Culture Darwinism Intelligent Design News

Tyson wrong on duck sex?

Spread the love

From Rachel Feltman at the Washington Post:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, science aficionado. With over 5 million Twitter followers and two television programs, NDT probably has a wider audience than any science communicator in the world. He’s a brilliant astrophysicist and a fantastic spokesperson for all things cerebral.

Zounds. The planet just might make it through the catastrophe anyhow.

It started with this tweet:

From Feltman again:

Miriam Kramer from Mashable chimed in with ducks, because duck sex is literally the most terrifying thing on the planet and pretty much the only argument it takes to disprove intelligent design. More.

That would only be an argument against intelligent design if the system didn’t work well, but it does. Not that Kramer need offer a careful argument. The dwindling readership of formerly major media would be suspicious of any such thing. The readers know they are smarter than other folk because they know there is no design n nature. Raising s thoughtful question would endanger their Smart People status.

What the episode really shows is the extent to which Darwinian cultural thinking has become—at best—a mantra. More often, a broken record, and at worst a Wrong Answer Generator. (“Nope. Can’t be wrong. It’s Darwinian, see?”)

Well, as our tipster noted, “A lot of science writers are tweeting about duck sex now, so that’s a plus.”

Tomorrow, they will wake up and their multiverse will be as real as ever.

See also: Can sex explain evolution?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

45 Replies to “Tyson wrong on duck sex?

  1. 1
    Mung says:

    Living, thriving, organisms are not an argument against ID.

  2. 2
    GaryGaulin says:

    Mung why are you still unable to scientifically explain how “intelligent cause” works?

    I would like to see a scientific argument for ID, instead of the usual religious extremism.

    In regards to how the ID movement is now seen by mainstream religious leaders:

    http://www.inumc.org/postdetai.....2497031157

    http://www.umc.org/news-and-me.....2499865149

    You are only digging yourself even deeper into a situation that may lead to criminal prosecution of the Discovery Institute and its affiliates for running a bait-and-switch scam. The damage it has done to me personally is tragic, and at this point in time I believe that you and others are sick in the head and don’t even care how many people are being destroyed by your deceptive tactics.

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    The answer, of course, is that some species musta evolved to enjoy pain in sex, but other species musta evolved to enjoy pleasure in sex. All of which naturally “proves” evolution.

    Darwinism can explain anything, but successfully predicts nothing that’s not already known.

    -Q

  4. 4
    GaryGaulin says:

    Then Querius explain how “intelligent cause” works. The premise of the “theory of intelligent design” suggests that it best explains and predicts what “Darwinism” cannot. But where is this mysterious explanation? Anyone?

    —————————————————
    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.

  5. 5
    groovamos says:

    Hawking (on why we are here): The universe is governed by science. But science tells us that we can’t solve the equations, directly in the abstract. We need to use the effective theory of Darwinian natural selection of those Societies most likely to survive. We assign them a higher value.

    Don’t you love that “science” governs everything? Why, that means that those science people are some REALLY special people. They can even tell why we are here. Yay for science people!

  6. 6
    GaryGaulin says:

    Groovamos, complaining about poorly worded statements from “science people” is the sign of a childish whiner, not a scientist who would present testable scientific evidence to show why it’s poorly worded.

  7. 7
    Mung says:

    GG: I would like to see a scientific argument for ID, instead of the usual religious extremism.

    There was nothing religious in what I wrote.

  8. 8
    GaryGaulin says:

    Mung I’m talking about what all combined at UD is adding up to. Instead of all intelligently discussing cognitive models where a virtual critter has a self-description of itself in the world it perceives there is instead a thread to trash the scientific question of where that consciously arises in ourselves. All the hoopla over philosophy is just further avoiding of science work required to develop the scientific theory the Discovery Institute claims to be supporting the development of. Word from their best lab is that materialists should not expect a scientific model from them, which right away means that they do not have a scientific theory either. And in this thread it’s the question of “Tyson wrong on duck sex?”

    What I am seeing is more like an adult version of schoolyard bullying of science nerds. It might attract plenty of attention but constantly throwing insults is just stone throwing behavior that even the Bible warns about being careful not get caught up in.

