news aggregator
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.
The ID Causation model indicates that "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are an unnecessary false dichotomy:
Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design:
As in Social Learning Theory, there is reciprocal causation where the person (or living thing), the behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other (A influences B and B influences A).
There is no algorithm variable that allows users to "tweak natural selection pressures". That would require purposely interfering with what programmatically develops in the model, or purposely leaving something out such as continental drift.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing both the context in which evolution is occurring and the levels of performance in meeting life's challenges that permit success in reproduction: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations).
That's why I program using an algorithm that does not have these inherent ambiguities.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale".
That also becomes another unnecessary false dichotomy. Humans have long been on target to develop big brains. The question becomes: What set that target and not another target?
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.
And what has for millions of years worked for humanity is the set target towards increasing multicellular brainpower. It's also more than just making brains bigger, we required improved brain circuit designs. I expect that this set target is still set.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.
The ID Causation model indicates that "artificial selection" and "natural selection" are an unnecessary false dichotomy:
Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design:
As in Social Learning Theory, there is reciprocal causation where the person (or living thing), the behavior, and the environment can have an influence on each other (A influences B and B influences A).
There is no algorithm variable that allows users to "tweak natural selection pressures". That would require purposely interfering with what programmatically develops in the model, or purposely leaving something out such as continental drift.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing both the context in which evolution is occurring and the levels of performance in meeting life's challenges that permit success in reproduction: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations).
That's why I program using an algorithm that does not have these inherent ambiguities.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale".
That also becomes another unnecessary false dichotomy. Humans have long been on target to develop big brains. The question becomes: What set that target and not another target?
Quote (N.Wells @ April 24 2014,10:09)There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.
And what has for millions of years worked for humanity is the set target towards increasing multicellular brainpower. It's also more than just making brains bigger, we required improved brain circuit designs. I expect that this set target is still set.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by midwifetoad
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13)If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker.
Quote (Soapy Sam @ April 24 2014,14:13)If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
But if you don't record it, you're an undocumented wanker.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Soapy Sam
If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
If God had wanted us not to masturbate, he'd have organised things such that we couldn't. I can't tickle myself, so that's obviously something He has put beyond the pale.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2014,09:31) Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)Pssst. Hey Gary. You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?
How about bird level navigation?
http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf
In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.
Can your bug do that?
Yes.
Also known as the Sheldon Cooper defense -- it can but it chooses not to.
Pity Gary is neither as talented nor as funny as Sheldon, or the actor that portrays him.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 21 2014,09:31) Quote (Nomad @ April 21 2014,06:00)Pssst. Hey Gary. You know how you're so proud about your model possessing "rat level navigation"?
How about bird level navigation?
http://researchbank.rmit.edu.au/eserv......sis.pdf
In this instance evolutionary algorithms were used to evolve the control logic to autonomously fly a simulated unmanned aerial vehicle to a landing on board a naval vessel.
Can your bug do that?
Yes.
Also known as the Sheldon Cooper defense -- it can but it chooses not to.
Pity Gary is neither as talented nor as funny as Sheldon, or the actor that portrays him.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 24 2014,13:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.
Insofar as sense can be extracted from it, it blows two of Gary's claims out of the water.
First, that intelligence "emerges". This bit of Dadaist prose asserts that it's intelligence all the way down and all the way up.
Second, it reinforces the view that Gary's effluent is circular and ultimately question begging. Gary "explains" intelligence by insisting that it is somehow 'already there', at every level from 'the behavior of matter' to the level of organisms.
Gary never tires of repeatedly shooting himself in the foot with these sorts of absurd and self-refuting claims.
'Sewn together wrong.'
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 24 2014,13:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.
Insofar as sense can be extracted from it, it blows two of Gary's claims out of the water.
First, that intelligence "emerges". This bit of Dadaist prose asserts that it's intelligence all the way down and all the way up.
Second, it reinforces the view that Gary's effluent is circular and ultimately question begging. Gary "explains" intelligence by insisting that it is somehow 'already there', at every level from 'the behavior of matter' to the level of organisms.
Gary never tires of repeatedly shooting himself in the foot with these sorts of absurd and self-refuting claims.
'Sewn together wrong.'
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 24 2014,09:28)The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
This paragraph makes no sense whatsoever. I know this is like "Dog Bites Man," but it provides a good example of how muddled thinking results in muddled writing.
Categories: AE Public BB
Wildlife
Post by Lou FCD
Pileated Woodpecker (male) yesterday at Greenfield Lake.
Pileated Woodpecker (male) by Lou FCD, on Flickr
Pileated Woodpecker (male) yesterday at Greenfield Lake.
Pileated Woodpecker (male) by Lou FCD, on Flickr
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.
However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing the context in which evolution is occurring: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations). However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale". There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.
I'd like to re-iterate my view of that algorithm. It's usable for modelling artificial selection. It would also be okay for a model of natural selection that was designed to allow users to tweak natural selection pressures or set minimum fitness levels before being allowed to reproduce, just to let the users see how populations respond to different levels of selection.
