with a very silly voice -highly suited for reading out "scripture"

Date: 2013/03/05 04:30:00, Link
Author: damitall
Surely, Giggles, the answer is to form an organisation - something on the lines of The Institute For Semantic Clarity Here In Science - and grants would just  flood in.

Game the system, Giggles, game the system.

Date: 2013/03/11 11:10:02, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 09 2013,19:53)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Mar. 09 2013,17:54)
A community of coders thinks you made a swell project and gave you a gold star.  Now answer honestly, Giggles: did they evaluate your 50 page "theory"?  Were they qualified to judge the science, or just the cute little bugs?

What they needed to know about "intelligent cause" was stated right in the description paragraph at the top of the page. It would have been hard to miss what the theory predicts in regards to said phenomenon.

The PSC community is far more qualified to gauge the usefulness of the model and theory than you and others in this thread are.

Even if that were true, not one of them has said that your model and/or "theory" are useful.

Not one.

And in what way will adding more data-streams from more "sensors" improve matters?
What new thing will be shown or demonstrated?

Date: 2013/03/11 16:30:19, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 11 2013,16:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 10 2013,03:23)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 10 2013,03:02)
I can be serious as well: What's new about it? What is the purpose of a new "computer model"?

The new version (possibly two lobe only) has taste/touch sensilla, simplified code, improved monitoring of program variables, much better overall performance, and almost twice as much documentation including new illustrations.

Its purpose is the same as before, to demonstrate self-learning/intelligence at the well enough understood (for a biologically representative model to be possible) multicellular level.

I also need to add:  As was earlier recommended I'm working towards making the code more modular. I will still occasionally use "Call" to subroutines but hope to eliminate a good number of them by making the Addressing form that can be shown on the screen the place where sensory variables are stored, and at the same time displayed.

It's now programmed for speed. VB is supposed to compile Long operations to be comparable to Visual C and others. In turbo mode it gets 30,000 time step cycles per second. Working from a screen form can slow the program down, so there is no knowing how fast it will go, but I have an idea that might simplify things some more.

Gigglespeak interpreted:

"I'm gonna keep trying to polish this turd"

Date: 2013/03/19 04:40:09, Link
Author: damitall
ID "movement"?

LOL

That's movement as in bowel movement.

Date: 2013/03/19 07:32:20, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 19 2013,06:23)
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 19 2013,04:40)
ID "movement"?

LOL

That's movement as in bowel movement.

If you closely examine the sentence then you'll find that it actually says "anti-ID movement".

And if the ID movement is a bowl movement then it's no surprise to me that the anti-ID movement is trying to attract it using crap-loving toilets like this one.

Q. If you dislike AtBC so very much, why do you post here?

A. Because it's one of the very, very few places where you get any attention at all.

There would be many a dry eye here if you buggered off.

And there is no need for an ANTI-ID movement. ID is the exclusive province of increasingly elderly males who cannot tolerate dissent.
As they die off, so will ID

All we need do is just to keep gently reminding folk that there is no reliable way of detecting Design in life, whilst the IDers bloviate themselves into oblivion.

Between them, Arrington and Mullings and a few others must have put an incredible number of people off ID by sheer weight of words delivered with the unique nastiness that is their hallmark.

That, and the censorship.

Date: 2013/03/19 08:31:03, Link
Author: damitall
I do hope you'll let us know when someone - anyone - takes your "theory" seriously.
Doesn't seem to have happened yet

Have you tried Doug Axe? He would, I think, call himself an ID scientist, and should be highly receptive. On the other hand, if he had constructive criticisms, perhaps you'd take them seriously.

Date: 2013/03/21 06:36:30, Link
Author: damitall
I'm a Brit. Therefore that's MY island.

I hereby decree that calling hypocritical internet bloviators on Monserrat by any name one chooses, but PARTICULARLY by their middle names, is henceforth required practice. Bydand!

I'll add that I simply do not believe that any ordinary decent  Monserrat citizen would give a shit whether or not they were called by their middle name. I further believe that one of the many benefits of the internet is that it allows hypocrites and liars wide self-exposure, and opens them to being called the names they deserve. If you don't want to be called names, don't be a twat on the internet. If you're going to tell lies, remember how easy it is to find out what you (or the person you're lying about) actually said before, and prepare to be called out on it. Do you want to be shown, Mullings, where you asserted that there was no censorship at UD? Because that is a most egregious lie, and that makes you a liar.
Lying is a sin. You have expressed no remorse.
You think you know what happens to the impenitent. Think on!

Date: 2013/03/21 08:00:04, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2013,07:45)
Quote (Woodbine @ Mar. 21 2013,07:03)
You really are mental aren't you Gary?

I mean properly fucking paranoid deluded tin-foil hat mental.

Speak for yourself, nutcase. I'm not among those (including the privately funded NCSE which long ago knew about this theory) who are still running around making defamatory claims while I go broke and hungry fighting your religious politics, while also struggling to put together one of the most multidisciplinary theories ever written, while trying to keep work at the tracksite going, etc..

This actually is a very major historic blunder which shows how useless the system and it's apologists actually are. But I must credit science teachers, a number of scientists, and others who were also able to see through the charade which was making it seem like science would stop on account of ID.

Who is the science stopper now?

Don't tell me, let me guess...

These scientists, science teachers and others "seeing through the charade" - they're terrified of revealing their support for your "theory" in case we send in the black helicopters, right?

That's why we'll never find out who they are!

Date: 2013/03/21 11:56:12, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 21 2013,09:26)
Let me get this straight. Millions and perhsps billions are being spent to suppress Gary's ideas, and yet the Fellows at DI have fat salaries., and Ken Ham gets wealthy with his freakshow museum?

And meanwhile has unlimited microphone time here with which to explain his ideas, but he chooses to spend his time ranting rather than explaining.

How's BioComplexity coming along, Gary?

Yeah, that creation "museum".

I believe I'm right in saying that AiG lost a little money on that in the last financial report. Let's hope the trend accelerates downward.

Mind you, Ken was handsomely paid and expensed, and the damn' "museum"  (or AiG at large) seems to employ most of his immediate family, but doesn't pay them all that well.

Date: 2013/03/25 05:10:47, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 24 2013,12:55)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 23 2013,17:43)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2013,15:58)
Maybe he should ask KF Gordon Elliot Mullings to judge? Of course he won't because cupcake knows he's in the wrong.

KF and Joe are thick as thieves. Joe is living what KF is dreaming of. Who knows what they are sharing in their PMs.

Joe's meltdown is now in its third day, he's at the point where KF is 'correcting' him by editing his posts, Too funny!

We can always hope that Joe will get so mad at being edited that he'll do something unforgivable even by the standards of the arch-hypocrites of UD, and get himself banned.

(OK, OK, my life is a landscape of dashed hopes and thwarted wishes, but there have been occasional episodes of hilarity...)

Date: 2013/03/28 05:59:12, Link
Author: damitall
It seems obvious to me that Giggles doesn't have the background, education, training, experience -or, to be frank, the intellect - needed to comprehend, let alone use, what Trehub, Heiserman, or indeed any other scientist actually publishes.
All he seems able to do is to cherry-pick bits and pieces that superficially look as if they might say something that fits in with Giggles' ideas.

They most often don't, of course - especially when taken in context of the whole piece of work.

Obduracy, ignorance, and hubris are a potent mix for failure. Inability to communicate comprehensibly simply lubricates the slide down into failure and obscurity.

Date: 2013/04/02 04:46:54, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 02 2013,01:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 01 2013,08:27)
I obviously have no issue with Gary citing Trehub. Gary can cite Trehub all he likes. What Gary can't do and pretend it is true is claim that he implemented a Trehub model in his PSC code. That has been revealed to be a lie. That Gary would leave an unretracted lie attached to his name does far more damage to him than any criticism I might make.

I have to say that using words I did not say to start a semantics argument where you end up parroting “lie, lie” is so childish I’m maybe best to not even attempt an adult level scientific discussion with you.

In my opinion you’re only helping to show how bizarre a mentality I’m actually up against in this forum. You resolve scientific issues with ridicule then act like I committed a crime against you while being so distortive it’s impossible to conduct a normal communication. A court would seriously have to wonder what your problem is.

At least you made it obvious that you have nothing scientific against the theory.

There is no "theory" in what you have constantly regurgitated, Giggles.

You keep burbling about "intelligent causation", but have failed, in hundreds, possibly thousands, of posts all over the internet, ever to demonstrate it, or how your "theory" shows it.

The fact that you endlessly wibble about how wrong "Darwinism" is, without understanding anything at all about modern evolutionary theory, just adds to the sadness.

Date: 2013/04/02 08:35:29, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 02 2013,07:44)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 02 2013,01:26)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 01 2013,08:27)
I obviously have no issue with Gary citing Trehub. Gary can cite Trehub all he likes. What Gary can't do and pretend it is true is claim that he implemented a Trehub model in his PSC code. That has been revealed to be a lie. That Gary would leave an unretracted lie attached to his name does far more damage to him than any criticism I might make.

I have to say that using words I did not say to start a semantics argument where you end up parroting “lie, lie” is so childish I’m maybe best to not even attempt an adult level scientific discussion with you.

In my opinion you’re only helping to show how bizarre a mentality I’m actually up against in this forum. You resolve scientific issues with ridicule then act like I committed a crime against you while being so distortive it’s impossible to conduct a normal communication. A court would seriously have to wonder what your problem is.

At least you made it obvious that you have nothing scientific against the theory.

Outrageously false and provocative statements... thanks for confirming the troll diagnosis. I certainly consider the source regarding statements, and I don't seek the validation of anti-science advocates.

Gary forgets what words he has left behind. No matter. Here is documentation of Gary's claims to be using Trehub models in his PSC code.

Gary acts as though he has been a completely reasonable interlocutor here, when he is documented to have carried on a campaign to broadcast a false claim of unethical behavior on my part, something he steadfastly refuses to retract. Gary has been utterly dismissive of my personal experience as an actual ad hominem argument. Yes, Gary, *you* made it personal. Acting as though you hadn't ... that's bizarre.

Anybody who isn't a troll reviewing the record here will notice that I have pointed out a number of errors in claims Gary has made, and that Gary has been exceedingly resistant to correcting much of anything.

As I have time, I'll be pointing out more errors by Gary. Gary can choose to ignore those corrections, too. That's what trolls do.

