To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Id Scores! Science Trashes Opposition's Books!
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > General Sci-Tech Discussions > Creation / Evolution

Gary Gaulin
(The following is a message to the people of Dover, from messages to educators and creationists of Kansas, from messages to clergy, scientists and others)

Although I hate to stir things up too much with the following information, I had to let you know what has been going on in science that has completely changed everything everywhere and must make sure that all understand that I am NOT talking about "Of Pandas And People" type arguments against another theory that caused so much trouble in Dover this is science itself having changed in a way that turned the tables, for good. Because of there being only one way things really work the movement is still heading towards a Theory Of Intelligent Design that I keep a few steps ahead of which was an earlier topic of discussion in this forum. So to explain the kind of ID I am describing, after much more scientist level input the theory has greatly improved with the Introduction explaining "intelligent cause" like this:

QUOTE
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause where from nonrandom behavior of matter comes a progression of self-assembling emergent behaviors where at the molecular, cellular and multicellular levels each is an increasingly complex fully autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us. Computer models of this common intelligence system that is present at each level shows its mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements; Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle), sensory addressable memory to store motor actions in response, feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken, and a guess mechanism that tries a new action either a "good guess" as in crossover exchange recombination and conserved domains being tried in new combinations or a "random guess" as in replication errors that can from-scratch design the small conserved domains that are the nuts and bolts and motors of complex molecular machinery.

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in memory in the population (gene pool) to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

It is this progression of intelligent causality from nonrandom subatomic behavior in matter that makes possible the complexity of cells, speciation, Cambrian Explosion and all existing biodiversity. Without this intelligent cause, living things that we now see could not exist.


Now that you know I am describing a very coherent teachable theory (to also account for the Cambrian Explosion and more) here is what happened in "science" that has completely changed everything:

I was recently working on a computer model of the human eye and retina then someone mentioned an ID website that was better than most so I decided to see what might be helpful in their section on the eye. Then what my model was missing to explain how an inverted retina could even function (Muller Cells) was right there in front of me on the screen! Not only that but the author also did an excellent job of totally destroying Richard Dawkins argument about inverted retinas being a bad design:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

And it's here Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences level research! There is no way anyone here can argue this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8287.short

There is no doubt that the claim about inverted retinas being a faulty design is now in the dustbin of history as just more of the usual pseudoscience that MUST be thrown out of all schools. But please recycle the old books now no longer fit to mention so that ones that contain "real science" can be made from them.

Also, astonishing as it may seem (to some) I discovered that CRSQ beat other publishers to a paper that science needed but was not there. For my work I went from having no luck at all finding a detailed explanation of all this that was holding me up, to a dozen pages with something that can be relatively easily computer modeled with my being sure it is correct. I was previously collecting things from hundred+ and counting sources (very good but not what the paper does) with some information at http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/ an attempt to put all that they described together on my own. This paper provided all the angular and density numbers and such that are required by a program and other details you might not see the value of without being someone who needed it to pioneer further into science. I was planning at least months more of searching or might never find because of it being scattered all over and (what has become) bad information mixed in. I am here able to be a fair judge of the scientific merit of the paper by what kind of computer models I and others will now be able to program knowing their theory pertaining to retina design capabilities.

The authors did push the use of the "design" word to its limits, but still never once went out of bounds of science anywhere. There is of course nothing in the Conclusion that becomes a program variable or algorithm so the scientific content is entirely above that. But it sure made a great place to push the limits all the way to extreme and did a great job. When you look at word choice and sentence construction of the last paragraph of the Conclusion it's like they turned all of the energy from their rivals into this like spectacular fireworks grand-finale that leaves no doubt they put on a supernova show to remember (even though not necessary), just to light up the sky too...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause where from nonrandom behavior of matter comes a progression of self-assembling emergent behaviors where at the molecular, cellular and multicellular levels each is an increasingly complex fully autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us. Computer models of this common intelligence system that is present at each level shows its mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements; Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle), sensory addressable memory to store motor actions in response, feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken, and a guess mechanism that tries a new action either a "good guess" as in crossover exchange recombination and conserved domains being tried in new combinations or a "random guess" as in replication errors that can from-scratch design the small conserved domains that are the nuts and bolts and motors of complex molecular machinery.

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in memory in the population (gene pool) to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

It is this progression of intelligent causality from nonrandom subatomic behavior in matter that makes possible the complexity of cells, speciation, Cambrian Explosion and all existing biodiversity. Without this intelligent cause, living things that we now see could not exist.


Now that you know I am describing a very coherent teachable theory (to also account for the Cambrian Explosion and more) here is what happened in "science" that has completely changed everything:

I was recently working on a computer model of the human eye and retina then someone mentioned an ID website that was better than most so I decided to see what might be helpful in their section on the eye. Then what my model was missing to explain how an inverted retina could even function (Muller Cells) was right there in front of me on the screen! Not only that but the author also did an excellent job of totally destroying Richard Dawkins argument about inverted retinas being a bad design:

http://www.detectingdesign.com/humaneye.html

And it's here Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences level research! There is no way anyone here can argue this:

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8287.short

There is no doubt that the claim about inverted retinas being a faulty design is now in the dustbin of history as just more of the usual pseudoscience that MUST be thrown out of all schools. But please recycle the old books now no longer fit to mention so that ones that contain "real science" can be made from them.

Also, astonishing as it may seem (to some) I discovered that CRSQ beat other publishers to a paper that science needed but was not there. For my work I went from having no luck at all finding a detailed explanation of all this that was holding me up, to a dozen pages with something that can be relatively easily computer modeled with my being sure it is correct. I was previously collecting things from hundred+ and counting sources (very good but not what the paper does) with some information at http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/ an attempt to put all that they described together on my own. This paper provided all the angular and density numbers and such that are required by a program and other details you might not see the value of without being someone who needed it to pioneer further into science. I was planning at least months more of searching or might never find because of it being scattered all over and (what has become) bad information mixed in. I am here able to be a fair judge of the scientific merit of the paper by what kind of computer models I and others will now be able to program knowing their theory pertaining to retina design capabilities.

The authors did push the use of the "design" word to its limits, but still never once went out of bounds of science anywhere. There is of course nothing in the Conclusion that becomes a program variable or algorithm so the scientific content is entirely above that. But it sure made a great place to push the limits all the way to extreme and did a great job. When you look at word choice and sentence construction of the last paragraph of the Conclusion it's like they turned all of the energy from their rivals into this like spectacular fireworks grand-finale that leaves no doubt they put on a supernova show to remember (even though not necessary), just to light up the sky too...

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/artic...09%20Retina.pdf

Why the Inverted Human Retina Is a Superior Design
Jerry Bergman* and Joseph Calkins**

Abstract

It is often claimed that the human retina is poorly designed because
light must travel through the nerves and blood vessels to reach the
photoreceptor cells, which are located behind the eye’s wiring. Many
specific reasons exist for this so-called backward placement of the photoreceptors.
A major one is that it allows close association between the
rods and cones and the pigment epithelium required to maintain the
photoreceptors. It is also essential in both the development and the
normal function of the retina. Both the rods and cones must physically
interact with retinal pigment epithelial cells, which provide nutrients
to the retina, recycle photopigments, and provide an opaque layer to
absorb excess light.


I here had to give credit where due that I know it would otherwise not get and hope they keep up the good work, even though that means they became a little bit more respectable science journal some cannot tease as much anymore.

The ID minded are now on a mission to further develop their new niches in science that honest unbiased scientists and educators were on a mission to show are as wide open to them as it is to anyone else, so I can't imagine it getting any better than that! There is no better way I know than to pioneer the ground floor of where that science goes from there into at least computer science where the AI game engine writers and robot makers are who will eventually find it in the search engine like I did.

Like the people of Kansas who want more from science than what they were getting the York/Dover area has a unique chemistry that combines with the way science is stirring everything around it to give you all green lights on a well paved highway to the science classrooms of your dreams, that take us across a "New Divide" that looks like this when you're there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSxxIqKNN0

Creator bless, your best of dreams...
buttershug
I'll read this later but do you answer such questions as "features" are best explained by an intelligent cause.
And is that intelligent cause pre-exisiting.

And what about Octopusses eyes? AFAIK they have all the good features talked about in that quote and not the disadvantages.

But all in all it is still using backwards reasoning, starting with the conclusion.
Grumpy
It simply is not science to start with a conclusion(ID) and then twist the evidence to fit. There is no intelligence in Intelligent Design, nor is it needed to explain anything in nature. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid statement in any scientific explanation.

Grumpy cool.gif
uaafanblog
Something "intelligent" designed us? I beg to differ ... No intelligence needed for Nachos to evolve. They're a "natural" ...

And no ... I'm not talking about Not Another Completely Heuristic Operating System ...

I'm talking about deliciously salty tortilla chips and warm creamy cheese with any number of awesome toppings one can add

The Sabatos Network gives us the skinny ...

QUOTE
A fried tostado. Yellow cheese. A slice of jalapeno. So simple. So delicious. So monumental. Back in 1943, Ignacio “Nacho” assembled the first he had no idea that 60 years later, this appetizer would have made his nickname a household word.

At that time, the senior Anaya was working at a restaurant owned by Rudolfo De Los Santos, the Victory Club in Piedras Negras, Mexico, just across the border from Eagle Pass, says his son Ignacio Anaya Jr. of Eagle Pass. As Anaya Jr. recalls the story, Mamie Finan and a group of 10 to 12 officers’ wives, whose husbands were stationed at Fort Duncan Air Base, traveled across the border to eat at the Victory Club. When the senior Anaya couldn’t find. the cook, he went into action. “My father was maitre d’ and he said ‘Let me go quick and fix something for you.’

He went into the kitchen, picked up tostados,’ grated some cheese on them - Wisconsin cheese, the round one - and put them under the Salamander (a broiling unit that quickly browns the top of foods). He pulled them out after a couple minutes, all melted, and put on a slice of jalapeno.” - The name of the snack, Anaya Jr. says, came from Finan, who called the plate of cheese- and chile-topped chips Nacho’s Especiales.