However, it's not particularly good for modelling real-world evolutionary progressions, because the real world keeps changing the context in which evolution is occurring: new predators, competitors, and/or potential prey species move in, other predators / competitors / prey species go extinct or move away; the climate keeps changing; sea levels rise or fall, frequencies of natural hazards change; continents split apart, and so on and so forth. Therefore, in the real world there is no such thing as a "desired level of fitness". Possibly even worse, there is no such thing as a target in evolution. Every individual has the de facto goal of reproducing and successfully raising offspring (more technically, ensuring and even enhancing the propagation of their genes over succeeding generations). However, there is no set target, such as "we have to develop long necks" or "big brains" or "become a whale". There is simply the de facto goal of whatever works well enough, for the moment, because any genome that fails to reproduce itself disappears.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
I just looked up “genetic algorithm desired fitness” and found a good amount of academic information, including at Google Scholar where the phrase “Desired Properties” was also found.
Maybe I should just agree this GA step that goes by several names is not “in nature” then wait to see where the discussion goes from here. In my opinion the generalization (within limits) has some usefulness, even though it is can also be used as a misleading oversimplification.
I also need to add:
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
I just looked up “genetic algorithm desired fitness” and found a good amount of academic information, including at Google Scholar where the phrase “Desired Properties” was also found.
Maybe I should just agree this GA step that goes by several names is not “in nature” then wait to see where the discussion goes from here. In my opinion the generalization (within limits) has some usefulness, even though it is can also be used as a misleading oversimplification.
I also need to add:
The causation model has a “Design” form and the software can be tweaked in a way that makes the user the Designer. But since this represents all the behavioral levels on down to the “behavior of matter” it's simply a way to get around the technological problem of atoms on up modeling of an entire planet currently being impossible, in which case “behavioral cause” then “intelligent cause” would create the virtual plants and animals including humans.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12) Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
ETA spelling
My selfless task to prevent the feline destruction of bird populations continues...
Glen Davidson
Quote (fnxtr @ April 24 2014,00:12) Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
ETA spelling
My selfless task to prevent the feline destruction of bird populations continues...
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by fnxtr
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
ETA spelling
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 23 2014,18:12)I don't think a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
ETA spelling
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (keiths @ April 23 2014,15:33)JWTruthInLove, a Jehovah's Witness, offers his take on God:
Quote @Coyne:
All the questions are pretty easy to answer.
Quote Why would the Abrahamic God, all-loving and all-powerful, allow natural evils to torment and kill people?
There’s no evidence that god is all-loving or all-powerful. And he probably likes to torture and kill things. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he designed us.
Quote Why can’t he keep kids from getting cancer?
Why should he??
Quote How did the Holocaust fit into God’s scheme?
Perfectly.
Quote Why, if God wants us to know and accept him so much, does he hide himself from humanity?
He only hides from atheists. The other billions of religionists are too blind to see the truth of god.
Quote Why would an omnibenevolent God consign sinners to an eternity of horrible torment for crimes that don’t warrant that?
Hell is a trinitarian invention. There’s no evidence, that god designed any hell.
Quote Why is God in the Old Testament such a jerk, toying with people for his amusement, ordering genocides in which women and children are killed en masse, and allowing she-bears to kill a pack of kids just for making fun of a prophet’s baldness?
I don’t know. Maybe he was born a jerk.
That's a lovely God you're sucking up to, JW.
"God is Love"
Quote (keiths @ April 23 2014,15:33)JWTruthInLove, a Jehovah's Witness, offers his take on God:
Quote @Coyne:
All the questions are pretty easy to answer.
Quote Why would the Abrahamic God, all-loving and all-powerful, allow natural evils to torment and kill people?
There’s no evidence that god is all-loving or all-powerful. And he probably likes to torture and kill things. Maybe that’s one of the reasons he designed us.
Quote Why can’t he keep kids from getting cancer?
Why should he??
Quote How did the Holocaust fit into God’s scheme?
Perfectly.
Quote Why, if God wants us to know and accept him so much, does he hide himself from humanity?
He only hides from atheists. The other billions of religionists are too blind to see the truth of god.
Quote Why would an omnibenevolent God consign sinners to an eternity of horrible torment for crimes that don’t warrant that?
Hell is a trinitarian invention. There’s no evidence, that god designed any hell.
Quote Why is God in the Old Testament such a jerk, toying with people for his amusement, ordering genocides in which women and children are killed en masse, and allowing she-bears to kill a pack of kids just for making fun of a prophet’s baldness?
I don’t know. Maybe he was born a jerk.
That's a lovely God you're sucking up to, JW.
"God is Love"
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Use this link for reading the entire thread:
http://talkrational.org/showthr....1800592
Use this link for reading the entire thread:
http://talkrational.org/showthr....1800592
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:02) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:
Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart. There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly. That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.
You and others were given the opportunity to provide any other flowchart you wanted. I'm not surprised that you're now being a scumbag over it.