Why bother?

No-one, but no-one, takes any notice of what Giggles thinks of you (or anyone else, or anything at all)

He's irrelevant. His gobbledygook will never gain any traction at all. His opinions are worthless.

Date: 2013/04/02 10:01:52, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ April 02 2013,08:44)
LOL!  Gordon Elliott Mullings of Manjack Heights, Montserrat has a new OP up at UD whining about how all the meanies at TSZ are picking on him and demanding that Dr. Liddle censor her blog.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/for-record-i-object-a-tour-of-shame-concerning-well-poisoning-strawman-tactics-joined-to-d

enial-of-abuse-of-design-theory-proponents-at-tsz/]FOR RECORD: I object — a “tour of shame” concerning well-poisoning strawman tactics joined to denial of abuse of design theory proponents at TSZ[/URL]

Comments off of course

ETA:  Added whole URL because of the 'break' bug


>>>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/for-record-i-object-a-tour-of-shame-concerning-well-poisoning-strawman-tactics-joined-to-d


enial-of-abuse-of-design-theory-proponents-at-tsz/>>>

It's not often one sees so much manufactured outrage in a single post, even one from Gordon Eliot Mullings.

Did someone kick the nuke tripwire, or something?

And why the blue blazes is he complaining about"outing"?

Everyone knows for sure who kairosfocus is and what he thinks and says  - he himself has taken care of that.

Many times. Many, many times.

Date: 2013/04/02 15:53:24, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (didymos @ April 02 2013,13:23)
Quote (damitall @ April 02 2013,08:01)
And why the blue blazes is he complaining about"outing"?

Well, the fool thinks invoking his TRUE NAME somehow magically causes him to get more spam.  He also likes to vaguely hint that it exposes him and his family to reprisal by sinister materialist forces or whatever.  In short, he's a paranoid dipshit with the delusional notion that he's actually of some importance.  

Of course, the only reason anyone knows his name is because the braying jackass had it plastered all over his "always linked".  

Then there was his (now apparently retired) habit of signing all his posts with his initials...

So this Techno-Savvy Master of His Tiny Universe has never heard of spam filters?

Date: 2013/04/03 07:45:54, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, you do realise, don't you, that it doesn't matter at all how many different types of sensor you decorate your virtual bug with?

The only "intelligent causation" you'll see is YOU, you twit.

Nothing new will arise.

There are hundreds of thousands of people out there, Giggles, desperately looking for a viable alternative to what they think of as "Darwinism". (Many of them lean vaguely to ID, but dimly see that ID is thinly veiled creationism; and creationism holds no explanations for anything)

As desperate as they are,not one of them will give your crap a second read (even if they finish the first read, which is extremely unlikely given its essential incomprehensibility)

Date: 2013/04/04 16:29:15, Link
Author: damitall
Just a minute..."make sure we operate on a sound basis"?

Isn't that  what we've been recommending for a tard's age?
When are they going to start?

Stand back and look around you, Mullings. What was meant to be the communication centre of ID is but a small group of insecure, fearful, envious, verbosely dishonest, ignorant bullies; who know that their position is so weak that it has to be defended by outright censorship (imposed by a cabal the members of which would squeal like swine if ever anyone censored their pronouncements).

And you think you and your despicable crew can make a difference to anything? Dream on! Irrelevance personified.

Date: 2013/04/06 16:02:03, Link
Author: damitall
Time is precious.
Why waste it on a twat like Joe Galling?

Date: 2013/04/09 17:46:55, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles,until and unless your model can add new functions without being given them from outside, you have nothing that covers evolution.

Date: 2013/04/11 07:29:53, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 10 2013,00:26)
Quote (damitall @ April 09 2013,17:46)
Giggles,until and unless your model can add new functions without being given them from outside, you have nothing that covers evolution.

I have time to say: That is why in the way living things work there are multiple levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular) at work, at the same time.

Giggles, do you know what a non sequituris?

Never mind

The fact is that evolution changes that which evolves. Adds or removes functions, abilities, body parts.

Your model doesn't change. It just fills memory locations. It's just the same at the end as at the beginning, only with less spare memory. It can't do anything more than what you programmed it to be able to do n the first place.

How does that relate to living organisms and their development

Date: 2013/04/12 05:26:24, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 12 2013,05:00)
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 12 2013,08:57)
KF appears to be a (special) creationist:

   
Quote
The only empirically warranted forms of evolution are micro-, well within the limits of existing body plans. That is, I am pointing out that body plan origin is just as much of a challenge.


No wonder him and Joe are K-I-S-S-I-N-G.

(Those girls on Montserrat won't be able to compete with Joe.)

I've started wondering what KF's opinion re the age of the Earth might be. Does anyone remember KF committing himself to a ballpark figure?

IIRC, Gordon Eliot Mullings does on occasion allow himself to entertain notions as to the incorrectness of various dating methods.

I think he leans towards biblical literalism and YECism, but dare not commit, because he knows he would look as silly as Byers.

Date: 2013/04/12 05:36:22, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 12 2013,03:21)
Quote (Quack @ April 11 2013,07:55)
It occured to me the other say that snakes have done the right thing. They have evolved to become great survivors. Done away with legs and useless appendages, and are as comfortable in water as on dry land, and don't need much in the way of food.

And what an impressive method of locomotion!

That's evolution, and I am certain it is predicted by Gary's grand theory.

Changing the subject to snakes and “evolution” does not help explain how “intelligent cause” works. But knowing the certain features found in all common cognitive models is a prerequisite for understanding how the “intelligent” part works, which in turn very much helps explain how “intelligent cause” works, so I'll by working on that, not a red-herring.

Giggles, you ought to read the "Knocking Out Evolution" thread at The Skeptical Zone.

Complexes of fitness functions, plus replication with variation,  serve very well as your "intelligent causation"!

EVERYTHING you're apparently trying to do has been done before and better - on the one hand by robotics and AI researchers, and on the other by biologists.

On the evolutionary tree of science development, Giggles, you're out on a very slender twig which has already dropped off and is spiralling into the ground..

Date: 2013/04/15 05:27:07, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 15 2013,02:26)
Quote (Quack @ April 15 2013,01:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 14 2013,17:21)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ April 14 2013,09:16)
I think Gary would do well to hike over to UD,  where nightlight is expounding something like intelligence built into the fabric of the universe.

There are hazards,  of course. Nightlight disagreed with KF on something and is now complaining about being moderated.

Intelligence built into the fabric of the universe is a thousands of year old concept.  Any scientific leads yet?

It's one of those big-questions that inherently teases humanity towards science. I'm not worried about that debate going away, any time soon.

So the molecules store information and do data processing in the 'fabric of the universe' somewhere?

Since it is a thousand years old concept, it must be true and conform to your ideas, for your personal use?

All right, I get it. You assume there is free intelligence available everywhere both around and inside. Any atom or molecule taps into that intelligence and freely uses it for whatever purpose the molecule may have in mind. But that mind is of course not the molecule's own mind, it is tapping into the great universal mind. That's the mind you use when you are daydreaming your model.

But why don't we see mindful atoms everywhere, not just in biology?

ETA more text.

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such. Whatever system you're trying to describe, does not appear to be one of them.

No.
You are ineffectually messing about with your own weird misconceptions of what molecules can and cannot do.

Date: 2013/04/17 09:22:01, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (N.Wells @ April 17 2013,09:04)
[quote=Jim_Wynne,April 16 2013,09:49][/quote]
 
Quote
I must now poof it a mouth and antena. From the multicellular level into this environment that's as simple as drawing a circle and some lines.

Go back and re-read the brilliant comment that was made a while ago about modelling aeroplane flight with a program that provides angels to hold up the wings.  Then re-read, until you understand it.

 
Quote
That is not an excuse for bias which makes it seem you have a legitimate right to decide whether this is a scientific theory or not, when that has already been decided, by the way the science went. The title of the darn thing is the “Theory of Intelligent Design” ......

Gary, your calling your mess of assertions a theory doesn't make it a theory.  You might as well call it an elephant, because it has about as much to do with elephants.  

 
Quote
Science favors the ones who take it scientifically seriously then follow the evidence from where it leads ......

Physician, heal thyself.

 
Quote
Even though academia is good at teaching the science theory that has long been in the textbooks, a new paradigm is something that tends to come from the outside that upsets things a bit before becoming more of what gets routinely taught in academia, whereupon it becomes revered there. This theory is a renegade sort of thing. ........

New insight in time becomes a part of culture and this theory has a surprising amount of novel material for science changers to work with. It’s a constructive new way to explain who and what we are, that only needs a Planet Source Code to get started, not fancy science journal that has a way of complicating things into nothing ever getting done, towards eventually becoming a science-news sensation. It makes perfect science sense to have such a starting point, especially for students who have a talent for science and programming but not have anything for a major science journal yet.

.........

The scientific method that I use might seem low-level and primitive but when you understand what kind of scientist all this helps make you know why for science sake it has to be this way. I earlier let off some steam about not properly qualified to teach/explain this stuff. It is not good to turn science into a robed ceremony students are conditioned to be good students and wait until they are a well college educated adult to even get started. That is a dreadful thought, I remember well from when I was that age. I’m for rebellious born-to-be scientists who of course don’t want to wait either and need what is not yet revered in academia that they can right now experiment with, that from science helps shake things up a bit, to help get you moving again.

Gary, you are completely clueless and delusional about science.


You have a computer model for foraging behavior that relies where possible on learned behavioral responses that have been successful in the past.  This has absolutely no implications about intelligence in molecules, intelligence design, the emergence of intelligence, the Cambrian explosion, or the theory of evolution.  You are apparently seeing some mystical connections in your own mind, some sort of lovely-to-you intellectual edifice that is completely impervious to such things as evidence, criticism, and external reality.  You are viewing your flowchart as a self-evident answer to everything when in fact it is a completely opaque response that offers no explanation to anyone but you.  You are failing completely at communicating any of your ideas to anyone, because a) you are having considerable difficulty writing comprehensibly, b) your assertions and claims are at odds with the real world, so very little of what we think you are trying to say makes any sense to us, c) your "logic" seems to be completely lacking, d) you clearly do not understand biology and evolutionary theory very well, and e) you don't understand science and refuse to operate within a standard scientific framework, such as providing rigorous definitions, providing evidence that your proposed mechanisms exist, proposing testable & falsifiable hypotheses*, or even labeling your graphs.    (*Your earlier attempt at this was a miserable failure.)