The name was later shortened to simply “nachos.” Anaya Sr. went on to work at the Moderno, which is still in business today, as well as his own Nacho’s Restaurant in Piedras Negras. In 1960, Anaya Jr. looked into helping his father, who died in 1975, claim ownership of the nacho. “I talked to a lawyer in San Antonio. He said there’s not much you can do after 17 years. It’s in the public domain,” Anaya Jr. says.

As a tribute to his father, Anaya Jr. serves as a judge for an annual nacho competition held in Piedras Niegras me second weekend each October. There, nachos are topped with everything from huitlacoche to caviar. But his favorite remains the original nachos like his father made, though he gives high marks to beef and chicken nachos topped with guacamole. “That’s a whole meal,” he says. Anaya Sr.’s granddaughter, Cristina de Los Santos of San Antonio, says her grandfather died when she was in elementary school. But she remembers the leg-end of Nacho, and his nachos, as family lore. “When I was little, my family would always tell me the story,” she says. Better yet, when she would go to her grandfather’s restaurant in Piedras Negras, he would make nachos for her. “I didn’t like cheese. He always made me bean nachos,” she says.

De Los Santos says her father, Anaya Jr., like her grandfather, “makes nachos real good. He makes them the original way.” Though she doesn’t have a recipe, she describes the process as follows: Tortilla chips, cut in triangles, are fried in what she calls shortening, not oil. The fried chips are salted, then topped with yellow cheese. The chips are run under the broiler, then topped with a slice of jalapeno. Although she’s a fan of many types of nachos and occasionally orders them when dining out, the ones she gets today taste far different from those her grandfather made. “The chips are different,” she says. “They’re not homemade chips like he used to do. Or maybe it’s the hands of the chef.”


Cool stuff eh? I bet you didn't know that Howard Cosell is largely responsible for Nachos moving from an unknown snack to the force that it has become in the snack world?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
A fried tostado. Yellow cheese. A slice of jalapeno. So simple. So delicious. So monumental. Back in 1943, Ignacio “Nacho” assembled the first he had no idea that 60 years later, this appetizer would have made his nickname a household word.

At that time, the senior Anaya was working at a restaurant owned by Rudolfo De Los Santos, the Victory Club in Piedras Negras, Mexico, just across the border from Eagle Pass, says his son Ignacio Anaya Jr. of Eagle Pass. As Anaya Jr. recalls the story, Mamie Finan and a group of 10 to 12 officers’ wives, whose husbands were stationed at Fort Duncan Air Base, traveled across the border to eat at the Victory Club. When the senior Anaya couldn’t find. the cook, he went into action. “My father was maitre d’ and he said ‘Let me go quick and fix something for you.’

He went into the kitchen, picked up tostados,’ grated some cheese on them - Wisconsin cheese, the round one - and put them under the Salamander (a broiling unit that quickly browns the top of foods). He pulled them out after a couple minutes, all melted, and put on a slice of jalapeno.” - The name of the snack, Anaya Jr. says, came from Finan, who called the plate of cheese- and chile-topped chips Nacho’s Especiales.

The name was later shortened to simply “nachos.” Anaya Sr. went on to work at the Moderno, which is still in business today, as well as his own Nacho’s Restaurant in Piedras Negras. In 1960, Anaya Jr. looked into helping his father, who died in 1975, claim ownership of the nacho. “I talked to a lawyer in San Antonio. He said there’s not much you can do after 17 years. It’s in the public domain,” Anaya Jr. says.

As a tribute to his father, Anaya Jr. serves as a judge for an annual nacho competition held in Piedras Niegras me second weekend each October. There, nachos are topped with everything from huitlacoche to caviar. But his favorite remains the original nachos like his father made, though he gives high marks to beef and chicken nachos topped with guacamole. “That’s a whole meal,” he says. Anaya Sr.’s granddaughter, Cristina de Los Santos of San Antonio, says her grandfather died when she was in elementary school. But she remembers the leg-end of Nacho, and his nachos, as family lore. “When I was little, my family would always tell me the story,” she says. Better yet, when she would go to her grandfather’s restaurant in Piedras Negras, he would make nachos for her. “I didn’t like cheese. He always made me bean nachos,” she says.

De Los Santos says her father, Anaya Jr., like her grandfather, “makes nachos real good. He makes them the original way.” Though she doesn’t have a recipe, she describes the process as follows: Tortilla chips, cut in triangles, are fried in what she calls shortening, not oil. The fried chips are salted, then topped with yellow cheese. The chips are run under the broiler, then topped with a slice of jalapeno. Although she’s a fan of many types of nachos and occasionally orders them when dining out, the ones she gets today taste far different from those her grandfather made. “The chips are different,” she says. “They’re not homemade chips like he used to do. Or maybe it’s the hands of the chef.”


Cool stuff eh? I bet you didn't know that Howard Cosell is largely responsible for Nachos moving from an unknown snack to the force that it has become in the snack world?

The tasty snack becomes a specialty in many restaurants in Southern Texas but is virtually unknown anywhere else on the planet. That is until a gentleman by the name of Frank Liberto decided to try to sell the stuff as a concession stand item!

He changed up the recipe by reformulating the cheese to be soft all the time and using simple tortilla chips. He began to sell his new version of nachos in 1977 in Arlington Stadium in Arlington Texas. but what really made the concept take off was a visit by “Monday Night Football” later that year. Before the game started they were offering the product in the reception area where Howard Cosell took a liking to the name. That night and for weeks after, Cossel and the rest of the “Monday Night Football” team worked the word nacho and the product itself in wherever they could!


THAT ... IS .... INTELLIGENT DESIGN ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYshltvYeeE (careful ... backwards SATANIC messages embedded!)

Gary ... you freak .... stick that in your Xtian Pipe and smoke it. You've been PWND ...


A G A I N
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 31 2009, 06:39 AM)
I had to let you know what has been going on in science that has completely changed everything everywhere ...

So um ...

This is not your fathers i.d.?
buttershug
QUOTE (Grumpy+Jul 31 2009, 11:25 AM)
It simply is not science to start with a conclusion(ID) and then twist the evidence to fit. There is no intelligence in Intelligent Design, nor is it needed to explain anything in nature. "And then a miracle occurred" is not a valid statement in any scientific explanation.

Grumpy cool.gif

But you have to admit GG puts a different spin on it.

He starts with his conclusion gathers information and changes definitions so he can change his conclusions without changing the wording of his conclusions.

He and Nopeda should collaberate.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Jul 31 2009, 10:52 AM)
I'll read this later but do you answer such questions as "features" are best explained by an intelligent cause.
And is that intelligent cause pre-exisiting.

And what about Octopusses eyes? AFAIK they have all the good features talked about in that quote and not the disadvantages.

But all in all it is still using backwards reasoning, starting with the conclusion.

If you do not care to read the material that answers your question(s) then I do not care to argue with someone who already proved that they do not know what they are talking about..
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 31 2009, 04:44 PM)
If you do not care to read the material that answers your question(s) then I do not care to argue with someone who already proved that they do not know what they are talking about..

Intelligent Design is nothing short of intellectual fraud. ID proponents take scientific research and "reinterpret" the results without doing any research, and without actually understanding the science behind the original research. Why can't you just accept that things evolved by themselves? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you that stuck in your human superiority complex?
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 31 2009, 10:43 PM)
Why can't you just accept that things evolved by themselves?

Please quote me saying that. Thank you...
RobDegraves
Gary Gaulin

Your argument, no matter whether it has science content or not, is not convincing because it is simply not logical.

Your argument is based around whether or not the eye has design flaws. This proves nothing about ID in either case. Let's see why.

Possibility A

The human eye has design flaw.

-Conclusion A....God intended for the design to be that way, for some reason unknown to us.

-Conclusion B....Nature missed a detail.

Both conclusions are equally logically valid if nothing else is known.


Possibility B

The human eye has no design flaw.

-Conclusion A... God designed it perfectly.

-Conclusion B... Nature designed it perfectly.

Both conclusions are equally logically valid if nothing else is known.



Therefore, your evidence means absolutely nothing.

Therefore we have to go back to the only theory that has any evidence at all... evolution.

Have a nice day!
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Jul 31 2009, 11:53 PM)
Therefore we have to go back to the only theory that has any evidence at all... evolution.

LOL!!!!!!

Not only did you prove to not even know what is stated in the theory I presented, you think "evolution" is a theory!!!!!!

FYI. Evolution is a process, for which there are a number of different theories to explain said process. Look it up in Wiki then follow links to more information. Then come back to this thread when you understand the very basics.

I hope you soon reach the high-school level. Good luck!
RobDegraves
So.. your refutation of my post is based on my usage of the words "theory of evolution"?

That's it?

That and a sprinkling of insults will get you nothing at all. Try refuting the actual argument rather than resorting to an obvious straw man.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 1 2009, 12:21 AM)
So.. your refutation of my post is based on my usage of the words "theory of evolution"?

Which "theory of evolution" are you even talking about? There are a number of versions and all of them are controversial as well as incomplete.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 31 2009, 07:39 PM)
Which "theory of evolution" are you even talking about? There are a number of versions and all of them are controversial as well as incomplete.

And you don't understand any of them. You can't even begin to criticize what you don't understand. There's no point in carrying this discussion further.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 1 2009, 01:12 AM)
There's no point in carrying this discussion further.

See my Nacho post above to confirm this conclusion.

Engaging the Gary-Dolt in any discussion is useless.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 1 2009, 01:12 AM)
And you don't understand any of them. You can't even begin to criticize what you don't understand. There's no point in carrying this discussion further.

Whatever you say oh wise and all knowing flyingbuttressman.
RobDegraves
QUOTE
Which "theory of evolution" are you even talking about? There are a number of versions and all of them are controversial as well as incomplete.


I'm not talking about the theory of evolution. I was talking about your evidence for intelligent design... or rather your lack thereof. Care to actually address my post or are you just going to hang on to your straw man for dear life?

It seems that many already know that it's futile to discuss things with you. Obviously they are correct since you can't even carry on a rational discussion.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 1 2009, 01:29 AM)

I'm not talking about the theory of evolution. I was talking about your evidence for intelligent design... or rather your lack thereof.

No you are not. You are doing everything in your power to avoid discussing the evidence that is presented in the blog, so you can instead take the easy way out and brush off computer models and all else with your feeble arguments from religion that you were taught to parrot.

I'll make it easy for you. Lets start here:

QUOTE
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in memory in the population (gene pool) to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.