  9. 9
    Querius says:

    GG,

    Both Darwinism and ID are paradigms. But which one has the greater benefit for science? There are many examples—here’s one.

    Non-coding DNA was first assumed to be junk, a collection of “fossil” DNA left in the path of evolution.

    In contrast, ID assumes that non-coding DNA has an unknown function in support of the overall design.

    Currently, scientists are belatedly finding that more and more of this junk DNA has a function after all. Their previous label of junk suppressed scientific progress compared to a design inference.

    Notice that the ID paradigm applied to this example is superior to Darwinism regardless of whether there actually is a designer.

    -Q

  10. 10
    bFast says:

    GaryGaulin, “The damage it has done to me personally is tragic” What do you mean?

    “bait-and-switch scam” What is the scam? What is the bait? What is the switch?

    It feels like you are trying to say something important, but exactly what I haven’t figured out. I know I miss 75% of what is posted here, maybe I missed you clarifying this. However…

  11. 11
    bFast says:

    Gary, I have been reading your post at 8, above. ‘Seems like you are saying that DI claims a theory, but doesn’t present a theory (bait & switch). Is this correct?

  12. 12
    GaryGaulin says:

    Querius at #9:

    In contrast, ID assumes that non-coding DNA has an unknown function in support of the overall design.

    I would say that all in science assumed that “non-coding” DNA had an unknown function. Early on it was a major goal to discover what it is for, and how much is deactivated virus remain type “junk” that is supposed to serve no function at all or else it will still ail us. Autism was especially evidenced by changes in the non-coding regions, which also provided evidence for function the problem is that none knew what it was for. Science news that made it seem otherwise came from science writers trying to outdo each other in sensationalism, not the reality faced by those who have the job of scientifically figuring out how all that works.

    Meanwhile the BioLogic Institute and Center For Evolutionary Informatics was certainly not pumping out new information to explain how non-coding regions worked. Along with the green-screened lab full of antiquated equipment that was no longer used anymore the whole ID movement became a sad comedy that serious researchers paid little or no attention to. If I was there at the time of Ann’s filming I would have had to ask whether they were purposely trying to make themselves all look foolish, or the plan was just the product of incredibly foolish thinking to begin with. That and others things combined to make whatever ID was said to be taken as foolishly ridiculous for such an organization to even assume without a testable model to back it up with.

    I do though see what others would call “junk” in the genome as treasure to help figure out what (via chromosome speciation) chromosomal Adam and Eve looked like and much much more. The seemingly useless repeats and all the rest at least takes up 3D territory space in the nucleus, helps shape its configuration. Taking it out might case no damage but it’s still not exactly the same without. Especially long term, after thousands of generations of offspring.

    You can say that I do not see anything that deserves to be called “junk” except something gone wrong in something that otherwise is not that eventually causes genetic problems. Old memories help reflect on the past and deactivated parasites make wonderful wall trophies, where we can all be glad the little bugger’s head is now on display for us (a trinity that includes the one being looked at that maybe never saw that part of itself so well before) to see through our own eyes.

    Even where there is plenty of “junk” at another level it’s a treasure trove, yet that still qualifies as “junk” so it’s a “one’s junk is another’s treasure” sort of thing where there are two equally valid opinions. I am sure Larry Moran and I could argue for days over what he would he would call junk but I just can’t, thus arriving at different percentages where mine is expected to be much greater. This has me way on the same side of the issue that the rest of the ID movement went. But for the theory and I the amount of “junk” really does not matter and I am sure you would rather I be here writing this to you than wasting time adding to the clutter of estimates already there.

    Without a scientific model to explain how the non-coding regions work: what some in the ID movement assumed is just an unsupported personal opinion, not scientific evidence. As a result scientists did not take the opinions of the ID movement seriously. They instead mostly laughed or like Larry were just plain disgusted by it all. And where all that there is are assumptions the message gets boring real fast, to even those who for the most part agree. I would love to see what ID assumed to within reason become true enough for it to not have been wrong, but without a testable model to impress scientists with it’s just one more of hundreds of predictions where at best ID is just one more drop in the bucket.