Quite so.

On top of which, to Giggles scientists are priests of the wrong religion conducting mystical rites in holy labs.

He can't understand scientific rigour, so demonises it as "science-stopping"

Date: 2013/04/18 02:37:51, Link
Author: damitall
"...but trust me, it's true"

The one single phrase that is the surefire identifier of conmen throughout the universe

Date: 2013/04/18 06:28:33, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
Hi Nick

Yes please can we get a textbook on Macro-evolution’s facts!

I’ll make it easy for you;

1.) I want to see a step by step process of the evolution of the lung system.

2.) Step by step process of the evolution of the heart.

3.) Step by step process of the sexual reproductive system.

4.) When did survival of the fittest kick in? With the first single cell organism or later? How did they know that survival is key?

5.) How does natural selection select? If something is not in the search space how does it find stuff that is not there? Or has everything always been there?

6.) If Random mutations are 90% bad most of the time why are we here? is 1% good enough to go from a single cell to a complex organism such as a human? Is this scientifically possible?

7.) How did the feathers evolve?

8.) How did animals evolve from cold blooded to warm blooded?

Your most valuable scientific facts will be greatly appreciated.

Good Luck!

Andre


And at UD Andre asks brilliant questions!

I particularly like #4

Take that, evilushunists!

Date: 2013/04/22 06:26:35, Link
Author: damitall
I am much comforted by the fact that ID supporters seem to fall into 3 groups:

The spittle-flecked ranters and would-be bullies, like Arrington and Mullings; the terminally supercilious, like Torley, Murray, and Gregory, and the profoundly ignorant and rude like JoeG and Mung.

None of these is attractive to those they would wish to attract

Date: 2013/04/22 06:42:35, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Henry J @ April 21 2013,20:29)
Quote (Driver @ April 17 2013,01:54)
[...]
You really are floundering in the dark, aren't you? I don't know what words you think you read, but you certainly didn't reply relevantly to the words I wrote.
[...]

what else can he do from his current perch? It might be his sole option.

Those are terrible!

May the Piece of Cod, that passeth all understanding, be with you...

Date: 2013/04/26 10:07:31, Link
Author: damitall
OK, which of you guys is being funded to attack Giggles?

Where's my share?

Date: 2013/04/26 10:49:19, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
At this point in time I just want to be compensated for years of work already done, ending a serious conflict with the general public that academia was very well financed to create.


Compensated? Why? Who asked you to do this work? From whom do you expect compensation?

Date: 2013/04/27 07:43:17, Link
Author: damitall
And that's the guy Mr Gordon Elliott "Broughtupcy" Mullings is always cosying up to?

Date: 2013/04/27 07:55:19, Link
Author: damitall
Has it never occurred to you, Giggles, that if you had spent even SOME of the last 40 years getting an education and/or learning more skills, you might have a better job now?

You know, rather than trying to polish the turd that is your "theory"

So many ways to try to improve your life (and your wife's), but you've preferred to waste your time. Very sad.

Date: 2013/05/09 06:15:16, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 08 2013,15:30)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 08 2013,14:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 08 2013,06:07)
If you haven't seen it yet...

What I would say to a creationist if I was more of a dick

That put a smile on my face.

Dweeb moment:

He needs to add the difference between "run" and "ran" to his skill set.

Quote
I’ve ran out of legitimate responses

Ahem.

In a few parts of the English-speaking world, "I've ran out of legitimate responses" would be normal usage.

It's particularly common in Northern Ireland.

So there!

Date: 2013/05/10 05:22:57, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (The whole truth @ May 10 2013,03:24)
In the UD thread pointed out above, gordo spews out of one of the many sides of his face:



Let's take a look at some of joey's "modicum of civility" in that thread, and gordo's 'enforcement' of it:


Poor Lizzie, she still doesn’t understand that science requires positive evidence.


Look, Lizzie is clueless when it comes to science.


The TSZ ilk are just a clueless lot.


(no kairosfocus, she cannot account for anything, let alone the OoL. All she has are bald assertions, false accusations and plenty of promissory notes)


Only a dolt would say something like that. Earth to Lizzie- non-design mechanisms have been ruld out because they have been tried and failed to produce anything of note.


YOU tell us Lizzie- why is it so hard for YOU to step outside of your own paper bag and actually present some positive evidence for your tripe?


So it appears that blatant misrepresentation and lies are the best the TSZ have.


Total nonsense. We do NOT have to consider the second question in order to answer the first and Lizzie cannot make her case that shows otherwise.


The who comes AFTER we have determined design, Lizzie. Science cannot answer the who without first determining design, duh.


And then she reposts keths’ total nonsense about unguided evolution beong a better explanation than ID. Unfortunately keiths is an imbecile that couldn’t understand science if his life depended on it.


Earh to Lizzie


Do you really think that your bald assertions mean something?

------------------------

(joey) Mikey Elzinga wants to know:

(Mike) What do you get out of badgering Elizabeth?

(joey) We get to expose her (and the rest of the TSZ ilk) as the scientifically illiterate dolt that she is.

(Mike) Why is there so much hatred towards her on the part of the UD people?

(joey) She constantly misrepresents our position and claims and she constantly oversells unguided evolution. And she never supports any of her claims with actual evidence. She is nothing but a spewer of rhetoric.

-----------------------------

Poor widdle Mikey Elzinga thinks that because we say Lizzie misrepresents our arguments and is incapable of honestly reprsenting them, means that we hate her.

Mikey knows quite a bit about hate as it is obvious that he is driven by his hatred of Morris, Gish and other dead & living creationsists and IDists.

And all widdle Mikey can do is falsely accuse us of not understanding science yet he too fails to provide examples of how it is supposed to be done properly.

-------------------------

(joey) Lizzie is just deluded:

(EL) Joe G is obviously {EL, snip!] that he got banned here…

(joey) So my getting banned is the reason why you misrepresent Intelligent Design? THAT is what [Joe, snip], Lizzie. THAT and the fact you constantly overstate your position and never provide anything to substantiate your claims. All of that [snip], Lizzie. And all of that is the reason for my link that caused you to have a hissy fit.

(joey) Then an obtuse [snip] chimes in:

(Someone at TSZ) If their position is being misrepresented then all it takes is KF, once, to come over here and set the record straight.

(joey) We have set the record straight. It isn’t our fault that you and your ilk are hopeless losers.

(joey) And it is very noticeable and telling that they still don’t lead by example. And that is something else that [snip], Lizzie. You and your ilk run your mouths but never ante up.

----------------------

(joey) Unfortunately OM doesn’t seem to be capable of being clear.

-------------------

(joey) OM responds:

(OM) Well, apart from anything else (such as the link above) we’ve never seen any evidence of it being intelligently guided.

(joey) The link above has been refuted and you haven’t given any indication that you know how to evaluate evidence.

(OM) But int he meanwhile you said something about Newton and unneeded entities? Well, that. So the possibility remains open, but we have an explanation we’re happy with thanks.

(joey) LoL! Your “explanation” is untestable and tehrefor not scientific.

(OM) So it’s not been determined that evolution is unguided.

(joey) Obvioulsy it has otherwise there wouldn’t be any issues with ID.

(joey) And again OM provides absolutely nothing to support anything it posted.

(joey) BTW what negative do you think I am intent on proving? Asking you for POSITIVE evidence for your position is not asking to prove a negative. Only a moron would think so and here you are.

(joey) So there you have it, they have nothing but bald assertions and false accusations and are apparently proud of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Notice that there are a few snips by gordo but also notice what he left. At no point did gordo lecture joey via the loud speaker in the ceiling, or order joey out of the thread that gordo 'owns', or jump all over joey with a massive, fire and brimstone tirade (or several of them) like he would if someone other than an IDiot-creationist would have said what joey said.

And there's plenty of other incivility from other UD IDiots, and especially gordo with his usual hitler/nazi/fascism, etc., accusations against anyone who doesn't worship his bloviating, sanctimonious ass. He even tossed in mussolini this time.

I'm really pleased to see KF's latest rants and hypocrisies. If there was anyone in doubt as to the true nature of UD and its more prominent denizens, they can now see that it is simply a soap-box for would-be demagogues and religious maniacs, and some really stupid and unpleasant  hangers-on like Byers and porn-posting potty-mouth Joe

Date: 2013/05/14 05:33:16, Link
Author: damitall
It seems Giggles' writings are a reasonably accurate reflection of his thinking processes - disconnected to the point of being dysfunctional.

I think he has no idea what he has written, said, or done, from one day to the next, and relies on that  completely uncontrolled 40-page stream-of-consciousness waffle to reboot his brain

Giggles has coded a very simple and limited learning circuit. Such things have been coded many times before, and much better.

Filling up memory locations does not, and cannot, model any form of intelligence. Giggles is light-years away from demonstrating "intelligent causation" of anything; and just as far away from producing code that would enable anyone else to do so.

Shame. He could have had a Life

Date: 2013/05/15 06:04:53, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Febble @ May 15 2013,05:35)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 15 2013,05:33)
I would be interested in seeing what Elizabeth Liddle thinks about whether gordo and/or joey can be accurately labeled as psychotic and/or psychopathic.

I don't think any one can label anyone with a psychiatric diagnosis on the basis of what they write on the internet.


So, no.

It's probably true that one shouldn't do that.

However, I would hold that long history of repetition of a particular type and content of internet activity, blatant dishonesty, and failure to engage constructively with reasonable critics allows one, in the case of these two gentlemen, accurately to label them as Rather Unpleasant People.

In British vernacular, arseholes

Date: 2013/05/16 05:32:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Driver @ May 16 2013,04:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 16 2013,09:31)
I'm often around science educators and sometimes they visit here. Can honestly say, by the busload.

When was the most recent bus, how many were on it, and what did the visit consist of? Did you give a guided tour of your laboratory? A scientific lecture? Did you give selected readings from your VB code? Perhaps you showed them your many award.

Oh, they don't go specifically to sit at Giggles' feet - they go to look at/study the dinosaur tracks on his property

The "Gaulin Tracksite". It's way more interesting than any amount of amateurish VB code or incoherent pseudo-theorising

Date: 2013/05/16 12:17:53, Link
Author: damitall
KF is now ranting about "progressivist" anti-Christian bias in education (another huge URL that makes you tired just reading it)

DonaldM asks questions of us.