Do you agree that the above coherently explains the fossil evidence and all else that is known of our origins? If not then the burden of proof requires YOU to provide evidence to the contrary.
AlexG
QUOTE
If not then the burden of proof requires YOU to provide evidence to the contrary.



Sorry, but since you are making the claim, you must provide the evidence. Your long posting history here shows you don't know what the burden of proof is.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 31 2009, 09:44 PM)
If you do not care to read the material that answers your question(s) then I do not care to argue with someone who already proved that they do not know what they are talking about..

I will study it later but for now.
A simple yes or no.

Do you believe there was an external intelligence in existence in the Pre-Cambrian?
buttershug
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Jul 31 2009, 10:43 PM)
Intelligent Design is nothing short of intellectual fraud. ID proponents take scientific research and "reinterpret" the results without doing any research, and without actually understanding the science behind the original research. Why can't you just accept that things evolved by themselves? Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you that stuck in your human superiority complex?

Don't assume that he is talking about ID as you or everyone else understands it.
He has been on before and is not talking about "God" sitting at a drafting table.
He uses ID terminology and uses their starting premise but ends up describing Evolution better than a lot of evolutionists.

He also can't understand that a test must be able to produce a negative result (if that is the answer) for it to be valid.
A pregnancy test that always says "pregnant" isn't very good, but he never demonstrated that he understands that.

He refuses to answer with a yes or no if he believes there was an intelligence exterior to life in the begining.

He seems to think that because there is intelligence now that it must have been there to begin with. Kind of like if you squeeze oranges to get orange juice, that shows the orange juice was already in the orange.

Other than his "abstract" nothing about what he says matches what ID proponents say. He simply stole their name and opening sentence. So don't argue against Id with him because that's not what he's talking about. Where he quotes his blog to Rob is as good an explaination of "No God(or external intelligence) required Evolution as I've heard". Some definitions are stretched but other than that what's wrong with it?

Oh and he probably doesn't know that the abstract is the last part of a thesis that gets written. It's only read first.
uaafanblog
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Jul 31 2009, 11:59 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYshltvYeeE (careful ... backwards SATANIC messages embedded!)

Click that ... it's hilarious. I've watched it like 4 times now.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 1 2009, 02:14 AM)
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 1 2009, 02:36 AM)
He uses ID terminology and uses their starting premise but ends up describing Evolution better than a lot of evolutionists.

Thank you for the compliment. That is due to having a theory that is far superior and goes all the way into the origin of life and intelligence but of course you would have to be a scientist in these fields to appreciate that ability.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 1 2009, 02:36 AM)
He refuses to answer with a yes or no if he believes there was an intelligence exterior to life in the begining.

Oh, the reason for that is I have no evidence to conclude either way yet so the answer for now is "I don't know". But I do know that the "behavior" that "creates" life preexisted. I'll let you draw your own conclusions there. And if you disagree that subatomic/atomic/molecular "behavior" as defined in the theory and by "science" did not preexist then I would love to see your evidence, that would be hilarious!

And I have no idea who taught you how to state a "theory" it sounds to me like you are trying to apply what you were told about writing a "research paper" that may contain a small amount of theory but is of course not a "Theory" one often spends the rest of their life working on even after publishing. Besides, there is no "Abstract" at all it begins with an "Introduction" but since you were apparently taught that reading what you are commenting on is optional I can understand why you don't even know that.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 1 2009, 02:20 AM)
A simple yes or no.

Do you believe there was an external intelligence in existence in the Pre-Cambrian?

In this wording of the question which is different than the other, you are going to have to define "external intelligence" in scientific context (not religious) or else your question is scientifically unanswerable. So if you want a scientific answer then you will have to provide me with a fully scientific question not a "loaded" one.
RobDegraves
LOL... that was interesting indeed.

All you have done really is restate evolution and use your own definition of the word "intelligence" to make it look like a new theory.

What you fail to do... of course what every theory fails to do... is to show where and how lifeless molecules give rise to life. However, that can hardly be faulted in this case since no one has the answer to that one.

However...

It does put the lie to your usage of the term "intelligence". If you are trying to say that chemistry and biology are causal, then it's obvious and hardly novel. If you are trying to imply that this is intelligence... your argument is essentially a dressed up semantic game.

QUOTE
in⋅tel⋅li⋅gence
  /ɪnˈtɛlɪdʒəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tel-i-juhns] Show IPA
Use intelligence in a Sentence
–noun
1.  capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.  manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.  the faculty of understanding.
4.  knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.
5.  the gathering or distribution of information, esp. secret information.


This is not the same as basic causality.
Gary Gaulin
Don't you know that throwing up a dictionary definition against a theory with computer models that fully demonstrate a given phenomena in the context of the theory is in fact only playing semantics games?

Try this one instead. At least it's a more scientific explanation and includes a computer model so that it is "testable" as opposed to something one finds in a pocket-dictionary that has no scientific merit at all:

http://tnewton.solarbotics.net/robot1.html

I also must add that I know for a fact that you did not study the theory. None here did. Average time for the three who at least clicked into it (which might not have even been the ones trashing it and could have been forum readers) was 1.13 minutes which is just enough time to look for keywords to brush it off with. How I know this is called "Google Analytics".

Sad huh? In a real science class all here FLUNKED with a score of zero.
RobDegraves
That's quite a funny post.

QUOTE
Don't you know that throwing up a dictionary definition against a theory with computer models that fully demonstrate a given phenomena in the context of the theory is in fact only playing semantics games?


You make great stock of your computer models. No one needs to study your computer model if the assumptions that you start with are false.

I note that again you have not actually answered my post... all you have done is to use insults and obfuscation to hide the fact that your theory is just evolution regurgitated and given a semantic twist.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Don't you know that throwing up a dictionary definition against a theory with computer models that fully demonstrate a given phenomena in the context of the theory is in fact only playing semantics games?


You make great stock of your computer models. No one needs to study your computer model if the assumptions that you start with are false.

I note that again you have not actually answered my post... all you have done is to use insults and obfuscation to hide the fact that your theory is just evolution regurgitated and given a semantic twist.

In a real science class all here FLUNKED with a score of zero.



Hmmmm... real science eh? Let's look at that.

According to you, this theory...

QUOTE
That is due to having a theory that is far superior and goes all the way into the origin of life and intelligence but of course you would have to be a scientist in these fields to appreciate that ability.


So... have you published this theory for peer review yet?

Or are you just trolling forums in the hopes of a cheap ego boost?

Let's see some actual science shall we.

Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 1 2009, 07:17 AM)
That's quite a funny post.



You make great stock of your computer models. No one needs to study your computer model if the assumptions that you start with are false.

I note that again you have not actually answered my post... all you have done is to use insults and obfuscation to hide the fact that your theory is just evolution regurgitated and given a semantic twist.




Hmmmm... real science eh? Let's look at that.

According to you, this theory...



So... have you published this theory for peer review yet?

Or are you just trolling forums in the hopes of a cheap ego boost?

Let's see some actual science shall we.

Excuses excuses excuses.

Thankfully US teachers are reading the theory and are aware of the problem that this forum clearly demonstrated. With luck the generation now beginning school will have at least a basic understanding of how science works, know what theories are, why even the Theory Of Intelligent Design is of value to science, why demanding publishing in a peer-reviewed science journal is an excuse to get out of having to do their own thinking and other vital skills that makes it harder for them to be misled as the opening post of this topic described having happend.

RobDegraves, the pseudoscience you have been following has been so utterly discredited by science itself that none especially science teachers even care to listen to any of the arguments you think are valid but are not. The books that were once thought to be unarguable are now garbage you pretend to be against. Thankfully that will be going into the trash/recycling cans when school begins again with many wondering how the "experts" could have been so wrong and be shocked at the damage they did to people like me. Also, many millions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent to destroy us even slowly kill us from the constant abuse that kills from the inside out. Will be hell to pay for that. And it's a damn shame that happened but at least they won't be fooled again.

Your suggesting that evolutionary theory can extend into the origin of life and intelligence where there was no "evolution" is so absurd it requires no discussion. And I already proved you did not not even study the theory yet claimed to know all about it and will continue to do so even though it's obvious you have no interest at all in finding the truth. Along with others you are clearly promoting your religious agenda while claiming to represent science. And if you were me then you would not be proud of yourself.
Sinister Utopia
Gary Gaulin has an agenda which is to merge ID claptrap with evolution somehow. In previous posts to me he mentioned that tax paying parents should dictate the kind of science that is taught to their kids. I asked him long ago if he thought that flat earth parents should have their beliefs taken into consideration in geography class just because they pay taxes or that Holocaust deniers should receive tailored history lessons.

I suspect that he is probably just another unscrupulous atheist exploiting believers. I also suspect there are many such people, particularly in the higher echelons of clergy and those with some kind of 'investment' in church, mosque, lifestyle, monetary etc.

Or maybe it's the same old wedge tactic thought up by lawyers.
buttershug
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 1 2009, 04:57 AM)
LOL... that was interesting indeed.

All you have done really is restate evolution and use your own definition of the word "intelligence" to make it look like a new theory.

What you fail to do... of course what every theory fails to do... is to show where and how lifeless molecules give rise to life. However, that can hardly be faulted in this case since no one has the answer to that one.

However...

It does put the lie to your usage of the term "intelligence". If you are trying to say that chemistry and biology are causal, then it's obvious and hardly novel. If you are trying to imply that this is intelligence... your argument is essentially a dressed up semantic game.



This is not the same as basic causality.

Read some of Henis Dov's posts.
He is doing the same thing execpt he uses the word "culture".
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 1 2009, 03:11 AM)
Thank you for the compliment.  That is due to having a theory that is far superior and goes all the way into the origin of life and intelligence but of course you would have to be a scientist in these fields to appreciate that ability.

When Einstein came up with the Theory of Relativity he didn't look for a name being used for something else. He made his own name for it.

It would have been confusing if he had called it the Theory of Transmorgification.(sp)

So why don't you come up with a new improved name to go with your new improved theory which so far has only showed "No God needed" to explain evolution.
Heck if you want to reuse another theories name, why not one that describes your theory better such as "The Theory of Evolution"?

You keep filling in gaps where God could have been hiding.
RobDegraves
Gary Gaulin

Well... I note more evasion and insults.. but no actual refutation or rational argument.