    The way the ID model has it all the “junk” that helps us at the multicellular intelligence level figure out where we have been through time was something waiting to be revealed, by science. The theory predicts that the inherent to our behavior “scientific method” is at work at our genetic level too, thinks like a scientist. It’s then like too bad more “junk” was not saved, but oh well at least have that to work from. The thrill of for the first time seeing all of this about our past is first-most emergent from the genetic level intelligence that deserves the credit for figuring out how to see itself from the outside, via our eyes and brain that make it possible for that to happen. In a way something being worked on where what did get saved in the “junk” piles was being saved for a later date sort of thing, even where it happened by coincidence. In either case the model connects what we with our brain find to be treasure (by the way it shows us where we have been through time) to the genetic level that made it all possible, which for historical purposes makes all the “junk” part of the most valuable things of them all in the data. Without this connection “junk” can be defined as whatever can be removed without causing immediate harm. But where the “junk” collector is driven by the scientific method to express itself in a way that gives all that later purpose to us/it there is another way of looking at it where after billions of years success was finally achieved reading its base pairs using its multicellular level brain that then needs all of it to see where it has been through time. Anything that helps figure out our past is of value to the DNA based intelligent entity, even though it could have survived without it.

    Using another model that does not take intelligence being expressed upwards into consideration that is all simply discardable junk that serves no purpose at all to the DNA based entity. But where it records what we battled for viruses and other useful clues the information helps it battle against that from our level using medical doctors it’s like who are we to even try to decide what is “junk” and what is not to it?

    In any brain past memories are important, even though we could live without them. The ID theory predicts the same applies at the genetic level, where it just so happens there is a part it could live without that is more a recollection of past events that some call “junk”. Yet for our neural brain doing away with that “junk” means removing past memories and lessons learned while growing up, and we know that is not good even though we could still zombie around afterward.

    The cognitive based genetic model expects what has been called “junk” but it’s a part of a DNA level brain where its past memories are likewise expected to be more like cherished and needed. It’s not (at least yet) possible to say whether that level is in some way conscious of what it knows like we are, but that cannot be scientifically be ruled out. By theory it makes sense, even though our genetic level does not have to be conscious to be as extremely intelligent as it is. It’s then a situation where Larry has to say whatever floats our boat, in that regard. It’s a different way of looking at things but it’s based upon David Heiserman’s machine intelligence models and human cognition illustration by Arnold Trehub showing the same basics at work in our brain too. For what it’s worth it’s a whole new area of science where the word “junk” just does not work, don’t need it. As far as science is concerned it’s fair game to eliminate concepts like this that come from other models usually Darwinian that don’t make sense anymore in a model for something else such as “intelligent cause”.

    We cannot control what Larry calls “junk” but in this case we can this way control what ID has to say about it by saying nothing, ignoring it. So for me personally what “ID assumed” makes the word “junk” irrelevant to begin with, end of discussion. It’s not even entertaining the concept it’s making it completely gone, real quick.

  13. 13
    groovamos says:

    Gary: Groovamos, complaining about poorly worded statements from “science people” is the sign of a childish whiner, not a scientist who would present testable scientific evidence to show why it’s poorly worded.

    Childish whiner? Like to get personal much? Is that all you guys have really, vituperation?

    Actually hate to break the news but having fun with this stuff, you know, big scientists with blinders on and plainly seen, pontificating on life for us regular folk so as to be able to feed our starving “brains” on their nourishment. Hardly whining, but loads fun while wining and dining.

    Let me put it this way. Hawking hardly slipped up here verbally. He says the same stuff in his most famous book. That the universe operates according to the “laws of science”. The guy is stuck, however he plainly enjoys his role in a kind of priesthood when he is a philosophical dilettante as am I – but I can at least see what he is doing. I got halfway through the book 20 years ago and put it down. And I’m no dummy when it comes to science, just averse to the idea the the universe bows down to human ideas of what is or is not science. Or whether the universe even cares whether there is a such thing as science. But maybe the universe really is stupid, like materialists say it is while maintaining it created itself.

