AE Public Forum

Post by jeffox
Quote I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.

No, it involves making logical conclusions based on actual evidence - but we've told you that numerous times already.  

Ha ha, now we're just rattling your cage, Goo Goo!   Bwhhhahahahahhahahah!!!!!

You're a hoot!

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,17:32) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?

The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...

Glen Davidson
I'm currently distilling more evidence than your head can even hold. Not that it seems you would be interested in anything that pertains to "intelligence", in a debate pertaining to "intelligence".

My break is over. Back to the science work!

Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,17:28) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.
Ah, can't take a little evidence, eh?

The persecutions that you go through for being a raving lunatic...

Glen Davidson

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Feb. 26 2014,16:16)So you've been doing science as well?
I guess that the answer depends on how you define "doing science". If it involves bending over for the swellheads then no, I stay away from that.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 26 2014,16:54)That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases who use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda.
Then you are saying that you have more in common with your enemy, than you are able to realize.

Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,15:42) Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 26 2014,09:04)You're an attention whore.
After over 300 pages of being trashed for NOT being an attention whore for the science news media (primarily journals) your accusation is an oxymoron.

But do have fun with your sock-puppets, while I try to get some more science work done.
So we can add attention whore, science news media, scientific journals, oxymorons, and sockpuppets to the ever-growing list of concepts that you don't fully comprehend.


Quote That will teach me, for attempting to have a scientific discussion with hopeless nutcases, in a forum for promoting a religious agenda that uses the Theory of Intelligent Design as a weapon. That would be the UD / ID world that's full of nutcases that use Intelligent Design as a wedge to promote a religious agenda.  The only hopeless nutcase around here is yourself.  This site is more for amusement than serious science, but we are clearly in favor of science rather than religion and are holding Intelligent Design up for ridicule as its proponents have so far been unable to show that it is good for anything else.  You have shown that you have no interest in scientific discussion, given that whenever someone raises a legitimate criticism (the way one does in scientific discussion), your responses are deflection, whining, insults, posting links to music, ignoring the criticism, changing the topic, and posting about supposed advances in your program.  You give the impression that for you "scientific discussion" means only conversations that run along the lines of "GG: Here buried in this incomprehensible pile of verbiage without any supporting evidence is my self-evident model in all its amazing wondrousness; Rest of the world: Wow, that's fantastic, you're a genius".  However, it isn't, you're not, and science doesn't work that way.

Post by JohnW
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 26 2014,14:43)Over at Untelligent Reasoning:

Quote If you had my command of the englich language...

I don't think anyone knows Englisch like Joe.. Does it have Germanic roots?
Beautiful.  

We really must introduce him to Gary.  Virtual vegan ticks, here we come!

Post by Arctodus23
Gene Ray makes more sense than you do.

Post by Arctodus23
http://www.rationalwiki.org/wiki....n_wrong

Post by GaryGaulin
Repeating lies, over and over again, is how the academically profitable scam is perpetrated.

Post by NoName
Which makes it such a shame that 110% of nothing is still nothing.

Post by fnxtr
Quote 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.   Quote 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined) ridicule accorded to your past theories.   Quote 10 points for claiming that your work is on the cutting edge of a "paradigm shift".   Quote 40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts.

Gary always gives 110%.

Post by fnxtr
Heh. They used to play that on the local campus station at 6am Mondays. Now, thanks to a technology upgrade, we get "library on random". Bleh.

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

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

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

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

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

Think Sir Clement Freud on Just a Minute.

Post by didymos
Well, I'd love to see you stop whining like a brat, but that's probably not gonna happen either. Such is life.

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

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

Post by midwifetoad
This is kind of slow, but here's a few Barry quotemines and their discussion at talkorigins:

[blockquote]No wonder paleontologists shied away from

evolution for so long. It seems never to happen.

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

blockquote]

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

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

that it was never ‘seen’ in the rocks.

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

blockquote]


[blockquote]The fossil record with its abrupt

transitions offers no support for gradual change

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

blockquote]

[blockquote]At the higher level of evolutionary

transition between basic morphological designs,

gradualism has always been in trouble

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

blockquote]


[blockquote]The absence of fossil evidence for

intermediary stages between major transitions in organic

design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination,

to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has

been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic

accounts of evolution

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

[/blockquote]

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

that paleontologists could have accepted gradual

evolution as a universal pattern on the basis of a

handful of supposedly well-documented lineages

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

[/blockquote]


[blockquote]The main problem with such phyletic

gradualism is that the fossil record provides so little

evidence for it.

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

[/blockquote]

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

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

over and over again – not gradual evolution

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

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]yet to preserve our favored account of

evolution by natural selection we view our data as so

bad that we almost never see the very process we profess

to study

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

blockquote]



[blockquote]The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became

an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left

ignored

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

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]The main impetus for expanding the view that

species are discrete at any one point in time, to

embrace their entire history, comes from the fossil

record.

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

[/blockquote]



[blockquote]The record certainly did not reveal gradual

transformations of structure in the course of time.

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

[/blockquote]




[blockquote]Many species remain virtually unchanged for

millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be

replaced by a quite different, but related, form.

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

[/blockquote]

[blockquote]When we do see the introduction of

evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang

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

blockquote]

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

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

see much evidence of anatomical change through that

series, that is indeed evidence that substantial gradual

evolutionary change has not occurred

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

[/blockquote]

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

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

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

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

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



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

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