1. I take it you have not published your "superior" theory... or it's been rejected and you won't admit it.

2.
QUOTE
Thankfully US teachers are reading the theory and are aware of the problem that this forum clearly demonstrated.


Baseless assertion. What theory are they reading? Yours? I highly doubt that.

3.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Thankfully US teachers are reading the theory and are aware of the problem that this forum clearly demonstrated.


Baseless assertion. What theory are they reading? Yours? I highly doubt that.

3. why demanding publishing in a peer-reviewed science journal is an excuse to get out of having to do their own thinking and other vital skills that makes it harder for them to be misled as the opening post of this topic described having happend.


Ah.. I see I was correct. Peer reviewed science is not an excuse... it's a system designed to weed out bad science from good science. I can see why you would want to avoid it.

4.
QUOTE
Thankfully that will be going into the trash/recycling cans when school begins again with many wondering how the "experts" could have been so wrong and be shocked at the damage they did to people like me.



Ah... it gets even clearer. Nothing like sour grapes now is there. What damage was done to people like you I wonder... could it be rejection?

I think it just might be.

5.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Thankfully that will be going into the trash/recycling cans when school begins again with many wondering how the "experts" could have been so wrong and be shocked at the damage they did to people like me.



Ah... it gets even clearer. Nothing like sour grapes now is there. What damage was done to people like you I wonder... could it be rejection?

I think it just might be.

5. Also, many millions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent to destroy us even slowly kill us from the constant abuse that kills from the inside out.


What abuse?

6.
QUOTE
And I already proved you did not not even study the theory yet claimed to know all about it and will continue to do so even though it's obvious you have no interest at all in finding the truth


Actually.. you have not proved a single thing. You have yet to respond to any of my questions or assertions. All you have done so far is hurl insults and whine about how you are treated along with avoiding any kind of actual debate.

7.
QUOTE (->
QUOTE
And I already proved you did not not even study the theory yet claimed to know all about it and will continue to do so even though it's obvious you have no interest at all in finding the truth


Actually.. you have not proved a single thing. You have yet to respond to any of my questions or assertions. All you have done so far is hurl insults and whine about how you are treated along with avoiding any kind of actual debate.

7. And if you were me then you would not be proud of yourself.


Actually I have to agree with that statement.... which makes me think that you didn't read it very carefully before you posted it.

biggrin.gif

Gary Gaulin
Out of Office AutoReply: Re: Well... I note more evasion and insults..

I am currently out of the office at meetings in Washington, D.C. and will
return on Monday, July 24, 2006. I will be checking email periodically. If
you need to contact an Assessment staff member immediately, please call
781-338-3625.

Thank you for contacting the Department.

P.S.
We will not really get back you because we do what we want and that's how the Depatment Of Education works in most states like yours and there is nothing scum like you can do about it. But we will send a nice sounding autoreply so you can't say we never got back to you with a reply.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Jul 31 2009, 06:39 AM)
There is no doubt that the claim about inverted retinas being a faulty design is now in the dustbin of history as just more of the usual pseudoscience that MUST be thrown out of all schools. But please recycle the old books now no longer fit to mention so that ones that contain "real science" can be made from them.

People weren't saying that the eye doesn't work.
We say it's not the best possible design.
Which is better explained by Evolution than an Intelligent Designer.


But even if you cover that one what about hiccups and hernias?

QUOTE (Gary Gaulin's blog+)
At all levels, intelligence can only emerge from predictable (nonrandom) behavior. In living things matter possess this predictability as long as random motion from heat entropy (or other destructive phenomena) does not overwhelm the nonrandom behavior.



This might be where your misunderstanding is rooted. This is what Evolution Theory says. Just because randomness is involved doesn't mean that non-random structures are not needed. Think of the internal combustion engine. It has to be machined properly. It has be built according to mechanical requirements. But still it depends on explosions.


And you would be doing yourself a favour if you simply told us how your theory differs from Evolution Theory. Other than your using terminology differently from everyone else.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 2 2009, 04:39 AM)
Think of the internal combustion engine. It has to be machined properly. It has be built according to mechanical requirements. But still it depends on explosions.

Too late for your opinion of the theory to matter.

And I think much bigger than internal combustion.

Commencing countdown: 10, 9, 8 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZkllM8znx4&NR=1
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 7 2009, 06:42 PM)
Too late for your opinion of the theory to matter.

And I think much bigger than internal combustion.

Commencing countdown: 10, 9, 8 ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZkllM8znx4&NR=1

What opinion?

And so what if it's bigger than the internal combustion engine? My point is that there is random activity happening in the internal combusint engine. That is a fact not an opinion.


And of course I support your theory. Ever since I've read the evidence of Evolution I've supported it. It would better if you did not use the name of the people that have been trashing your theory though.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 7 2009, 07:43 PM)
What opinion?

And so what if it's bigger than the internal combustion engine? My point is that there is random activity happening in the internal combusint engine. That is a fact not an opinion.


And of course I support your theory. Ever since I've read the evidence of Evolution I've supported it. It would better if you did not use the name of the people that have been trashing your theory though.

A rocket motor is bigger than internal cumbustion engine. And oh boy is this one shaking the ground!!

I understand that there is "random activity" in fact it's part of the computer model but to intelligence it is a "guess".

And you support my theory? I must be reading things, or something! You troll you.

I already tried taking out all the ID related material. Called it "Origin Of Intelligent Life" and after a few months of trying to get people to read it I had 7 or so hits. Only thing I ended up with was a "Trojan" that brings accusations of trying to teach ID by calling it something else.

No matter how I write or name it it proves to be the one and only "Theory Of Intelligent Design" there can ever be. And never once has an ID minded person told me it was like stealing the name. All comments that I can recall from them have been positive.
buttershug
Do they understand you are saying that God is not needed as an explanation?

the Trojan had it backwards. You are trying to teach (no God required) Evolution by calling it something else.

I guess they didn't notice that you say "some things are better explained" but never do say what those things are.
RobDegraves
I have read your whole little dissertation. I have yet to see how this is different from a mere simplistic rehashing of evolution's main ideas.... with your own terminology thrown in to confuse things.
buttershug
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 7 2009, 09:09 PM)
I have read your whole little dissertation. I have yet to see how this is different from a mere simplistic rehashing of evolution's main ideas.... with your own terminology thrown in to confuse things.

You didn't find anything in there that could be better explained by a pre-existing extrernal "intelligence" as purported by ID Theory did you?
RobDegraves
QUOTE
You didn't find anything in there that could be better explained by a pre-existing extrernal "intelligence" as purported by ID Theory did you?


No... it's just general musings and semantic free association... not much to see really.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 7 2009, 09:04 PM)
Do they understand you are saying that God is not needed as an explanation?

They know that a scientific theory cannot claim "God did it" in place of a backed by evidence explanation, and that a theory has no business telling people what to religiously believe.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 7 2009, 09:09 PM)
I have read your whole little dissertation. I have yet to see how this is different from a mere simplistic rehashing of evolution's main ideas.... with your own terminology thrown in to confuse things.

Then I at least have to thank you for reading it!

To see how it's different I can ask a question you should be able to quickly answer in a sentence or two. And the same thing applies to a genome and other things so this has real-world applications even though it sounds religious and I would expect be applied in searching for the Creator but if they are having fun and learning then I'm OK with that. Anyway, here's the question:

From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?

RobDegraves
QUOTE
From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?


Well.. this is where I have a problem with your dissertation. You define intelligence basically as anything that has a cause and effect relationship. That is not how this works...

Definition...

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?


Well.. this is where I have a problem with your dissertation. You define intelligence basically as anything that has a cause and effect relationship. That is not how this works...

Definition...

1.  capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc.
2.  manifestation of a high mental capacity: He writes with intelligence and wit.
3.  the faculty of understanding.
4.  knowledge of an event, circumstance, etc., received or imparted; news; information.


When you are discussing something, it's important to use the correct terminology or meaning is lost. You made up your own terminology without specifically showing exactly how your new terminology is to be used.

Intelligence, by definition, is something that we associate only with creatures that have brains, or at least some sort of nervous system. By that definition, amoeba are not intelligent.

You seem to define intelligence as anything that exchanges information... including molecules and atoms in some cases. Some scientists who have done work on modeling the physical world as though it was a matrix style program often compare cause and effect exchanges as being informational exchanges. However, in physics that is not the normative case. Even in the matrix case... it is still not seen as intelligence.

In either case, simple informational exchanges are not the same as intelligence, based on the standard definition.

If you want to make up your own definitions... something that should only be done when no other means will do... you need to be a great deal more precise and comprehensive as to the meaning and usages of the term.


So... please rephrase your question or define your terms in a way that I can answer your question accurately.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 8 2009, 12:04 AM)

Well.. this is where I have a problem with your dissertation. You define intelligence basically as anything that has a cause and effect relationship. That is not how this works...

Definition...



When you are discussing something, it's important to use the correct terminology or meaning is lost. You made up your own terminology without specifically showing exactly how your new terminology is to be used.

Intelligence, by definition, is something that we associate only with creatures that have brains, or at least some sort of nervous system. By that definition, amoeba are not intelligent.

You seem to define intelligence as anything that exchanges information... including molecules and atoms in some cases. Some scientists who have done work on modeling the physical world as though it was a matrix style program often compare cause and effect exchanges as being informational exchanges. However, in physics that is not the normative case. Even in the matrix case... it is still not seen as intelligence.

In either case, simple informational exchanges are not the same as intelligence, based on the standard definition.

If you want to make up your own definitions... something that should only be done when no other means will do... you need to be a great deal more precise and comprehensive as to the meaning and usages of the term.


So... please rephrase your question or define your terms in a way that I can answer your question accurately.

That is absolutely sad. Half of the answer was in the introduction and the other could be found with a quick scan through the rest.

I do NOT "define intelligence as anything that exchanges information" but I am not surprised you would make such a ridiculous claim.

References and acknowledgements back it all up with the previous work of others. Expecting a dumb-down pocket-dictionary level definition in a scientific theory to suit all that you refuse to learn only demonstrated that you have no interest in learning something about "intelligence" from people who actually study it.