  14. 14
    GaryGaulin says:

    Groovamos I agree that what Stephen Hawking is saying is like “Automobiles are driven by the laws of physics” but it does not help to go equally overboard complaining about it being quite overimaginative.

    As far as the general public is concerned: to those who never read a single page of a book by any scientist and know little or nothing about ID you’re one of its “science people”. From my perspective it’s like downing yourself. It should be easy enough for you to outdo what Stephen Hawking wrote by saying the same thing but more precise. That feeds the “scientific method” at work in this forum, has power.

  15. 15
    GaryGaulin says:

    bFast:

    Gary, I have been reading your post at 8, above. ‘Seems like you are saying that DI claims a theory, but doesn’t present a theory (bait & switch). Is this correct?

    That’s what it scientifically amounts to. In this case though the tactic is not working. Having a scientifically viable premise for a theory but no scientific model to base a theory upon is like poetic justice.

    There has to be useful scientific theory to explain how “intelligent cause” works or things are destined to go wrong. That is evidenced by Methodist leaders and many others ending up not liking what the Discovery Institute promotes. So even though it drains me to go on it’s still much more scientifically self-punishing for the DI.

  16. 16
    Robert Byers says:

    Is he brilliant? has he created his audience? NAW.
    These other writers saying he is ALSO are not brilliant.
    The curves are wrong here.

  17. 17
    Querius says:

    GG,

    I would say that all in science assumed that “non-coding” DNA had an unknown function.

    But you’d be wrong. Dr. Susumu Ohno coined the term back in 1972. His original paper is a good read, and I’d recommend it to anyone interested in tracing the path of discovery in this area:

    http://www.junkdna.com/ohno.html

    Nevertheless, Dr. Ohno jumped to a conclusion based on his assumption of the Darwinian paradigm. Since then, the presumption of non-coding DNA as “junk” persisted and was defended vigorously in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary. You might still be able to find posts from Dr. Moran’s defense of the assumption here maybe a year ago.

    Anyway, Dr. Moran’s defensive stance is a great example how the Darwinian paradigm has hindered scientific progress.

    As I said, the ID paradigm encourages investigation on the assumption of design, but takes no position on who or what the designer might be, if any. Unfortunately, the ideological revulsion against the possibility of God as the designer has severely hampered science in some areas.

    The recent hysterical reaction by the scientific community to the mistranslation of a Chinese expression is another sad case in point.

    -Q

  18. 18
    GaryGaulin says:

    Querius, the word “junk” is not supposed to be taken as meaning it’s all nonfunctional. Especially with all the sensationalism hoopla that came from science writers, not researchers who were busy working on figuring out what it did. If the researchers assumed it had no function then why were so many busy searching for function?

    For me: How God the designer(s) works is being revealed by the scientific theory I am working on. My science is not at all hampered by the possibility of God as the designer(s).

    Note: As in Genesis there is an “(s)” after “designer” due to God being in the plural form and the theory explaining a trinity of coexisting intelligent entities together involved in the creation of living things and speciation.

  19. 19
    bFast says:

    GaryGaulin, I’ve been thinking about this post. Painful duck sex is presented as evidence that is contrary to what is predicted by Darwinism. However, it seems that painful duck sex, and in fact a whole lot of other heinous organism interactions (rabies comes to mind) are contrary to what is predicted by the “loving God” hypothesis, wouldn’t you say?

  20. 20
    Querius says:

    GaryGaulin,

    Querius, the word “junk” is not supposed to be taken as meaning it’s all nonfunctional.

    Yes, it was. Dr. Ohno wrote “junk” and he meant junk. Read Dr. Ohno’s paper (perhaps again), where he comes up with creative explanations of why there’s so much “junk” in human DNA.

    Why would Dr. Moran here defend the non-functionality of the majority of DNA so vigorously if he didn’t believe that most of it was junk?

    Darwinism presupposes random change without innate purpose, ID presupposes design for some purpose. Darwinism is hard-pressed to explain the deterioration of the human genome, while ID considers it evidence of entropy.