Quote
1. How do you know scientifically (and I emphasize “scientifically” here because I want to make it clear that theological, metaphysical or philosophical opinions – while important for other reasons – have no bearing on the question at hand) that the properties of the Cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in natural systems can not be actual design, even in principle?

2. How do you know scientifically that Nature (or the Cosmos) is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect? (Recall Dawkins claim that a universe superintended by a Deity would look much different than ours as he says in The God Delusion several times)

3. How do you know scientifically that the properties of biological systems are such that any apparent design we observe in them can not be actual design, even in principle? (The Blind Watchmaker and Dawkins’s claim that “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance [emphasis mine] of having been designed for a purpose.”)

4. How do you know scientifically that no supernatural being, if such actually existed, could ever take any action within nature itself that would produce observable phenomenon or effect any change in the arrangement of matter or energy anywhere in the Cosmos?


I guess the answer to each one is "Scientifically, we don't know. Just as soon as you've worked out a way to investigate these things scientifically, let us know. In the meantime, absent any evidence for supernatural designers, we'll carry on with something useful, thanks."

Date: 2013/05/20 05:07:35, Link
Author: damitall
Odd that Mullings seems now reduced to posting about office furniture

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/sociologist-unself-conscious-bigotry-against-christianity-hampers-considering-evidence-for

-id/] here[/URL]

Date: 2013/05/20 15:35:11, Link
Author: damitall
Joe's Set Theory:


Quote
At 10:25 AM,  Joe G said…

I say just can cardinality wrt infinite sets. The main reason is they cannot be measured. And if you have two things that cannot be measured then you cannot tell if they are the same size of not.

That said, if you look at a venn diagram of the two sets {0,1,2,3,...} and {1,2,3,4,...}- like we have with a subset comparison, then one could easily see that the two sets are not the same size- except there would be a sideways/ horizontal parabola as opposed to circles.

You would still have one parabola starting at one point and the other starting at another point.


Also do you think that the cardinality of the set of all whole numbers (positive and negative) is the same as as the set for only positive? That doesn't make any sense as obvioulsy one set is twice as big as the other. I believe that is what Cantor was saying when he said some infinite cardinalities are greater than others.

But anyway, look at the alleged hotel paradox- an infinite number of rooms with an infinite number of people. Then allegedly another person comes to check in- but we already have all the people in the hotel rooms! Meaning it is just made up nonsense.


Yes, Joe - let's just can things you can't understand

Date: 2013/05/21 03:32:26, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Ptaylor @ May 20 2013,23:59)
Wow - BS77 finally shows some insight into the world of science and who/what constitutes a reputable source:
 
Quote
kick, stomp, cry, and scream if they wish, yet science proceeds it its slow yet unrelenting pace:

Molecular Machines and the Problematic RNA World – Casey Luskin May 20, 2013
...

har har - just joking!
UD link

You actually read a BatShit post?

Why?

Date: 2013/05/22 04:48:42, Link
Author: damitall
Hey, Giggles!

Just for fun (and it's a damn sght more interesting than your critters) have a look at this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news....1956795

Date: 2013/05/23 16:56:45, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Zachriel @ May 23 2013,14:48)
Has anyone noticed that the tard of late has had a certain bitter taste?

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-of-tsz

Perhaps it's been let to steep for too long.

Since Febble et al murdered CSI and its family of bogus design metrics, Mullings needs to be seen to be justifying his elevated position at Uncommon Descent Inc

Date: 2013/05/25 16:48:23, Link
Author: damitall
Over at UD Forjah asks a straight question

Quote
ForJahMay 24, 2013 at 11:10 pm
http://evolscientist.com/RapidEv....ion.pdf

This article seems to show that New Genetic functionality or novelty can come about by natural processes. Here is a natural process that created new information (defined as a specified complex pattern). Doesn’t this falsify ID now?


Mullings immediately waffles round it

Quote

kairosfocusMay 25, 2013 at 2:44 am
FJ: Quick note, a speculative reconstruction of the imagined past evolutionary history of fruit flies, presented as if it were an indisputable fact. Just think, can you construct a program successfully by blindly cutting and pasting from other programs? Not likely; not least, internal references and the combined logic won’t work. In this case, recall, the first problem is that AAs all along a chain need to interact in subtle ways to fold tot he right shape to function. Not likely to happen by cut and paste accident. And that is before we look at the problem that if you mis-frame a gene, 3 of 64 codes are STOP, so it is very unlikely that a random join leading to a new framing would not create a quick stop. Can we compose new programs by cutting and pasting from other program, maybe with some key little mods? All the time. Intelligence makes the difference and the reason why all the various blind mechanisms are presented as thought hey could do what common sense tells us they cannot, is because they have a priori locked out that which we all know is the best explanation for coded software, intelligence. KF


No, Mullings. If a natural process creates, and inserts into the genome, new specified complex information, ID is falsified.
There is nothing speculative about the mechanism described in the linked paper.

I do so hope that the law regarding same-sex marriage extends to Montserrat. Apoplectic Mullings is hilarious!

Date: 2013/05/31 04:01:43, Link
Author: damitall
I guess the only reason Giggles keeps coming here is to feed his persecution complex.

Would the time not be better spent promulgating his "theory" to the eager masses?

So far, AFAIK, the only places it has been mentioned are various, rather specialist, internet fora where participants are counted in the dozens rather than in the thousands and millions, and where it has invariably been panned.

There's a whole world of mass communications out there, Giggles. Surely some of it is anti-establishment (or loony) enough to give you wider exposure? Who have you tried?

Date: 2013/05/31 08:37:20, Link
Author: damitall
Scientists test theories daily. If it's an "established" theory, it's already been very extensively tested, and passed those tests.

On the other hand you, Giggles, seem incapable of formulating any meaningful test for our OWN "theory" let alone any other.

Date: 2013/05/31 09:11:26, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2013,09:01)
Quote (damitall @ May 31 2013,08:37)
Scientists test theories daily. If it's an "established" theory, it's already been very extensively tested, and passed those tests.

On the other hand you, Giggles, seem incapable of formulating any meaningful test for our OWN "theory" let alone any other.

You're at least good at backpedaling.

And see my reply at the top of this page. Where in the model that is explained in the theory are some form of If..Then.. questions/statements absolutely required or else it doesn't work? Anyone?

You're rubbish at knowing the meaning of the word "established". How do you think theories become established?

Not that it'll ever be a problem for your- er - output.

Date: 2013/06/04 06:18:51, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ June 03 2013,13:15)
Quote
As earlier explained this theory is for finding the cognitive starting point of hypotheses, which software wise reduces down to an If..Then.. parser for Visual Basic 6.0 to accept user entered statements. For the model it’s then using the If..Then.. conditional part to produce guesses that get tested and where it does not work (are false) other things are tested which in time leads to worded guesses that “Velociraptor did not write” with the best chance of holding true, as a lesson learned, from testing a hypothesis that started off a guess that is somewhat abstractly created from sensory information about orbit of planets mixing with thoughts of Dinosaur Train in the resulting guess where writing in cursive might be true, or soon will be just to help make such an excellent example of a hypothesis that at first might not look like one but the theory helps make sense of why that is most likely true. But do not know for sure until it’s tested, in the program, that I should have some time for later.


I sure hope this clears it all up for everyone.  :p

Yep - a clear demonstration of the effect of psychoactive chemicals.

Or  lack of psychoactive medication.

Date: 2013/06/05 03:23:04, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.

Possibly, but the cowards mostly dare not venture outside of the pit at UD, so the open-minded, intelligent folk at TSZ are short of targets.

Date: 2013/06/05 03:44:18, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,03:30)
Quote (damitall @ June 05 2013,03:23)
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 05 2013,02:31)
TSZ is a place for cowards to beat up open-minded, intelligent people.

Possibly, but the cowards mostly dare not venture outside of the pit at UD, so the open-minded, intelligent folk at TSZ are short of targets.

No, the cowards are at TSZ.

Oh,  don't be ridiculous!

The only reason the good and kindly folk at TSZ are not pissing all over the stupidities at UD is because we're all banned there for being rational.

It's what religions do best - censor all opposition.

And to call people like Gordon E Mullings and Barry the Bully Arrington "open-minded" is just an egregious denial of observed reality

Date: 2013/06/06 14:11:38, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 06 2013,10:33)
I don't often go to UD, but when I do I need to drink a lot of Dos Equis.  A lot of Dos Equis.

I started to read the Cordova "platonic forms" thread thinking he was just jacking around, then it became clear he was jacking off.  (It was so pornographic I had to whip myself as punishment while looking at a photo of Louis in a leopard-print mankini.)

Then the comments started flowing and it was Pure 100% Grade A TARD!  Tardles all the way down.

Good old WD400 had the temerity to bring up Tiktaalik as an example of a fish-o-pod and was promptly smacked down by unclassified footprints, totally missing the point, of course.

Then Joe showed up, ya see, and that thread is so blindingly stupid that even a professional snarkmeister like myself would have a daunting task writing such a thing as a Poe!

But this is the state of ID in 2013.  Mental patients, a bunch of old, has beens and a gerbil.  (Note to self:  movie plot - old guys take road trip with hamster.  hi-larry-ity ensues.)

Whatever's got into KF in that thread?

Not a comment above a few dozen words (excluding C&P material). No Plato, Alcibiades, Lewontin.Has he taken anti-logorrhoea pills? - or is he suffering some crisis keeping him from his keyboard?

Date: 2013/06/06 15:53:44, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Freddie @ June 06 2013,15:40)
Quote (damitall @ June 06 2013,14:11)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ June 06 2013,10:33)
I don't often go to UD, but when I do I need to drink a lot of Dos Equis.  A lot of Dos Equis.

I started to read the Cordova "platonic forms" thread thinking he was just jacking around, then it became clear he was jacking off.  (It was so pornographic I had to whip myself as punishment while looking at a photo of Louis in a leopard-print mankini.)

Then the comments started flowing and it was Pure 100% Grade A TARD!  Tardles all the way down.

Good old WD400 had the temerity to bring up Tiktaalik as an example of a fish-o-pod and was promptly smacked down by unclassified footprints, totally missing the point, of course.

Then Joe showed up, ya see, and that thread is so blindingly stupid that even a professional snarkmeister like myself would have a daunting task writing such a thing as a Poe!