And please, I do not care to hear your game show trivia level arguments talking about "informational exchanges" and other words that all together explained nothing at all. I'm also well aware of what (almost all) scientists do not know. If there was already a theory for this then I would not have to write one!

I am not going to dumb-down the question to "Does your human level intelligence come a brain or the liver?" for you. If you can't answer this then I'm wasting my time with one more who is in a forum to promote their religion who has no interest at all in advancing science.

From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?
RobDegraves
Well.. since you like to respond with insults and disdain.. let's look at what you got and see if arrogance is justified shall we.



QUOTE
Expecting a dumb-down pocket-dictionary level definition in a scientific theory to suit all that you refuse to learn only demonstrated that you have no interest in learning something about "intelligence" from people who actually study it.


OK... where do you study this? In your basement? At a college? University? A box?

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Expecting a dumb-down pocket-dictionary level definition in a scientific theory to suit all that you refuse to learn only demonstrated that you have no interest in learning something about "intelligence" from people who actually study it.


OK... where do you study this? In your basement? At a college? University? A box?

And please, I do not care to hear your game show trivia level arguments talking about "informational exchanges" and other words that all together explained nothing at all.


That sounds a lot like an arrogant version of "I can't answer so I won't".


QUOTE
I'm also well aware of what (almost all) scientists do not know.


Hmmm... obviously modesty and yourself do not have much of an acquaintance.


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
I'm also well aware of what (almost all) scientists do not know.


Hmmm... obviously modesty and yourself do not have much of an acquaintance.


If you can't answer this then I'm wasting my time with one more who is in a forum to promote their religion who has no interest at all in advancing science.


Well.. considering that I am the only one on this (and from what I can see many other) forum that has bothered to address your magnum opus... one would think that you would be a tad more polite. Sadly that is not so.

QUOTE
From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?


How does one detect intelligence.

Sadly that really depends on a lot of factors, not the least of which are technological. Are we talking about sentience, intelligence as I have defined it before (ie, the existence of a sufficiently advanced brain) or are we simply observing physical results?

Let's be honest here....

Your magnum opus is simply a rehashing of basic ideas with silly terminology thrown in.

Answer me this...


If your theory is so advanced... why is it not published in a peer reviewed paper?

I bet I get the same old tired conspiracy theories back.... or maybe just a bunch of insults and irrelevant obfuscation. 50/50 chance of either.

Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 8 2009, 04:42 AM)
Answer me this...

There are now thousands of people who have no problem with the theory. And I have much more important concerns right now and cannot aford to waste any more time on your useless muddling. Answer the simple question:

From what you learned, how can one "detect intelligence" and (provided it can be fully monitored) what kind of a readout would be best to gauge its abilities?
RobDegraves
QUOTE
There are now thousands of people who have no problem with the theory.


Who?


QUOTE (->
QUOTE
There are now thousands of people who have no problem with the theory.


Who?


And I have much more important concerns right now and cannot aford to waste any more time on your useless muddling.


What concerns?


QUOTE
Answer the simple question:


Define the question properly and I will.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 8 2009, 05:23 AM)
What concerns?

From Dover Debate:

To make a long story short after a couple of years of work one of my AI science experiments hit the news that made me a "radio pirate" and since it was the kind of thing someone in the radio broadcast industry has any reason but to love too I made the best of the publicity until Victor from the FCC came over to witness it in operation. All then know I could have easily ran thousands of watts to compete in the marketplace as in "radio piracy" where coverage is the goal it was just a tiny transistor running an attic antenna and kept the frequency DC bias stable with a frequency counting computer. Radio robot was running CD while radio was still 24/7 records and crappy transmitters so it was where to hear how radio will sound in years to come sort of thing. Victor complimented the clean signal and after going off the air the only tiny imperfection was found to be sub-audible noise coming from the audio mixer from the text to speech chip that was always on but not saying anything. Here is some of the hoopla:

http://widontknow.blogspot.com/

It was "novel" but like all novelties they become dated. I tried to get a license but could not afford it, or wanted to run 7000 watts like the lowest power class allows. So I next took my new stereotype that got us around and sent like you are now witnessing for writing through the fax machine to radio stations that was all the new rage then. Was before the internet, a way to through telephone line transmit written text to a forum of people who find it worth the read. Most used it for the usual junk but I kept them informed how the science is going also printed them science books for whoever they think needs one. Described the levels of intelligence and all that. Seattle was tuned in. Then years after paleontology work started here I found out about a Discovery Institute and the theory they were talking about sounded like my science writing morphed into ID that had a shocking amount of just the right kind of hoopla to get science going again. But you know how funding goes, you can run a university out of your back yard but all are too busy pushing papers to keep all money flowing into their waste of time POLITICS in place of SCIENCE and you are seeing how far I have to go to set things right again! And with lawyers preparing to auction everything I own after burying the tracksite I am in no mood for playing any more games because it is going to get ugly where I am forced to pay any more tax money to support what I am endlessly promised will come back to me because of work worth millions everyone else makes money on but me! I have a 40 foot eubrontes trackway that should be in a museum or with private collector that might be scientifically valuable to help new paleopolyploidy science just sitting here but I have to do all the documenting, cutting, skidding then run auction or donate while doing 1000 other things just to keep more people from getting killed! Now I have to pay "stimulus" money earmarked for situations like mine where this happening will otherwise end up costing many more millions to deal with, yet it all has to go to the usual deep-pockets because that is how this dysfunctional system works! And the Discovery Institute still did not send at least a donation to write their theory to my DinoPrints@aol.com paypal account that has never seen one of those before either! I could go on and on but you get the idea, on either side the money is in NOT having any science!!!

RobDegraves
Thanks.... that was awesome. biggrin.gif
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Aug 8 2009, 06:24 AM)
Thanks.... that was awesome. biggrin.gif

Thanks for the compliment! Or I think it was anyway.

To hurry things along I have been working on the theory (main reason why it is not published yet) and along with improving grammar renamed one of the sections I was having trouble finding a name for to "Intelligence Detection" and you can probably guess why I had that on my mind.

This theory is almost 20 years old and prior to that I was looking for something others missed. So even though the ID concept did not come from me I can still easily look at this situation as my getting ripped off by the Discovery Institute. Since they proved to not even want to write a real theory I don't think they deserve to represent one. They did though get what they asked for, in Dover where the fact that they had no theory was obvious. And one of the reason I'm so far behind is because of the politics in place of science that brushes off things like my insisting that a proper definition of "intelligence" at least what I learned as a kid is taught in public schools but as usual it was just one more waste of time efforts to get the educrats to give a damn about anyone but themselves. As usual I was right again and not listening sure cost Dover big bucks, and destroyed a whole lot of people who were trying to do the right thing with the tidbits of useful science that they did know.
AlexG
What a wack job.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 07:13 AM)
So even though the ID concept did not come from me I can still easily look at this situation as my getting ripped off by the Discovery Institute.

Why can you not understand that what you are describing and what the Discovery Institute are talking about are not the same thing.

They are as different as baseball bats and flying mammals.


Other than the name and the sentence that you copied that doesn't fit your thesis, what is common between you and them?
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 07:45 PM)
Why can you not understand that what you are describing and what the Discovery Institute are talking about are not the same thing.

They are as different as baseball bats and flying mammals.


Other than the name and the sentence that you copied that doesn't fit your thesis, what is common between you and them?

Why can't you understand that you have been listening to people who have no clue what the theory is supposed to cover that was stated in WRITING below? Scientists are supposed to know the FACTS not listen to others who do not even have a theory tell them that the theory says what they do:

QUOTE
Top QuestionsGeneral questions

Questions about Intelligent Design

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

Click here for video
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

Click here for video
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

Click here for video
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.

5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?

Click here for video
Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

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

-
buttershug
QUOTE
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.


One thing you both have in common is never gettting around to what those "certain features" are.

I worked for a company that was having an addition added onto the building. One day an afternoon shift guy came in and said they were building it in the wrong place. They were lining the interior of the new paneling with exterior of the existing paneling. The owner didn't belive him but checked it out and he was right. The mistake was there right from the fist plans.

Do you believe there existed such a blueprint for the Universe and everything before it existed?
Your work does not show that.
You show patterns but those patterns need not be planned.

edit: when I say "blueprint" I don't mean that literally, I mean it figureativly.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 09:45 PM)
One thing you both have in common is never gettting around to what those "certain features" are.

Once again, you proved to not have a clue what you are talking about:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
QUOTE
Features Of The Universe And Of Living Things

Living things (life as we know it) so profoundly change the usual features of the universe that we can tell it is present from outside its solar system by there being an atmospheric Oxygen concentration dangerously close to a massive planetary explosion.[1] The culprit of firestorms and other cataclysm is on at least this planet detectable by strong reflection back into space of the green portion of the light spectrum and absorption of light at 430 (blue) and 662 nanometers (orange) that powers the reverse Krebs Cycle metabolic cycle of plants which consumes CO2 gas giving off flammable to explosive O2 gas (Oxygen atoms pair up, a diatomic molecule).

Where there is intelligence at work the blissful world of fully reacted molecules where nothing changes becomes a dangerous chemical chaos. At all levels one intelligence mercilessly consumes another, as long as they are not pets or live in symbiosis with them in which case are spared being eaten. Even the radio waves from intelligence with technology to control electromotive force producing TV and Radio communication is noise in the usual background sound of stars. You know such a signal came from intelligence when you hear its music, see them dancing and know when it went to a commercial.

Human intelligence can now from outer space be seen giving off light in the darkness that is not the spectrum of a firestorm. Is possible to tell how far light generation technology has advanced and possible vision morphology by unique spectral signatures of more efficient types that ionize gasses in the color range and intensity required of eye design.

[1] Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal/page/portal...ys/What_is_life

-
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 05:05 PM)
Once again, you proved to not have a clue what you are talking about:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,

You're just jealous.

The problem is that there are NO features of the universe OR of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause. That's your problem right there.

Would you care to present some of your "examples?" Or, is it that you are more comfortable with the vague and dishonest pattern you have going on here?
buttershug
Another crash and burn.
On your page you do an excellent job of breaking things down.
What you fail to notice is the IDer's say this or that is so complex it must have been planned. But when you break it down there is no step that could not have occured without intervention.

I believe it was Dr. Lovelock who when asked if the thought there was life on Mars said no because it's chemically in equilbrium, and life takes things out of chemical equilibrium.