    Darwinism is hard pressed to explain how slow reproduction rates and low populations, hence slow evolution rates have managed to keep pace with other organisms such as pathogens with vastly higher reproduction rates, population growth, and mutation rates. Darwinism has painted itself into a corner.

    ID considers all possibilities . . . what if genetic diversity is a product of gut bacteria, or there’s perhaps direct sharing of DNA segments, or perhaps extinct organisms were what could be considered failed hybrid strains between genomes?

    Any of these are worth investigating as more information throws more doubt on a quaint, wooden-masted, 19th century theory that’s outlived its usefulness.

    God may well have designed a spectrum of living things, only a few of which have managed to survive. But how was this accomplished? Even in Genesis, God didn’t create all things ex nihilo, but made a progression of creation from the base to the exquisite (what did God create last?).

    Just some things to think about. 🙂

    -Q

  21. 21
    GaryGaulin says:

    Querius:

    Yes, it was. Dr. Ohno wrote “junk” and he meant junk. Read Dr. Ohno’s paper (perhaps again), where he comes up with creative explanations of why there’s so much “junk” in human DNA.

    In the second paragraph of what you linked to Dr. Ohno said:

    Consequently, only a fraction of our DNA appears to function as genes.

    It was later confirmed that this is true, only a fraction of our DNA functions as (protein coding) genes. The rest has other function, or as in disabled viral code it’s not supposed to function anymore.

    Even if you are right about how he used the word “junk” then it’s still semantic tripe to be complaining about something that was said in the early 1970’s by someone who is only famous for that.

  22. 22
    Querius says:

    GaryGaulin,

    Even if you are right about how he used the word “junk” . . .

    So, am I right then about the origin of the label “junk” to describe what later became called non-coding DNA?

    . . . then it’s still semantic tripe to be complaining about something that was said in the early 1970’s by someone who is only famous for that.

    I’m most definitely not complaining! I’m providing you with an important example of the crucial difference between asserting that something has NO function, i.e. “junk” of little value, and something of UNKNOWN function, with potentially profound value. This is not tripe. It’s the difference between a Darwinian approach and an ID approach to research.

    Let me ask you this. Do you think it would be easier to get funding to investigate something labeled “junk” or something labeled as “a mystery that could change our understanding of genetics”?

    . . . or as in disabled viral code it’s not supposed to function anymore.

    What scientific evidence takes this bold assertion out of the realm of pure unscientific speculation? This is exactly what I’m talking about! This is a groundless Darwinian fantasy story. It is the opposite of science.

    Personally, I thought Dr. Ohno came up with two ingenious hypotheses to explain the presence of what he labeled “junk ” DNA. Did you read what they were?

    . . . something that was said in the early 1970’s by someone who is only famous for that.

    Oh come on, that’s a low blow. Why are you deprecating Dr. Ohno? He was brilliant, a pioneer in molecular evolution. It’s just that he was hampered by his Darwinian preconceptions, which is my point that you’re trying to evade. Don’t argue. Think about it.

    -Q

  23. 23
    GaryGaulin says:

    bFast:

    GaryGaulin, I’ve been thinking about this post. Painful duck sex is presented as evidence that is contrary to what is predicted by Darwinism. However, it seems that painful duck sex, and in fact a whole lot of other heinous organism interactions (rabies comes to mind) are contrary to what is predicted by the “loving God” hypothesis, wouldn’t you say?

    The hypothesis depends on how “loving God” is defined. God is not normally expected to work like Santa Claus.

    Since whatever pain may result has not stopped ducks from having sex either it still works. Humans would call that “hurt so good”. I saw the evidence indicating that we and ducks have that in common. It’s still no big deal in comparison to male honeybees who have to be more like suicidal.

    Duck sex or not: Darwinian theory remains true. All that is “loving” loves on.

  24. 24
  25. 25
    GaryGaulin says:

    Querius:

    So, am I right then about the origin of the label “junk” to describe what later became called non-coding DNA?