But this is the state of ID in 2013.  Mental patients, a bunch of old, has beens and a gerbil.  (Note to self:  movie plot - old guys take road trip with hamster.  hi-larry-ity ensues.)

Whatever's got into KF in that thread?

Not a comment above a few dozen words (excluding C&P material). No Plato, Alcibiades, Lewontin.Has he taken anti-logorrhoea pills? - or is he suffering some crisis keeping him from his keyboard?

I believe I have seen several comments from him this past day (not that I go there much nowadays, nosiree, not me!)  to the effect that he has not much time at the moment due to other pressing matters (or somesuch).  Almost certainly there is a constitutional crisis brewing, or there was a plane crash on another island to keep him occupied, or Mr. Leathers desperately needs oiling... whatever.

Oh. I was rather hoping that he was nursing a snit because scordova recently said (at TSZ, I believe) that he didn't understand KF's posts and no longer read them.

But it could be that he's aching for someone to ask what's taking up his valuable time.

Be resolutely incurious, UDites!

Date: 2013/06/07 04:05:01, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 07 2013,03:47)
Gary, you said somebody was murdered.  Who was it?  You are going to substantiate what you said, right?

I mean it's not like you just made that up.

Right?

When Giggles say "literally", he literally doesn't mean literally, you know.

What he does actually mean is, as with the rest of his writing, beyond our ken.

What I think he should do now, what with his educational experience and all, is to construct a lesson plan based on his - er - his - um - whatever it is he's doing, and present it to one of the many ID-friendly school boards you seem to have over there in the ex-colonies.

He shouldn't forget to record the ensuing vigorous discussion and put it up on YouTube

Date: 2013/06/09 08:24:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2013,06:51)
They sure work hard to make me appear to be scientifically ignorant. From what I can now see the attempt to make it appear that I was wrong for using the exact same phrasing as scientists use in their papers backfired on them, and at this point their arguments are just so incredibly nuts it's best I don't even bother trying respond to such incredible insults. Must focus on the program, that will need another day to finish.

But Giggles, you ARE scientifically ignorant.

You just make stuff up, without any evidence, to "support" whatever it is you think you're saying; and you have only a hazy idea of what half the words mean.

Then, when it's obvious even to you that your key bletherings are meaningless, you abandon them (e.g."molecular intelligence") without bothering to replace them. So your "theory", already full of holes, becomes even more insubstantial and disconnected.
Blimey, you even have to shoehorn in your cabbage extract and egg yolk mixture even though you admit that the whole thing has nothing to do with intelligence.

Date: 2013/06/10 04:12:47, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,03:19)
Quote (Driver @ June 10 2013,03:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,08:14)
You only want to sidestep science so you can instead play politics that includes making pompous claims that it’s not a theory when it certainly is.

In all other cases (especially when it’s a paper written by someone in this forum) it’s easy to say “that’s the best theory we got” but a theory that takes the wind out of your lofty religious crusade is not even acknowledged as a theory.

1) If you have a theory, how does it explain

- common descent
- transitional forms
- the evidence for the fusion of human chromosome 2
- ring species

?

2) How are we to know your theory is a better model than the theory of evolution?

The ONLY thing that matters to a theory that was premised to explain "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" is how well it explains INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

The burden is therefore on YOU to better explain how INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE works.

So you tell me what YOUR theory explains about INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

"INTELLIGENT CAUSE" of what?

Date: 2013/06/10 05:03:50, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,04:37)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ June 10 2013,04:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,04:19)
     
Quote (Driver @ June 10 2013,03:02)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 10 2013,08:14)
You only want to sidestep science so you can instead play politics that includes making pompous claims that it’s not a theory when it certainly is.

In all other cases (especially when it’s a paper written by someone in this forum) it’s easy to say “that’s the best theory we got” but a theory that takes the wind out of your lofty religious crusade is not even acknowledged as a theory.

1) If you have a theory, how does it explain

- common descent
- transitional forms
- the evidence for the fusion of human chromosome 2
- ring species

?

2) How are we to know your theory is a better model than the theory of evolution?

The ONLY thing that matters to a theory that was premised to explain "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" is how well it explains INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

The burden is therefore on YOU to better explain how INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE works.

So you tell me what YOUR theory explains about INTELLIGENCE and INTELLIGENT CAUSE.

Sorry, your "theory" can be shit all by itself, without any need for anyone to provide an alternative in order to be justified in pointing that out.

All claims are shit, unless and until they have been supported in their own right.  You do nothing to support yours except post the same irrelevant flow chart dozens of times, link to crap youtube videos, and complain about science-stoppers.  Which isn't support, it's white noise.

Your "theory" is shit.  It isn't ever going to be anything else.  Your insistence to the contrary is delusional and narcissistic, and nobody anywhere thinks otherwise strongly enough to type a single sentence in support of you, your non-theory, your silly bug program, or your persistent fantasies of relevance and importance in areas you demonstrably know little about.

You'd be far better off focusing on supporting yourself better financially (so you can afford a car for instance) and seeking help with your mental health issues.

So says another anti-social cyber-bully destroying science and science education, as well as people's lives, while trying to make it appear that the opposite is true.

I can't quite see how Driver or Occam's Toothbrush are destroying anyone's life.

Or science education, for that matter.

Date: 2013/06/10 16:41:42, Link
Author: damitall
But Giggles, you won't actually discuss anything.
We ask questions, many questions, that you resolutely refuse to answer.

For instance, you say your "theory" is concerned with "Intelligent Causation"

Intelligent Causation of what?, we ask.

But you can't answer. (Actually, I suspect you daren't answer)

If YOU can't tell us about a key point of your theory, sure as heck no-one else can

Date: 2013/06/11 07:07:04, Link
Author: damitall
What's really, truly, weird is that these cycles, whatever they're called and whichever direction they run in HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE.

Or "intelligent Causation", whatever that is

If Giggles goes so totally apeshit whenever someone points out a flaw (and in this case a flaw so easily fixed)in his output, it's no wonder he's wasted, what was it, FORTY YEARS! - on something that will never see the light of day.

Date: 2013/06/11 10:40:45, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2013,07:50)
Quote (damitall @ June 11 2013,07:07)
What's really, truly, weird is that these cycles, whatever they're called and whichever direction they run in HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE.

Or "intelligent Causation", whatever that is

If Giggles goes so totally apeshit whenever someone points out a flaw (and in this case a flaw so easily fixed)in his output, it's no wonder he's wasted, what was it, FORTY YEARS! - on something that will never see the light of day.

If metabolic cycles "HAVE NOTHING WHATEVER TO DO WITH INTELLIGENCE" then show me your scientific evidence (not personal opinion) that the following from theory is incoherent, and this time try to pay attention to details that you normally miss.

 
Quote
Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained by a “replication cycle” that keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:
[ ]

Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system. With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

In some bacteria and later in time plants, molecular intelligence systems could likely control the Reverse Krebs Cycle (also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), Reverse Szent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse/Reductive Citric Acid Cycle). This cycle is the center of cellular metabolism, consuming carbon dioxide while providing energy and molecular intermediates that are used to build amino acids and other vital biomolecules needed to sustain its growth.


 
A dozen or so catalytic molecules (not shown) form an assembly line which makes an increasing complex molecule from the molecule it started with. Upon completion of the cycle the molecule breaks in half resulting in an additional molecule required for biosynthesis, while the other half is what it started with, which can then go through the cycle all over again. At any stage through the assembly cycle one of the various molecules may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby biosynthesis reaction. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle can be catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once a part of common planetary chemistry.    Other clay/minerals are useful for the self-assembly of protocells.

Animals cannot produce their own food and must instead consume plants and their liberated oxygen to run the cycle in the opposite direction to gain food and energy by disassembling what was previously assembled. There is here a balance between the producers (plants) and consumers (animals) which together maintain a relatively constant oxygen level in the atmosphere.

Additional molecular systems which exploit these metabolic cycles could emerge in environments where the cycle already exists as an uncontrolled reaction. If true then we can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that metabolically produces all that is needed to produce a living genome from scratch, instead of a nonliving/nonfunctional genome first needing to establish this metabolic cycle. Where the energy to power the cycle is from sunlight, the system would have already been light sensitive, the first step toward a more complex sense of vision.

Self-assembly and disassembly of cellular organelles is also easily controlled by molecular intelligence. For example, before division of complex cells the nuclear membrane must automatically self-disassemble to allow access to the chromosomes so they can be pulled by spindle fibers to opposite sides. After division of the chromosomes, internal environmental conditions change causing a nuclear membrane to automatically reassemble around each of the two sets so there are then two nuclei inside the cell. With there then being essentially two cells inside one, the outer cell membrane has two nuclei to self-assemble around which causes them to separate so each can go their separate ways.

Coacervates can resemble living cells, and can appear intelligent, but they only demonstrate uncontrolled (non-intelligent) propulsion. They are not even protointelligence (where it is then at least almost intelligent). When molecularly controlled by a “cell” these forces can power spinning flagella motors and other forms of locomotion, but coacervates meet the first requirement only. We can say that coacervates are a twitching body with no brain/intelligence to control it.

Microscopic coacervates  can be made by adding red-cabbage pH indicator solution with egg yolk that provides membrane forming phospholipid molecules that form vesicles around other components of yolk. Indicator solution is made by slowly adding fresh leaves from a grocery store red-cabbage to around 1/3 pan (around twice the volume of whole head before pulling each leave) of boiling water that should just cover after leaves soften down and lose coloration. Use large basket strainer to remove liquid (can follow with finer mesh as from plastic fabric or stainless steel coffee maker basket), refrigerate. Remaining solids will eventually settle to bottom. For more pure supernatant you can later pour clear liquid into another container, or centrifuge.

REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY
.....

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

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS
.....

footnotes for requirement 1:

 X.V. Zhang, S.P. Ellery, C.M. Friend, H.D. Holland, F.M. Michel, M.A.A. Schoonen, and S.T. Martin, "Photodriven Reduction and Oxidation Reactions on Colloidal Semiconductor Particles: Implications for Prebiotic Synthesis," Journal of Photochemistry and Photobiology A: Chemistry, 2006, 185, 301-311.
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....007.pdf
 Xiang V. Zhang and, Scot T. Martin, “Driving Parts of Krebs Cycle in Reverse through Mineral Photochemistry”, Journal of the American Chemical Society 2006 128 (50), 16032-16033
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....006.pdf
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin....03k.pdf
http://www.seas.harvard.edu/environ....emistry
 Jack W. Szostak, Clays May Have Aided Formation of Primordial Cells, Howard Hughes Med. Inst.
http://www.hhmi.org/news.......k3.html
 G. Gaulin, low resoulution and frames for second video made with camcorder behind average quality microscope.
Please email link of better video to .... who will gladly replace what is in this footnote with yours.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GYo-Syc

I have never before seen such massively comprehensive ignorance of science in general and biology in particular.