But that does not mean that there was a pre-existing blueprint.

And now that I think about it, your blog talks of intelligence as an effect not a cause.

So another question, is intelligence a cause or an effect. Evolution says it's an effect.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 8 2009, 10:29 PM)
You're just jealous.

The problem is that there are NO features of the universe OR of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause. That's your problem right there.

Would you care to present some of your "examples?" Or, is it that you are more comfortable with the vague and dishonest pattern you have going on here?

I have what I need to win in court.

If there was clearly a radio or TV signal and/or chemical signature detected from another planet then your claim that it did not have an "intelligent cause" (look up word "cause" in dictionary) would have the school students rolling over laughing at you! That is why none are taking your side seriously anymore, including teachers.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 10:33 PM)
On your page you do an excellent job of breaking things down.
What you fail to notice is the IDer's say this or that is so complex it must have been planned. But when you break it down there is no step that could not have occured without intervention.

Find that statement in what is on the "Public Record" please. What you were told amounts to hearsay and does not hold water in court, or in the scientific arena...


QUOTE
Top QuestionsGeneral questions

Questions about Intelligent Design

1. What is the theory of intelligent design?

Click here for video
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. For more information see Center Director Stephen Meyer's article "Not By Chance" from the National Post of Canada or his appearance on PBS's "Tavis Smiley Show (Windows Media).

2. Is intelligent design theory incompatible with evolution?

Click here for video
It depends on what one means by the word "evolution." If one simply means "change over time," or even that living things are related by common ancestry, then there is no inherent conflict between evolutionary theory and intelligent design theory. However, the dominant theory of evolution today is neo-Darwinism, which contends that evolution is driven by natural selection acting on random mutations, an unpredictable and purposeless process that "has no discernable direction or goal, including survival of a species." (NABT Statement on Teaching Evolution). It is this specific claim made by neo-Darwinism that intelligent design theory directly challenges. For a more thorough treatment see the article "Meanings of Evolution" by Center Fellows Stephen C. Meyer & Michael Newton Keas.

3. Is intelligent design based on the Bible?

No. The idea that human beings can observe signs of intelligent design in nature reaches back to the foundations of both science and civilization. In the Greco-Roman tradition, Plato and Cicero both espoused early versions of intelligent design. In the history of science, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design, including Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, meanwhile, the idea that design can be discerned in nature can be found not only in the Bible but among Jewish philosophers such as Philo and in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. In recent decades, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and paleontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose intelligent design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity throughout the natural world.

4. Is intelligent design theory the same as creationism?

Click here for video
No. Intelligent design theory is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism is focused on defending a literal reading of the Genesis account, usually including the creation of the earth by the Biblical God a few thousand years ago. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case. For more information read Center Director Stephen Meyer's piece "Intelligent Design is not Creationism" that appeared in The Daily Telegraph (London) or Center Associate Director's piece " Intelligent Design and Creationism Just Aren't the Same"in Research News & Opportunities.

5. Are there established scholars in the scientific community who support intelligent design theory?

Click here for video
Yes. Intelligent design theory is supported by doctoral scientists, researchers and theorists at a number of universities, colleges, and research institutes around the world. These scholars include biochemist Michael Behe at Lehigh University, microbiologist Scott Minnich at the University of Idaho, biologist Paul Chien at the University of San Francisco, emeritus biologist Dean Kenyon at San Francisco State University, mathematician William Dembski, and quantum chemist Henry Schaefer at the University of Georgia.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 05:37 PM)
I have what I need to win in court.

If there was clearly a radio or TV signal and/or chemical signature detected from another planet then your claim that it did not have an "intelligent cause" (look up word "cause" in dictionary) would have the school students rolling over laughing at you! That is why none are taking your side seriously anymore, including teachers.

Perhaps it is you that should look up the word "feature." Hint: it doesn't mean whatever you want it to mean.

There are two possibilities here:

You are stating that the "nature" of the universe has an intelligent cause (i.e. it was created by god or a god-like being)

You are stating that the "nature" of the universe does not have an intelligent cause, and you just enjoy arguing stupid semantics.

"Nature" here means the underlying laws of physics.
Sinister Utopia
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 10:37 PM)
That is why none are taking your side seriously anymore, including teachers

If true, it probably illuminates more about the lowering of teacher standards than anything else.

laugh.gif
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 10:37 PM)
I have what I need to win in court.

If there was clearly a radio or TV signal and/or chemical signature detected from another planet then your claim that it did not have an "intelligent cause" (look up word "cause" in dictionary) would have the school students rolling over laughing at you! That is why none are taking your side seriously anymore, including teachers.

There has not been been such a signal found. but yet again you miss the point of ID. ID says intelligence created the Universe. If we found such a signal it would mean that there is an intelligence other than us but would not prove that it designed the Universe.

such a signal would have an intellgent cause but that doesn't mean that humans are the result of an intellgent cause.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 10:46 PM)
Find that statement in what is on the "Public Record" please. What you were told amounts to hearsay and does not hold water in court, or in the scientific arena...

you still haven't given an example of a feature that is better explained by a intelligent cause.
If a Darwinian evolved intelligence sent signals from another planet that would not show that the Universe or life has an intelliget cause.

Can someone figure out the best way to say something like "all intelligences can be explained in Darwinian Evoluttionary terms."?
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 10:49 PM)
ID says intelligence created the Universe.

You were obviously unable to support your last false-claim. Now find the statement "intelligence created the Universe" in what is on the "Public Record" above or the judge will have to find in may favor again.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 10:59 PM)
You were obviously unable to support your last false-claim.  Now find the statement "intelligence created the Universe" in what is on the "Public Record" above or the judge will have to find in may favor again.

QUOTE
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,


If you want to selectively split hairs then change where I said "created" to "caused".

But the difference betwen created and caused is intelligence where created means caused by intelligence.
Stong winds have caused trees to blow over. There is no intelligence required for that to happen.

But when someone says created they mean by an intelligence.

Edit I think I"m going to start saying GGID for Gary Gaulin's ID and EEID for Everyone else's ID. I wish he would do the same but we know he won't.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 10:56 PM)
Can someone figure out the best way to say something like "all intelligences can be explained in Darwinian Evoluttionary terms."?

Intelligence cannot be explained in "Darwinian Evolutionary" terms. In fact those who study "intelligence" have no real need for evolutionary theory at all, because it does not explain anything about how intelligence works.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 11:08 PM)
Intelligence cannot be explained in "Darwinian Evolutionary" terms. In fact those who study "intelligence" have no real need for evolutionary theory at all, because it does not explain anything about how intelligence works.

What part of intellgence can't be explained?
Your page shows increasing complexity and increasing intelligence.

What part of the evolution of intelligence is not explained on your page?
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 11:13 PM)
What part of intellgence can't be explained?
Your page shows increasing complexity and increasing intelligence.

What part of the evolution of intelligence is not explained on your page?

Since you shifted the burden of proof upon yourself by claiming evolutionary theory explains how "intelligence" works then failed to back it up with scientific evidence (because you cannot) at this point your questions (along with all others on all forums and email) are so absurd and "evasive" the judge has no choice but to end the case then write the official finding that rules in my favor.

You lost...
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 11:30 PM)
Since you shifted the burden of proof upon yourself by claiming evolutionary theory explains how "intelligence" works then failed to back it up with scientific evidence (because you cannot) at this point your questions (along with all others on all forums and email) are so absurd and "evasive" the judge has no choice but to end the case then write the official finding that rules in my favor.

You lost...

So your page blog is not accurate?
It explains the evolution of intelligence quite well.
But if you say the contents of you blog are false I guess I will have to accept that.

edit and you still havn't given an example of a feature best explained as having an intellgient cause.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 8 2009, 11:34 PM)
It explains the evolution of intelligence quite well.
But if you say the contents of you blog are false I guess I will have to accept that.

In the theory it is NOT called "evolution" in fact the word is not used anywhere in the explanation (word is a generalization that adds no detail) I clearly state "emergent" and "emergence":

QUOTE
Introduction

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause where from nonrandom behavior of matter comes a progression of self-assembling emergent behaviors where at the molecular, cellular and multicellular levels each is an increasingly complex fully autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us. Computer models of this common intelligence system that is present at each level shows its mechanism reduces to four necessary requirements; Something for intelligence to control (motors, muscles, metabolic cycle), sensory addressable memory to store motor actions in response, feedback to gauge failure or success in actions taken, and a guess mechanism that tries a new action either a "good guess" as in crossover exchange recombination and conserved domains being tried in new combinations or a "random guess" as in replication errors that can from-scratch design the small conserved domains that are the nuts and bolts and motors of complex molecular machinery.

Designs that successfully reproduce remain in memory in the population (gene pool) to keep going the billions year old learning process that is the cycle of life where through continual reproduction of previous state of genetic memory one replication at a time builds upon previous designs in memory. Thus a cladogram of resultant lineage shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of like design present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.

It is this progression of intelligent causality from nonrandom subatomic behavior in matter that makes possible the complexity of cells, speciation, Cambrian Explosion and all existing biodiversity. Without this intelligent cause, living things that we now see could not exist.


And as far as claiming "But if you say the contents of you blog are false I guess I will have to accept that."

I never claimed such a thing. So add "contempt of court" to the official finding.
-
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 8 2009, 11:47 PM)
In the theory it is NOT called "evolution" in fact the word is not used anywhere in the explanation (word is a generalization that adds no detail) I clearly state "emergent" and "emergence":



And as far as claiming "But if you say the contents of you blog are false I guess I will have to accept that."

I never claimed such a thing. So add "contempt of court" to the official finding.
-

Exactly it emerges.
It is not pre-existing as belived by EEID.

EEID says it was already there. GGID says it emerges or to put it another way it is the result of Evolution, not the precursor and cause of evolution.

You say "tom mah toe" I say "to may toe".

EEID says intelligence ------> humans (and the universe)
GGID says increasing complexity ------> intellgience

one can replace the ------> with evolves or with emerges as your page does but in either case it's the same concept and the opposite of EEID

SO is your blog right or not? It quite clearly shows that intelligence emerges. Which is to say it evolves. Which is to say that intelligence comes from increasing complexity not that complexity comes from intelligence.
Grumpy
Gary Gaudy

Does the term, "Laughed out of court" ring any bells. That's what will happen to you if you try taking another Creationism/ID case to court after Kitzmiller. But, please, waste all of your time and money trying to do so, we would all enjoy the specticle.