I found the thread where this typical flowchart was recommended to me, and discussed:
Does Illustration Sum Up Genetic Algorithms & Synthesis?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 22 2014,23:02) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 21 2014,07:20) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2014,17:56)Here is a typical flow chart for a (now under discussion) Genetic Algorithm. It's as you can see really not complicated at all:
Somewhere way upstream you were informed of the wrongness of this flowchart. There is no "desired fitness" in nature, although that criterion does exist in your "model." You determine what the "desired fitness" is and code accordingly. That's one sure sign that your program doesn't model reality.
You and others were given the opportunity to provide any other flowchart you wanted. I'm not surprised that you're now being a scumbag over it.
I found the thread where this typical flowchart was recommended to me, and discussed:
Does Illustration Sum Up Genetic Algorithms & Synthesis?
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Lou FCD
Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,02:22)This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
Quote Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction
As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.
Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.
I can think of at least one control.
I don't thing a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
Quote (timothya @ April 23 2014,02:22)This one from "jw777" has to be a Poe, surely:
Quote Strict Materialism as Pornography Addiction
As pointed out in the Dawkins post, I’m currently working on a thesis that proposes atheism is one of a class of neurodegenerative pathologies, hall-marked by substantial downregulation and possible total ischemia of dopaminergic receptors and opiate receptors.
Initial mechanism proposals and meta-analyses are promising. Trying to find a proper control is the elusive variable. My instinct tells me this will sweep discussions like Coyne’s completely aside in the future.
I can think of at least one control.
I don't thing a guy who believes in an Invisible Haploid Zombie who Lives in the Sky and Watches Us Masturbate really should involve "neurodegenerative pathologies" in the discussion.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
The plot is the same as it ever was -- as long as you conflate an explanation of intelligence with an explanation of evolution, specifically the evolution of species and higher-order classifications of living things, you are assuming your conclusion.
Which is a hardly the first logical fallacy you've committed, but it lies at the foundation of your efforts.
No further refutation of your effluent is required than to point this out, regardless of the adequacy, or alleged lack thereof, of any other explanation that does not base itself on a fallacy.
The plot is the same as it ever was -- as long as you conflate an explanation of intelligence with an explanation of evolution, specifically the evolution of species and higher-order classifications of living things, you are assuming your conclusion.
Which is a hardly the first logical fallacy you've committed, but it lies at the foundation of your efforts.
No further refutation of your effluent is required than to point this out, regardless of the adequacy, or alleged lack thereof, of any other explanation that does not base itself on a fallacy.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Texas Teach
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,15:56) Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.
The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.
From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.
And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.
I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.
Translation from the Gaulinese: I totally made myself look stupid, falling into the same mistake as Joe. Now my only hope to save face is to complain that other people should have given a long explanation of why Joe is a moron who thinks all scientists are bigger morons to deflect attention from my own idiocy. Perhaps inventing a bunch of uneducated lurkers that are confused by this remote corner of the Internet.
P.s. Gary doesn't seem to know what "trolled" means. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 23 2014,15:56) Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.
The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.
From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.
And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.
I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.
Translation from the Gaulinese: I totally made myself look stupid, falling into the same mistake as Joe. Now my only hope to save face is to complain that other people should have given a long explanation of why Joe is a moron who thinks all scientists are bigger morons to deflect attention from my own idiocy. Perhaps inventing a bunch of uneducated lurkers that are confused by this remote corner of the Internet.
P.s. Gary doesn't seem to know what "trolled" means. Irony can be pretty ironic sometimes.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.
The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.
From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.
And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.
I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 23 2014,07:19) Quote .....where it currently looks like he's being trashed for mentioning that Uranium was not formed on planet Earth. No it doesn't. Joe is so clueless that he misunderstands the arguments raised against his position and does not realize why he is wrong (and you are not following along either). He countercharges that his opponents don't think that uranium formed off the earth, but no one in that thread has taken that position. When doing uranium dating, it is irrelevant when and where the uranium formed: it is only relevant when the containing crystal formed and whether the crystal might contain some lead from earlier decays. After that, we check whether the crystal predates the rock that it is in, or postdates it (whether it is an inclusion from something earlier, or resulted from later metamorphism), or simply formed when the rock formed, but those are resolved by examining fabrics visible in thin sections, examining growth bands in the crystals, checking conditions of formation for that crystal versus the other crystals in the rock, and so forth.
The average person is not going to wade through a long complicated scientific argument going on somewhere else.
From the information that was given, it easily looks like the disagreement is with what Joe was quoted as saying about Uranium not having been formed on/in planet Earth.
And by the way, I once tried setting up one of my HP5988A mass spectrometers (that when tuned just right shows isotope peaks) for dating minerals from the tracksite. After getting into all the prep-work that takes a team of specialists to get right (but by myself take 50+ years and tons of money) I gave up on that idea. It quickly became much cheaper and easier to have that done by a lab.
I very much understand how complex the many many required procedures actually are. The problem is all those who do not. And it looked like you're an expert on that topic, so I suggested you should add what you said to me to Joe's thread.
Categories: AE Public BB