Arbitrarily redefining life as "molecular intelligence" kills your "theory" stone dead, Giggles - or rather, administers the coup de grace to the feebly-twitching corpse.

Ask yourself some more questions

What do you suppose controls the rate of each reaction in the cycles you're talking about?

If you can answer that correctly, it's faintly possible that even you will see that you're just spouting made-up nonsense about even your own version of "intelligence" and its "requirements"

Date: 2013/06/12 02:59:45, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 12 2013,00:18)
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 11 2013,23:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 11 2013,23:42)
 
Quote (Henry J @ June 11 2013,23:33)
If I wanted to see a model of how intelligence works, I'd look up material written by people who've actually done actual work in the field of cognitive science.

Yes, me too, that's why responsible educators cannot take your opinion seriously.

Do they vouch for you and your work, Gary?

I have an excellent reputation with educators. And I work hard to keep it that way. In fact, that's why I'm now in this forum.

I think he means that a teacher once said something positive about his primitive cabbage- juice and egg-yolk "coacervation" demonstration.

Since Giggles admits that this has nothing to do with intelligence, he might want to reflect on why that is absolutely the only bit of his "theory" that anyone has ever been positive about.

Date: 2013/06/12 03:06:33, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (stevestory @ June 11 2013,14:31)
Okay, I had a post about a great exchange on UD, but after 4 edits the board software was still fucking it all up so just go here if you want to see a really stupid post from O'Leary and some really funny and caustic responses.

"Optimus" puts it mildly...

Quote

Optimus June 10, 2013 at 6:18 pm
The significance of Darwin’s social position is lost on me. How does his income or social bracket have any relevance to the rightness or wrongness of his ideas? IMO this is not helpful. Sorry to say, but between this and the piece about E.O. Wilson, I have found some of the ‘News’ posts to be disappointing of late.

Date: 2013/06/12 07:32:02, Link
Author: damitall
It might be a cruel thought, but if Giggles loses everything, and "we" don't lose anything, then I rather think that makes Giggles the useless one...

It's not as if he hasn't had plenty of advice. His FIRST priority these past decades, surely, should have been to keep home and family secure; not to waste time prodding at his keyboard writing incomprehensible walls of text and pointless computer code.

Date: 2013/06/14 02:48:43, Link
Author: damitall
I'm uncertain at this stage whether RDFish is, in KF's mind,  a nihilistic dark triad Alinskyite, or simply a spade.

Or both.

Or neither, but a pretzel-twister.

Or all of the above.

Why can't the silly man make himself clear even on such a simple matter?

Date: 2013/06/14 03:18:32, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles drivels:

Quote
Things now lead to coacervates that were once also a big issue from being oversold like trying to picture their being almost intelligent life just because they move around like cells. It's not that coacervates are new to education, it's that red cabbage indicator worked wonders with egg yolk too, and that is in the fridge not something they have to get from a lab chemical supplier to make happen, and I'm not exactly sure how it works so there is work to be done there that doesn't get overly complex as a challenge to be the first to figure out explain to all of us.


No-one with an education EVER claimed that phospholipid vesicles, liposomes, coacervates, or anything like them were anywhere near being even almost intelligent.
No-one with an education EVER claimed they moved around under their own steam. Brownian motion, Giggles, we can all recognise it.
And, guess what - quite a lot is known about anthocyanins, and about pH indicators in general, and why they change colour, and why some of them are stains and dyes, too.

And frankly, anyone who gets to be a science teacher without knowing about lipid bilayers and how to demonstrate them shouldn't be a teacher at all.

You're not just behind the curve, Giggles - you've dropped off the bottom of the graph

Date: 2013/06/17 06:17:31, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (timothya @ June 17 2013,06:07)
Yes. Comments on UD posts during June, so far.

Explanatory hypotheses so far:

1. Identity of poster
2. Subject of post

Other hypotheses that have occurred to me:

3. Clustering - commenting activity on a post prompts more activity on following posts
4. Bjornagain comments represent automatic responses and should be discarded as random noise (possibly also true of other UD choir-singers)
5. Some activity correlates with choir-related subjects
6. Some activity correlates with the presence of challengers (RDFish, for example).
7. Is there a conspiracy to demonstrate the UD dead cat bounce by challengers refusing to engage?

BatShit77 often contributes serial comments, that are really continuations of the first instalment. What happens to the numbers if each of these BatShit series is treated as a single comment(and/or if Mullings' serial F/N contributions the same)

Date: 2013/06/20 04:40:36, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles - pointing out the flaws in your work IS helping. Anyone with the sort of influence you need you present it to will see the same flaws, and will require them to be repaired before endorsing it.

It's hardly our fault if you refuse the help.

Date: 2013/06/25 12:49:47, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (CeilingCat @ June 25 2013,12:20)
William J Murray has a post that's odd even for him:  
Quote
The stolen concept fallacy is a form of self-refutation.

From Wikipedia: Stolen Concept – the act of using a concept while ignoring, contradicting or denying the validity of the concepts on which it logically and genetically depends.

In an ongoing, multi-thread sub-debate at The Skeptical Zone, I have been making the case that when materialists argue, they necessarily employ stolen concepts, such as those referred to by the following terms and more: “I”, “we”, “prove”, “evidence”, “reason”, “logic”, “determine”, “conclude”, “error”, “fact”, “objective”, “subjective”, etc.

He goes on to explain that paragraph to his satisfaction.  The tards shower him with praise.
Link

I've no doubt he BELIEVES he has made a case.

But he says he believes exactly what he wants to believe, regardless of evidence.

So UD is his natural home.

Date: 2013/06/27 08:51:57, Link
Author: damitall
Or politics -often the same thing as bullshit

Date: 2013/06/27 16:22:08, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (eigenstate @ June 27 2013,14:33)
Lizzie's [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/philosophy/even-supposing-id-is-not-science-it-does-not-automatically-mean-it-is-religion-philosophy-

or-metaphysics/#comment-459739]recent response[/URL] to KF is worth noting in passing:


Quote
And this: “cultural watershed direct attack on core sexual identity, family and marriage” is, in my view, complete rubbish. That doesn’t matter – you are entitled to express it. But you shouldn’t be surprised if the response is disgust and anger. There is no “cultural direct direct attack on core sexual identity”. What there is, thank goodness, is increasing understanding and tolerance of the biological fact that possession a Y chromosome does not determine whom you will, or should, love, and which gender you will, or should, identify with. As a result we now recognise that while most people’s gender identity is congruent with their chromosomal sex, gender identity results from a complex cascade of in utero hormones, and may not. Similarly, while most people are attracted to the opposite gender, some people’s sexual orientation is towards the same gender. Again, in utero hormones seem to be important. But whatever the biological determinants, there is no evidence whatsoever that tolerance of gay and transgender people is any threat whatsover to the heteronormal community, and sadly rather too much evidence that the reverse is still in operation. That’s why people get angry when they read views like yours, however principled. It is a principle based on no good evidence at all.


The whole thing is worth reading.

I did, and it certainly was! - if only to remind us of the pompous, pearl-clutching, professional umbrage-taking ass Mullings is.

Thankfully, he has no influence whatsoever - not even, it seems, amongst the other UDites.

Date: 2013/06/28 07:47:00, Link
Author: damitall
Now Mullings has produced a major rant, going from probabilities related to coin-tossing, through Buchenwald, to slavery.

Mad.

[URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/of-coin-tosses-expectation-materialistic-question-begging-and-forfeit-of-credibility-by-ma

terialists/]Link[/URL]

Date: 2013/06/28 08:07:22, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Febble @ June 28 2013,07:51)
I'm not seeing any defenders.

No, but the loudspeaker in the ceiling is operating full blast!

It's hilarious!

I blame you, of course, Febble. You tried to treat the man fairly and decently, offering peace, and it's obviously pushed him over the edge.

It'll be interesting to see what defence or support he gets from his own side.

Date: 2013/06/29 06:01:30, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 28 2013,20:06)
The censors are now trying to get a federal law to "Ban" in the science classroom, the scientific theory that I have been explaining. The freshly posted details are at none other than Panda's Thumb:

 
Quote
Finally, here’s a petition at the White House to Ban Creationism and Intelligent Design in the science classroom as federal law. As my cousin wrote me offline, there’s a fat chance such a law will ever pass, but if the petition gets 100,000 signatures, Obama will have to publically address the request.It’s about a third of the way there, but the July 15th deadline looms. If you’re so inclined, add your voice to the petition here


Instead of the scientifically talented working on the most awesome K-12 level robots and virtual critters ever developed (not that I can take all the credit my job is just to make it K-12 simple theory) the students get to sit and rot in a dreadful science classrooms, where federal law encourages evolutionary creationists to help bully classmates who actually have a more scientifically useful understanding of emergence of self-learning systems but their (like me) seeing no scientific point in banning a Theory of Intelligent Design makes them a target for ridicule like I have to endure in this forum.

If the "scientific community" cannot solve a scientific problem like this using science then shame on all of you, not me. I'm making progress towards making "Intelligent Design" a scientific non-issue, while the ones who should have been helping dole out abuse because that has always been the tactic for making the issue gone. It's an insane situation, but that's the way the politics go so here I am stuck in the middle of it.

I know it's silly to be serious ITT, but...

Giggles, your whole schtick seems to me to be that intelligence designs itself, with increasing complexity through time - sort of internal intelligent design. NOT that there is an external supernatural designer, which is what ID advocates, and is at root a religious position.

Therefore, if your theory was in any way coherent (which it isn't, of course, but still...) it would not be banned.
As it is, whatever the law may say, it will simply (continue to) be ignored, because no-one can make head or tail of it, or extract any biological or educational value from it.

Date: 2013/07/01 02:46:36, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Driver @ July 01 2013,02:05)
Awww, Gordon has an acolyte. How cute.