You lose laugh.gif biggrin.gif laugh.gif

Grumpy cool.gif
Gary Gaulin
Since you (Grumpy) stepped in to see what the noise is all about and as yet not one person in this forum has answered the following, would you care to explain human speciation for us? Among other things as it stands now the only credible evidence to have been presented in this forum is that we are descendant for a 46 chromosome man and woman who became "human" through the process of chromosomal speciation, not slow change with no "speciation event" that can be pinpointed. Here is a little reading on it:

[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full

Regardless of what people will find in it should Dover teachers be teaching the scientific evidence (as above) in science class, or help your friends keep it buried so none learn about it?
-
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 9 2009, 12:38 AM)
Exactly it emerges.
It is not pre-existing as belived by EEID.

EEID says it was already there. GGID says it emerges or to put it another way it is the result of Evolution, not the precursor and cause of evolution.

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

SO is your blog right or not? It quite clearly shows that intelligence emerges. Which is to say it evolves. Which is to say that intelligence comes from increasing complexity not that complexity comes from intelligence.

GGID is not only "right" it is the only "intelligent cause" theory possible from scientific evidence that exists.

And your attempts to discredit a scientific theory on "religious grounds" must be overruled. So sorry, please leave the stand then sit down.

uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 02:48 AM)
GGID is not only "right" it is the only "intelligent cause" theory possible from scientific evidence that exists.

And your attempts to discredit a scientific theory on "religious grounds" must be overruled. So sorry, please leave the stand then sit down.

You think science tells us that we "evolved" from chimpanzees don't you?

You're exceptionally dim.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 9 2009, 03:03 AM)
You think science tells us that we "evolved" from chimpanzees don't you?

You're exceptionally dim.

From: Theory Of Intelligent Design

Speciation

Speciation is a process where a population so much changes from the population they once were that they have gone their separate ways. Where still able to have offspring the entire population no longer chooses to pair-up together. Or a population that became isolated from another can experience genetic drift that forces them forever apart.

In some cases speciation happens very slowly by taking small learning steps, one gene or epigentic switching change at a time. There is here no single genome change was an event that created a new species.

How long it would take an isolated genome to slowly speciate depends on its learning rate (how fast it gains or changes new information/genes). Sexual reproduction has a good amount of crossover exchange which greatly accelerates the ability to adapt and change. Asexual reproducers such as E. coli produce clones of itself which are identical to the parent. Fast responses to environment is then from exchanging plasmids. But these are separate transient genomes not the genome that accomplishes reproduction.

There are "living fossils" that have changed so little it seems to us that they should have become a new species by now or at least new morphology. But this change is relative to how fast our genome changes in comparison to theirs. So it is not time alone that matters, we must also consider the genome learning rate in our consideration of how long it takes for a given genome to speciate.

In other cases such as a chromosome fusion event speciation can quickly follow this immediate change in genome structure having spread into the population. This happened in humans, fruit flies (drosophilia) and mosquitoes following a chromosome speciation[17] event from an ancestor much like us (modern great-apes did not exist back then).


Behavioral Speciation (slow)

Speciation is in part guided by what the organism itself finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. This includes extreme examples such as peacocks where females selecting the largest most attractive tail design has led to males with giant brilliant displays, even though this makes it more difficult to fly from predators.

In humans the looks of "sex symbols" are sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology. What gets added to or removed, helps show what human intelligence finds most desireable.

In a behavioral speciation there is no one day and time that a pivotal event occurred. And the genome must first have to be already drifting in that direction or else such morphological change is not possible. In the peacock example we can say that the peacocks are aroused by the direction their genome is already set to go anyway. Therefore what they in their mind find desirable is the same as what the genome finds desirable at the molecular level being expressed in the emergent peacock brain. What they find desirable is not here hard-wired into neurons it is an expression of the molecular genome itself that even responds chemically with hormones that increase to cause physiological change that in humans with just a picture of a member of same species inviting mating.

We can to some degree predict where a species is drifting towards, by how it idealizes itself. For our species there is all of art and culture where we find exaggerations of real life where the size of Betty Boops pupil alone is the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize it as being human and sexy. What produces this may be that it is epigenetically possible to drift in that direction, or already are.


Chromosome Speciation (fast - Human, Fruit Fly, Mosquito)

One giant chromosome may have advantage over two average sized ones, which would help explain why that sometimes happens with beneficial results. It first of all produces very large chromosomes from the shorter connecting together. And this would be another way the genome takes a good guess what might work. It already has two functional genes and put together something bigger, maybe better.

The telomeres may encourage a beneficial chromosome fusion by their having safely tangled protective ends, a mechanism to increase chromosome complexity. After occurring it can be enough to guarantee a very major speciation event.

In in this way, human speciation chromosome complexity increased when two chromosomes fuse at opposite ends to become one very large one. Even though there was not a significant amount of gene scrambling where ends tangled the rearranging of the chromosome territories may have already produced a noticeable morphological change. Morphology based fossil evidence dates human speciation to roughly 6 million years ago, which is in the range of estimates for the chromosome fusion.

When detailed in a cladogram there are two branching events.

First, the fusion in one parent's gamete (haploid sex cell) to produce 47 chromosome offspring with the fusion. That was next replicated in the population. The mother of a 47 might have known there was something about them that was not like all the other children but is expected they will love them just the same.

Second, the 47's paired up to occasionally produce an offspring with the fusion in both of the parents gamete they recieved which gave them the first 46 chromosome genome structure, were human. The 47 chromosome parents may have also been able to tell that their 46 offspring were somehow different from their 48 and 47 chromosome peers.

Chromosomal fusion has made humans unique among their kind where such a fusion makes a total of 46 chromosomes, instead of the 48 of all great apes. Here, a parent passed to offspring a fused copy in one of the two parental gametes, to birth a being with 47 chromosomes. That fusion then passed into the population where the fusion would then on occasion have the fusion in both gametes to make the first 46 chromosome human beings where from such man and woman (Chromosomal Adam and Eve) could only be born 46 chromosome descendants, us.


Hybridization Speciation (immediate)

Common in plants and used in agriculture a hybrid species is created when two or more still reproductively viable species combine to form a new non-sterile species. In plants this is relatively easy. In animals can be more difficult. Horses and donkeys normally give birth to a sterile mule but on rare occasions a fertile mule is born.


Polyploid Speciation (immediate)

Polyploid speciation is the result of all chromosomes doubling, tripling or more in number. With twice or more of everything the cells are proportionately larger, resulting in a larger plant or animal. This is relatively common in self-reproducing plants. In animals reproducing the new genome structure requires a genome compatible mate, therefore surviving polyploidy species are less frequent but are still found in some insects, fishes, amphibians, reptiles and rat.[18]

Paleopolyploidy is the scientific study of prehistoric polyploid speciation events.


uaafanblog
LOL.

Doofus has cherry-picked some data from actual scientists and parsed it together into a blog and is calling it a Theory.

And you didn't answer the question dummy .... you think that science says we "evolved" from chimpanzees. Don't you? Admit it.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 9 2009, 03:19 AM)
LOL.

Doofus has cherry-picked some data from actual scientists and parsed it together into a blog and is calling it a Theory.

And you didn't answer the question dummy .... you think that science says we "evolved" from chimpanzees. Don't you? Admit it.

You are clueless. Please go away then come back when you have grown up. Thank you...
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 03:22 AM)
You are clueless. Please go away then come back when you have grown up. Thank you...

Your inability to understand one of the most basic concepts of biology does not mean I'm clueless; on the contrary, as I said it makes you a doofus.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 9 2009, 04:10 AM)
Your inability to understand one of the most basic concepts of biology does not mean I'm clueless; on the contrary, as I said it makes you a doofus.

Then answer this, instead of evading the simple question by throwing childish insults.

Since you stepped in to see what the noise is all about and as yet not one person in this forum has answered the following, would you care to explain human speciation for us? Among other things as it stands now the only credible evidence to have been presented in this forum is that we are descendant for a 46 chromosome man and woman who became "human" through the process of chromosomal speciation, not slow change with no "speciation event" that can be pinpointed. Here is a little reading on it:

[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full

Regardless of what people will find in it should Dover teachers be teaching the scientific evidence (as above) in science class, or help your friends keep it buried so none learn about it?
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 04:25 AM)
Then answer this, instead of evading the simple question by throwing childish insults.

Since you stepped in to see what the noise is all about and as yet not one person in this forum has answered the following, would you care to explain human speciation for us? Among other things as it stands now the only credible evidence to have been presented in this forum is that we are descendant for a 46 chromosome man and woman who became "human" through the process of chromosomal speciation, not slow change with no "speciation event" that can be pinpointed. Here is a little reading on it:

[17] Francisco J. Ayala and Mario Coluzzi
Colloquium Paper: Systematics and the Origin of Species: Chromosome speciation: Humans, Drosophila, and mosquitoes
PNAS 2005 102:6535-6542; published online before print April 25, 2005, doi:10.1073/pnas.0501847102
http://www.pnas.org/content/102/suppl.1/6535.full

Regardless of what people will find in it should Dover teachers be teaching the scientific evidence (as above) in science class, or help your friends keep it buried so none learn about it?

I read it when you posted it the first time. I'm not qualified to peer-review it so I'll assume the science in it is good. I also read your wittle bwog. You have lifted almost an entire section of "your" blog from that particular paper.

It's clear that your fixation of this particular aspect of biology is an attempt to find some perceived hole through which you can shove your silly creationist dogma.

Here's the thing doofus ...

Your acceptance of myth disqualifies you from discussing science. Plain and simple. Black and white. Lies versus truth. A myth believer should not be awarded a seat at the table. Discussion of your "theory" here is asinine. It is a travesty. It is obscene even.

Quit being so damn scared of your death. It happens to everyone. You can't stop it. Believing in an afterlife comforts feeble old women. It has no other usefulness.

Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 9 2009, 05:42 AM)
I read it when you posted it the first time. I'm not qualified to peer-review it so I'll assume the science in it is good. I also read your wittle bwog. You have lifted almost an entire section of "your" blog from that particular paper.

It's clear that your fixation of this particular aspect of biology is an attempt to find some perceived hole through which you can shove your silly creationist dogma.

Here's the thing doofus ...

Your acceptance of myth disqualifies you from discussing science. Plain and simple. Black and white. Lies versus truth. A myth believer should not be awarded a seat at the table. Discussion of your "theory" here is asinine. It is a travesty. It is obscene even.

Quit being so damn scared of your death. It happens to everyone. You can't stop it. Believing in an afterlife comforts feeble old women. It has no other usefulness.

I had a feeling that you were having a problem keeping up. And I can see you still have no clue what kind of person you're talking to.

Don't forget that you are the one hiding behind an anonymous screenname throwing insults, while I'm the one that has to make so many sacrifices I'm practically on a suicide mission.

But I like your thinking in regards to shoving this particular aspect of biology up some perceived hole. It never fails to leave the challengers walking funny. blink.gif
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 08:56 AM)
I had a feeling that you were having a problem keeping up.  And I can see you still have no clue what kind of person you're talking to.

Don't forget that you are the one hiding behind an anonymous screenname throwing insults, while I'm the one that has to make so many sacrifices I'm practically on a suicide mission.

But I like your thinking in regards to shoving this particular aspect of biology up some perceived hole.  It never fails to leave the challengers walking funny.  blink.gif

I have a problem keeping up with certain threads here but that has never been the case with anything you've started.

Anonymous? I hardly think so ... google "uaafanblog". My full name is right there. I've no problem with who I am. I'm a fooking hockey blogger. Doesn't that make you sick? Some jerkoff writing a hockey blog has more on the ball than you? LOL.

You really ought to be banned here. I suppose you serve some purpose in terms of a good example. No doubt your knickers are in a continuous twist having to defend the indefensible.
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 02:48 AM)
GGID is not only "right" it is the only "intelligent cause" theory possible from scientific evidence that exists.

And your attempts to discredit a scientific theory on "religious grounds" must be overruled. So sorry, please leave the stand then sit down.

But GGID doesn't actually list anything with an "intelligent cause".
I keep repeating what you say and you keep dismissing your own Blog.

Show me some aspect that requires an "intelligent cause" to describe.

The process of " chromosomal speciation" does not require EEID.
And you have made GGID fit it the same way water fits a puddle.

Was there a blueprint in place ahead of time as EEID people belive? Or did you just take their words and pervert them?
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (uaafanblog+Aug 9 2009, 10:48 AM)
I have a problem keeping up with certain threads here but that has never been the case with anything you've started. 

Anonymous?  I hardly think so ... google "uaafanblog".  My full name is right there.  I've no problem with who I am.  I'm a fooking hockey blogger.  Doesn't that make you sick?  Some jerkoff writing a hockey blog has more on the ball than you?  LOL.

You really ought to be banned here.  I suppose you serve some purpose in terms of a good example.  No doubt your knickers are in a continuous twist having to defend the indefensible.

Since you are semianonymous I stand half-corrected. I'm half-sorry about that!

And I guess I could be banished easily enough, again. But then you would not know anything at all about what is happening in the ID world, or have anyone to make fun of so the forum would be boring.

And did you know Albert Einstein had to wait years for someone to figure out that his theory was revolutionary? That's what happens when there is already a theory that seems to explain everything. Takes time for the quasi-intellectuals to realize that it wasn't able to explain it all, after all.

Seeing that it is Sunday, here's an inspirational science-sermon for you that looks great in York/Dover.

http://exchange.ydr.com/Why-The-Religious-...ence-t7589.html

And good morning brother Buttershug. Welcome to the electronic congregation, where not all will laugh at you for believing in infinitely complex fractal-similar intelligent causation or even for believing in the physics.
biggrin.gif
buttershug
What is revolutionary about GGID?
You say intelligence emerges from increasing complexity.
That's what Evolution says. Read The Dragons of Eden.

EEID says the intellgience was there first.
You don't think that intelligence has to be there first for it to emerge do you?

We are still waiting for examples that are better explained as having an intelligent cause.

eidt I never said I believed in "infinitely complex fractal-similar intelligent causation" The intelligent causation is not justified by anything I said.
Grumpy
Gary Gaulin

Your "theory" is just a bad copy of evolution, a mish mash of science you simply don't understand. It will go nowhere, influence no one and is doomed to be discarded along with Creationism and other superstitious, supernatural belief systems.

QUOTE
Since you stepped in to see what the noise is all about and as yet not one person in this forum has answered the following, would you care to explain human speciation for us? Among other things as it stands now the only credible evidence to have been presented in this forum is that we are descendant for a 46 chromosome man and woman who became "human" through the process of chromosomal speciation, not slow change with no "speciation event" that can be pinpointed. Here is a little reading on it:


So???

Let me explain a little about what the article is saying. Try to follow along.

The article is saying that the humans split from the other apes due to a shift in the chromosomes. Other researchers have pinpointed the fusion of two chromosomes into one as the main difference between us and our nearest cousins at the time. The article also goes into the reduced viability of hybrids, as can be seen in the horse/mule/donkey split(or speciation event), as well as the lion/liger/tiger split with the hybrid almost always being sterile. It also mentions geographical isolation as in ring species, where simple genetic drift will cause speciation. The article is about different mechanisms by which these speciations can occur.

The article does not say a word about an outside intelligence, it says not one word about "information", as you ID.iots misuse the term, it does not support the position you are trying to foist upon us in your increasingly desperate attempts to find a gap for your god to occupy and burying these facts in layer after layer of excess verbosity, twisted word meanings, misused concepts and pseudo-scientific gobbledegoop won't change the fact that ID is religion and, as such, can not be taught, in any form, in the public schools. You people lost that fight in a court of law.

Case CLOSED!!!

Grumpy cool.gif
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 9 2009, 11:58 AM)
You don't think that intelligence has to be there first for it to emerge do you?

In science, in the beginning there was "behavior" which is the same place where "consciousness" comes from.

And I mentioned "infinitely complex fractal-similar intelligent causation" just in case you need faith. Or you can call it "infinitely complex fractal-similar molecular behavior" and that's fine by me too.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 9 2009, 12:07 PM)
Let me explain a little about what the article is saying. Try to follow along.

The article is saying that the humans split from the other apes due to a shift in the chromosomes. Other researchers have pinpointed the fusion of two chromosomes into one as the main difference between us and our nearest cousins at the time. The article also goes into the reduced viability of hybrids, as can be seen in the horse/mule/donkey split(or speciation event), as well as the lion/liger/tiger split with the hybrid almost always being sterile. It also mentions geographical isolation as in ring species, where simple genetic drift will cause speciation. The article is about different mechanisms by which these speciations can occur.

Close enough for me to have to thank you for agreeing. But of course you skipped the population of 47's in between but I understand your dire need to downplay the significance.

And the theory is doing just fine thank you, on both sides (excepting extremists from yours who are afraid of such taboo theories).
buttershug
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 12:13 PM)
In science, in the beginning there was "behavior" which is the same place where "consciousness" comes from.

And I mentioned "infinitely complex fractal-similar intelligent causation" just in case you need faith. Or you can call it "infinitely complex fractal-similar molecular behavior" and that's fine by me too.

EEID says that a supirour intelligence designed everything (or at least somethings).

What you are saying is a reahash of Evolution which says that intelligence emerged.


a) When orange juice emerges from oranges the orange juice was already there.

cool.gif When hexagonal patterns emerge in snow the hexagonal patterns were not there when it was just water molecules floating around.


Which describes GGID better a) or cool.gif?
That is probably the most cruicial detail you are leaving out.
As far as I can tell you are assuming that intelligence must be there already for it to emerge. Please confirm or deny.
Gary Gaulin
QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 9 2009, 12:33 PM)
EEID says that a supirour intelligence designed everything (or at least somethings).

What you are saying is a reahash of Evolution which says that intelligence emerged.


a) When orange juice emerges from oranges the orange juice was already there.

cool.gif When hexagonal patterns emerge in snow the hexagonal patterns were not there when it was just water molecules floating around.


Which describes GGID better a) or cool.gif?
That is probably the most cruicial detail you are leaving out.
As far as I can tell you are assuming that intelligence must be there already for it to emerge. Please confirm or deny.

I already answered you on the previous page. Hint: "behavior" But have fun digging for more ore for your quote-mine.

And what EEID? Last I knew that bit the dust in Dover. There is now only GGID.
buttershug
SO then it should be easy for you to say a) or cool.gif.


But not all behaivour requires intelligence.
And in teh beginning most form of behaviour did not exist.


If you are saying that there are certain behaviours to the Universe then you are saying nothing new.

And I didn't quote anything, so how could I have quote mined?

And EEID is not going to go away, if those people were reasonable then EEID would not have even started. And most people will think of EEID when you are talking about GGID.

GGID is better described as intelligence in design rather then intelligent design.
Grumpy
Gary Gaulin

QUOTE
Close enough for me to have to thank you for agreeing. But of course you skipped the population of 47's in between but I understand your dire need to downplay the significance.


What significance? No intelligence was involved so it is simply evolution.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
Close enough for me to have to thank you for agreeing. But of course you skipped the population of 47's in between but I understand your dire need to downplay the significance.


What significance? No intelligence was involved so it is simply evolution.

And the theory is doing just fine thank you, on both sides (excepting extremists from yours who are afraid of such taboo theories).


I'm not afraid of pseudo-scientific gobbledegoop replacing real science. Your "theory" is going nowhere, ever. We already have a good idea about evolution's mechanisms and that knowledge is being tested, confirmed and used every day. Keep you superstitious, supernatural non-sense out of it.

Grumpy cool.gif
uaafanblog
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Aug 9 2009, 11:46 AM)
And did you know Albert Einstein had to wait years for someone to figure out that his theory was revolutionary?  That's what happens when there is already a theory that seems to explain everything.  Takes time for the quasi-intellectuals to realize that it wasn't able to explain it all, after all.

If you were any brighter than a 40-watt bulb you'd realize that claiming a "revolutionary" state for one's own theory is a recognized and accepted sign of crankdom.

Of course, there are doubtless other representations and claims you make that line up with other tenets of crack-pottery.

Congratulations on being in the same physorg forum corner as philip347. It's simple to get into and impossible to get out of.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.