Quote
materialist/atheistic book-burning, intimidation-tactic, Alinskyite anti-theistic thugs wearing lab coats


link



WJM: Pauses for audience applause. Not a sausage.

Yes, well...

WJM continues to insist that he believes just what he wants to believe, with no regard to evidence for or against that belief.

That's possibly interesting from a psychopathological point of view, but it doesn't dispose anyone to take his own views seriously.

Not, I suppose, that anyone does. Me, I just think him the most self-centred person I've ever come across.

Date: 2013/07/01 12:00:23, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,11:35)
And as a matter of fact, what these (anti)religious fanatics are getting away with in the public schools is illegal.

So start a lawsuit, then. I'm sure you'll find plenty of backers in your attempt to stop whatever it is you're drivelling about. Nobody wants illegalities in schools, now do they?

Date: 2013/07/01 15:56:28, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,15:35)
Quote (NoName @ July 01 2013,15:29)
But Gary, you have no science.
That's all it takes to stop you -- you have no science.

But to elaborate, you fail to defend what you do have, your writing style is incoherent, your thought processes likewise.
Your only defense of your presence is to be offensive to those who attempt to grapple with your "theory" and its implications.
Note well that the primary implication is that your own behavior is not covered by your "theory", which ought to be more than enough to disqualify it for consideration.
Lack of explanatory power is a fatal flaw to a proposed theory, especially when the lack lies at the very heart.

Guess better, Gary.  That's what your theory says you should be doing, yet you repeat the same schtick on every web site you infest.

Do you have a better scientific explanation for the phenomenon that goes by the name of "intelligent cause" yes or no?

Intelligent cause OF WHAT?

You've never said.

Date: 2013/07/01 16:38:13, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,16:09)
Quote (damitall @ July 01 2013,15:56)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,15:35)
 
Quote (NoName @ July 01 2013,15:29)
But Gary, you have no science.
That's all it takes to stop you -- you have no science.

But to elaborate, you fail to defend what you do have, your writing style is incoherent, your thought processes likewise.
Your only defense of your presence is to be offensive to those who attempt to grapple with your "theory" and its implications.
Note well that the primary implication is that your own behavior is not covered by your "theory", which ought to be more than enough to disqualify it for consideration.
Lack of explanatory power is a fatal flaw to a proposed theory, especially when the lack lies at the very heart.

Guess better, Gary.  That's what your theory says you should be doing, yet you repeat the same schtick on every web site you infest.

Do you have a better scientific explanation for the phenomenon that goes by the name of "intelligent cause" yes or no?

Intelligent cause OF WHAT?

You've never said.

That's for you to explain, but of course the intelligent cause of humans must be addressed or else your theory has no explanatory power where it most matters therefore the real judges with full legal right to decide will not have much use for it.

That, Giggles, is utterly retarded. Why is it for me to explain what YOUR "theory" is about?

YOUR theory, YOUR model, and you can explain neither what "intelligent cause" actually is, nor what is "intelligently caused"

You thus admit that your "theory" explains nothing, and is useless

Date: 2013/07/02 01:56:52, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,15:35)
Quote (NoName @ July 01 2013,15:29)
But Gary, you have no science.
That's all it takes to stop you -- you have no science.

But to elaborate, you fail to defend what you do have, your writing style is incoherent, your thought processes likewise.
Your only defense of your presence is to be offensive to those who attempt to grapple with your "theory" and its implications.
Note well that the primary implication is that your own behavior is not covered by your "theory", which ought to be more than enough to disqualify it for consideration.
Lack of explanatory power is a fatal flaw to a proposed theory, especially when the lack lies at the very heart.

Guess better, Gary.  That's what your theory says you should be doing, yet you repeat the same schtick on every web site you infest.

Do you have a better scientific explanation for the phenomenon that goes by the name of "intelligent cause" yes or no?

Of course, if you're talking about a "cause" for life itself, then there is no evidence (no, not even in your bletherings) of any "intelligent cause".

You're done here,Giggles. All you're going to get is repeated criticism and questioning, because there's nothing else to say.

If it's so all-fired wonderful, take it to the K12 educators!

Date: 2013/07/02 06:23:53, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2013,03:12)
Quote (damitall @ July 02 2013,01:56)
Of course, if you're talking about a "cause" for life itself, then there is no evidence (no, not even in your bletherings) of any "intelligent cause".

I'm also all set on what "life" is. From footnotes in theory:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life

And supernatural operational definitions for "intelligent cause" that are a necessary part of your scientific method, do not exist in real-science, therefore you're on your own with them.

You must be  mistaking me for someone else. I've never proposed a supernatural cause for anything, ever.

When ARE you going to release your "theory" upon the waiting world?

Date: 2013/07/03 18:12:12, Link
Author: damitall
Quote
G. Gaulin, low resoulution and frames for second video made with camcorder behind average quality microscope.
Please email link of better video to GarySGaulin@gmail.com who will gladly replace what is in this footnote with yours.
[busted url]


That video is a MESS, Giggles. Totally uninformative.

Pro tip 1. Get a decent microscope
Pro tip 2. Make serial 10-fold dilutions of your emulsion, and choose one that shows clearly separated droplets

Big Hint. If that's egg yolk you're using, then you're likely seeing a lipid-in-water emulsion (which is what egg-yolk IS)- not watery droplets surrounded by a lipid membrane which is what cells are.

It's untrue to claim your method would result in a self-assembling lipid membrane. You would need to show a water-in-lipid-in-water "double emulsion" at the very least.
I can tell you how to do this, but like you, I think people should be paid for their time advancing education. What are you offering?



Date: 2013/07/03 18:15:03, Link
Author: damitall
Oh, crap. I don't know how I managed to fuck that up.

Too tired

Date: 2013/07/04 01:49:08, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ July 03 2013,18:41)
MODS....Damitall broke the forum, Damitall broke the forum!!!!!


My apologies, but look on it as a test.
We don't want complacent mods, now do we!

Date: 2013/07/04 06:39:29, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2013,04:36)
Woodbine, thanks for the nice list of useless insults that around here passes as a critique.

I especially like the "Get your creationist ass off this forum."

After seeing something like that a reasonable person is able to understand what's going on, in this forum. Wesley never presented a model that reduces down a cognitive system to its essential parts (as I did using Arnold Trehub's illustration of a human brain as a guide) as would be expected from a real cognitive science expert who knew what they were talking about.

I rather think cognitive science has moved a few light-years beyond "inputs are processed, producing outputs that may be compared with previous experience to generate actions"

Your problem is showing that that happens IN LIFE at any level below multicellular organisms with arrays of neurons.

You haven't done that, so your claims of "molecular intelligence", and "cellular intelligence" FAIL, bringing down your whole "theory"

Date: 2013/07/21 04:37:15, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ July 21 2013,03:01)
Every time I read WJM blab on about how he 'chooses' to believe whatever he likes I die a little inside. Volitional belief is just as nonsensical as volitional digestion, or volitional liver function. But at the risk of going off on a rant I'll leave it be...

Thank goodness! - I thought it was just me that thought he's a prat, so many people seem to take him so seriously

Date: 2013/08/15 03:14:47, Link
Author: damitall
Byers is a sad sack, exuding ineffectual hatred for anything not white, christian and male

Date: 2013/08/21 13:33:15, Link
Author: damitall
I don't suppose any UK "Darwinist" gives a flying fuck. It's well understood that these things change, that Charlie had had his turn, and that, anyway, the notes will continue in circulation for some time yet.

Date: 2013/10/18 11:59:27, Link
Author: damitall
Looks like UD is now just a vehicle for Batshit's sermonic linkorrhoea and the vapidities of "News"

Death throes?

Date: 2013/11/12 12:21:32, Link
Author: damitall
One thing's for sure - the ideas of Darwin  precipitated a shit-load of highly productive science, and have withstood the test of time.

Giggles' "ideas" ? - not so much (and never will)

Date: 2013/11/14 09:15:55, Link
Author: damitall
If it is true that controls were not run at the same time as the assays themselves, (same instrument, settings, reagents...) then the results of those assays are, quite simply, invalid.

And I have run clinical labs!

Date: 2013/11/18 16:32:37, Link
Author: damitall
And there's one of your big problems - there IS no evidence that your "theory" works for anything at  all.
You can't do anything more with it, and no-one has picked it up to work or expand on it.

Date: 2013/11/19 03:08:54, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2013,22:50)
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 18 2013,16:32)
And there's one of your big problems - there IS no evidence that your "theory" works for anything at  all.
You can't do anything more with it, and no-one has picked it up to work or expand on it.

And now Damitall the Knowitall is here to show how well their superpower scientific method works for seeing what everyone in the entire world is doing, every second of the day.

Giggles, 40+ years you've been polishing this turd, and in all that time NOT ONE PERSON has taken it up and done anything with it.

Why is that, Giggles?

Date: 2013/11/28 11:10:43, Link
Author: damitall
Giggles, your "theory" burbles on about levels of intelligence arising from "lower" levels: Molecular to cellular, and so on.

Is your latest VB uberwerk meant to relate to the "theory" in any way? I'm struggling to find a connection - all you seem to have is a gussied-up learning circuit and some truly awful graphics

Date: 2013/12/03 05:08:49, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 03 2013,09:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 02 2013,19:45)
 
Quote
This forum is basically for mocking and ridiculing “creationists” and you know it. It's therefore the ideal place for showing that this theory actually does work against that, while improving the theory text and code, but serious work is for a place like Planet Source Code.

Science journals are for lab papers, not for getting code published online in a community of science minded programmers for that language. Thinking that the Theory of Intelligent Design has to first be published in a major journal is an unrealistic expectation from an academia that assumed such a thing would have to come from a biology lab, which led to not planning for the possibility it would become needed in software for explaining the basics of how intelligence and intelligent cause/causation works.

This is the right place for discussing “controversy” related issues, and how things get stated in the theory that gets etched it in stone at PSC. It's important that this theory has an online 24/7 peer-review system connecting directly to the anti-ID movement so that none can say it or I ever “ran away from scientists” in this case the opposite is true.

Yes, this place is for making fun of creationists and IDists.  We've been telling you that.  Regardless, you have succeeded only in making your stuff look completely ridiculous.

As we've also told you, there are scientific journals that specialize in publishing programs and papers about programs.  It's not that hard to publish code in those journals (as long as the code does something useful and/or interesting).  

"Serious outlets" for scientific programming does not necessarily include Planet Source Code, which is a place for code that varies from significant to fun. (Recent submissions include a Monopoly game and some classic games, as well as a serious a Markov Chain program.)

I'm pretty sure that no legitimate scientists in academia ever assumed that a theory of intelligent design would come from a biology lab.  Also, as we have said, journals can and often do publish papers from people not in academia.  In some areas in my field, this is more the rule than the exception.

With respect to "explaining the basics of how intelligence and intelligent cause/causation works", you still haven't actually explained anything: you've made a bunch of garbled assertions, but those don't constitute explanations.  Also, your stuff falls short of being a theory on multiple criteria.

Lastly, this forum does not constitute formal peer review, and so yes, you are avoiding peer-review.

Excellent timing!

I had science journals on my mind. I often do. But you can say that in my field (how-to community and like self-assembly demo K-12 classroom projects) it's hard to ask for better than PSC that has had an intelligence model there since before I even got into writing the Theory of Intelligent Design. Back then I was like you and saw it as not being a real scientific theory.

I'm very much like a fish out of the water, in the field you're in where you would likewise be a fish out of the water needing to publish a lab paper at PSC. But I now have the much more refined Lab3 online, and am rushing a Lab4 with one-place avoidance shock-zones to test whether the (already improved but not online yet) hippocampi actually work or not. If they do then I will need to describe it for Andre and others who will only want a page of info and a few charts & graphs. If the hippocampi don't work then they will be made gone from IDLab4 and I will have something else to highlight, that is good enough for linking to it at PSC from an online journal. I can't afford the publishing fees, but where kept short and not a lot of disk-space should not mind helping out. Your opinion?

In more than just biology I'm totally outside of how big-science academia publishes/reads. Where I'm at it's a whole other realm where there is already good science code from others and another EA or what is found in a science journal would be a yawn to the community, not a winning idea. I cannot ask for better from peers, from where it's for, and believe me if the "intelligent cause" was not something that programmers thought was programmable it would have been trashed real good at PSC.

As it turns out, the model and theory is doing great in its proper niche and no science journal in the world can ever change that. The disconnect with the rest of what influences science seems to make it only a matter of time before another epic When Worlds Collide moment occurs, from not knowing or caring what else is around on the internet these days. I would love to publish something in a science journal, but that does not help me like it would someone like you. And it's not my fault that academia has no interest in scientific theory that's already in use, where it most influences science, from the how-to community on-up. My being stuck in the middle like this is the symptom of a problem that has to do with limitations of science journals for keeping readers informed on all that goes on in science. A whole other world where science comes from is being ignored, by the big-science way of doing things via lab papers/articles. And in this case scientists are with me on a free place to quickly upload systems biology related code is helpful, therefore all now there working hard to make it a welcoming place for others in the scientific community are for-real pioneering code-intensive areas of science especially systems biology.

Science has no problem including work at PSC in references. Citation readers should have no problem including in stats. I'm again very much in-bounds of science, expecting something that is scientifically fair to expect, with the problem being that giving that much credit to all scientific work is unheard of, to you.

References cite other papers and books but something from the how-to community is left out, like it's not allowed. With science becoming evermore code-intensive not adapting to its needs is a very unscientific thing to do.

I am with good reason steadfast in my expecting change that makes science more inclusive. And I just gave some ideas that make it real easy to make happen, so I'm not asking for anything that's hard or impractical. Might even just happen, now that I put the ideas in suggestion boxes of citation manager writers, by this-way explaining your dilemma that for-real has you on the wrong side of science right now.

Three things, Giggles

1. It may be confidently asserted that there is no place on this planet where the quivering heap of tortured English you call a "theory" is "doing great". No-one has a use for it. It is useless.

2. Whatever it is you're doing, it is NOT science

3. You keep blethering on about "intelligent cause". There is NOTHING in your VB code that demonstrates it. Nothing

Date: 2013/12/16 13:02:20, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 16 2013,18:30)
LULZ (Slimey Sal):

Quote
Thanks for pointing that out Barry. So, for once, Nick is right and I’m wrong


because you've got this great history of being right, Sal...

I think slimeysal is actually quoting "Box" replying to Bully

Date: 2013/12/24 06:58:51, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Quack @ Dec. 24 2013,08:45)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Dec. 23 2013,14:12)
Shitstain Sal spills the beans on his motivations for being such an ass at TSZ:

               
Quote
I was grateful for the opportunity to get free peer review of some of the teaching materials I’m developing.

Though most of my exchanges with critics are a waste of time, the rounds at TSZ were actually quite fruitful.

I do not view the protracted internet discussions as persuading anyone.

Making good teaching materials for students that want to learn ID is what is important for me. These materials when delivered in person can have more influence than any debate I have on the net.


SS has realized there's still a lot of money to be made by fleecing the rank-and-file IDiots and he wants a piece of that pie!  Being a professional IDCreation pusher sure beats making an honest living.   :p


Yes, we wouldn't expect anything but professional teaching persuasive indoctrination from a professional like Sal.

Delivering in person, preferaby in a church, has great persuasive power that should not be under-estimated. There are lots of examples of how anything no matter how false can be persuasively delivered in person with great success.

Order of the Solar Temple, The Branch Davidians, Heavens Gate, Manson Family and not to forget L. Ron Hubbard demonstrating the power of personal delivery, or the Moonies.
I see a great future for Sal, reaching a cult status even surpassing that of the Dr. Dr. Dr. without even hiding incompetence under an academic cloak like Dembski’s.

I hope to see the finished presentation on Youtube.

The cults you mention all had charismatic leaders.

Cordova is many things - charismatic is NOT one of them

I guess he's angling for a job with the Disco Tute - the Attack Gerbil's protective slime layer, perhaps

Date: 2014/01/09 07:12:28, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 09 2014,12:33)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 09 2014,10:49)
Here's some forums Gaulin's slimy touch has reached:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/New-Con....13.html

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....20.html

This only scratches the surface. It would be easier to list the forums Gary hasn't joined, innocently requesting 'informal peer review'.

Obviously, Giggles is "peerless". No-one can do what he does like he does it.

And he never likes it when he gets the reviews he asks for.

But no, he stands alone, the only person in the world advancing science

Date: 2014/01/13 06:00:17, Link
Author: damitall
If I was to get an unsolicited Gaulinesque email containing a hyperlink, I most certainly wouldn't go there!

Date: 2014/02/06 08:34:23, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2014,09:34)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 05 2014,21:31)
but being jealous that other people have found a way to support themselves won't make your life better.

Sure, all I have to do is get one of the 6 figure taxpayer funded jobs at one of the money-pits responsible for my fixed rate mortgage rate having gone up around $1000 a year, while private sector wages have been going down, just as fast.

I have nothing against struggling public schools, scientists who in the same boat I'm in, or teachers who are worth what they are paid. The problem is economic devastation of entire communities, caused by institutions full of preachers (not teachers) who need billion dollar luxuries meant to improve our lives (but only help destroy it) I am FORCED to pay for, or get thrown in prison for tax evasion. After even more working poor families end up on the street we get to pay even more to help the "transient" students who are more concerned with survival, then get to pay for the additional damage which includes possibly being killed by what they end up doing to survive.

If Texas Teach worked in the private sector then they would be out of a job within a year, because of not being able to deliver on promises made to their customers.

No Giggles.
What you should have done was to take the trouble to learn some skills to render yourself employable with a decent wage.

My eldest son had a most undistinguished academic record, but earns (i.e. works very hard for) the equivalent of ~80K of your US dollars a year wrangling IT systems.

But then, he didn't waste time fooling himself he could do things he couldn't and that no-one was interested in, concentrating on doing those things he could do and learning skills people would pay for.

Date: 2014/02/07 05:15:34, Link
Author: damitall
OK, which one of you is "Mapou"?

Whoever it is, congratulations. I've never seen such an expert and finely judged parody. Long may he continue

Date: 2014/02/10 07:35:34, Link
Author: damitall
Hey, Giggles!

Here's both Google and Dyson splurging good money (NOT public money!) on robotic intelligence, especially vision.

Why don't you offer them your insights, eh? You could be King of the Lab!

Date: 2014/02/26 02:38:57, Link
Author: damitall
Looks like you've had a bad couple of days, Giggles.

Self-inflicted injuries are often the most painful

Date: 2014/03/08 11:42:12, Link
Author: damitall
That thread of KF's seems to be a mutual jerk-off between him and "JGuy", reinforcing one another's paranoia.

Mullings has set his self-importance control to MaxPlus

Date: 2014/03/18 10:06:37, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 18 2014,01:36)
Look we already made it to Planet Source Code and with a 5 globe landing!

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1



It was like they saw the launch then brought us in real fast with the warp stream.

And easy to read main code for non-VB programmers who only need that to figure out how it works landed here:

http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/2014.......or.html

That rush is thankfully over, so now it's back to the rush to get the IDLab4 ready to go!

Yeah, 1 reader from 169 viewers, who gave it 5 globes less than 2 hours after it was online.

Do you think that's enough time to give a reasoned opinion on such an important (in your view - only yours, Giggles) bit of coding?

Date: 2014/03/19 04:13:42, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 19 2014,05:13)
What's wrong with us here?  "Captain Picard" says he's impressed by Gary's program, so Gary no doubt considers that proof that he and his program have the full backing of the entire United Federation of Planets*.  What more evidence of widespread acceptance could we possibly desire??????

*At least, that would not be any less rational or any less well supported than his claims of significant scientific support for his supposed "theory".



 
Quote
There have been times when I thought that our continuing engagement with Gary was coming perilously close to the behavior of 16th century Brits, visiting Bedlam to poke and laugh at the insane.
 That's uncomfortably true.  However, when he starts misrepresenting evolutionary theory and basic biology and insists that people take seriously his wrong-headed claims about natural selection, scientific practice, and the scientific establishment, then he's asking for a fight.

I reckon anyone online calling him/herself "Captain Picard" is either 14 yo or has the mindset of a 14 year-old.

Date: 2014/03/20 14:35:26, Link
Author: damitall
I see you've found a fellow fantasist/whinger at kurzweilai.net in CNOT.

Date: 2014/03/27 11:20:13, Link
Author: damitall
Quote (Learned Hand @ Mar. 27 2014,17:06)
Now you're just ducking the issue.

There's a joke in there somewhere about the bill, but I can't be bothered to think of it.

 

 

 

=====