    Regardless of what you are convinced he meant a “label” from some otherwise unknown guy is a waste of time to argue over, in the first place. These generalizations are not useful for explaining how intelligent cause works. Theory development that is supposed to be taking place goes nowhere. It’s then just part of the switch, where the promise of a “scientific theory” is used as bait. From your perspective it can seem like a scientific issue but dragging others into arguments over old labels (you are best to ignore so they in time go away) is another example of how genuine scientific theory development is being avoided.

    I don’t care what some Dr. Ohno said. His name alone spells trouble ahead.

    What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?

  26. 26
    Origenes says:

    Gary Gaulin: What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?

    Let’s start with something simpler. Can you describe a testable model for how intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts?

  27. 27
    GaryGaulin says:

    Origenes:

    Let’s start with something simpler. Can you describe a testable model for how intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts?

    The premise of the theory of intelligent design requires explaining all the biological related intelligent cause(s) of the humans that write forum posts. But as a matter of fact yes collective intelligence can be detected in this forum by the science method being at work in it, while theory explains how humans work the same way.

    Starting with something simpler is another example of switching to something other than what the theory is supposed to explain. I should not have to answer you.

  28. 28
    Origenes says:

    Gary,

    GG: The premise of the theory of intelligent design requires explaining the biological intelligent cause(s) of the humans that write forum posts.

    Not sure that I understand what you are saying. To be clear, I’m not asking you to explain the origin of human intelligence. I’m asking you to describe a testable model for how (human) intelligence works wrt forum posts.
    A forum post seems to be an apt and simple example of intelligent design. It’s uncontroversial that forum posts exist and that they are intelligently designed.
    So again, can you describe a testable model for how (human) intelligent cause works in the formation/design of forum posts? Please humor me. Your answer would be helpful for understanding what kind of testable model you are after.

  29. 29
    GaryGaulin says:

    A forum post seems to be an apt and simple example of intelligent design.

    So what? I already heard it enough times for it to be annoying to hear repeated.

    The “theory of intelligent design” requires you to best explain the origin of human intelligence as having an intelligent cause. I have other things to do, and I should not have to answer to you that is for you to explain to me.

    Enough said on that, I hope.

  30. 30
  31. 31
    Origenes says:

    Gary,

    GG: The “theory of intelligent design” requires you to explain the origin of human intelligence.

    We seem to be talking past each other. In post #25 you wrote:

    GG: What matters is what you have for a testable model for how intelligent cause works in biology. Which at this point is what?

    Now, I’m trying to understand what it is that you have in mind when you speak of “a testable model for how intelligent cause works”. I would like you to explain such a model to me. Therefor I’m asking you to describe a testable model for how (human) intelligent cause works in a simpler and uncontroversial case like a forum post.

    Unlike you (#27 #29), I don’t see how my request is related to the question of the origin of human intelligence and the alleged obligations of ID.

  32. 32
    Trumper says:

    Querius – Your post about Junk DNA should of been adequate for GG … most of the readers got your point that a purely Darwinist view was (sadly some still) more harmful to the advancement of DNA research than what ID proponents views were/are.
    While materialists can’t explain the origin of the information in DNA/RNA … and Darwinism doesn’t even attempt to (nor could it or is it equipped to) ID theory does this by tracing the digital code/information found in DNA backwards.
    If information creation is traced back to it’s source we typically find intelligence behind it. Code is a perfect example of this in all it’s sates. the same model is applied to DNA and thanks to ever improving biological advances we can see more and more evidence that points to the specified complexities which continue to shut the door on the egotistical faith in randomness.

  33. 33
  34. 34
    Querius says:

    Well said, Trumper.

    I think GG also demonstrated that he is immune to fact and logic, and is unwilling to admit to even the most obvious conclusion about Dr. Ohno’s coining of the term, “junk” DNA for what most people now call non-coding DNA.

    Frankly, I’m shocked at his insensitivity against people of Japanese descent. Maybe he thinks that they are lower on the evolutionary tree, or maybe he’s just admitting defeat by resorting to abuse of Dr. Ohno’s name.

    At any rate, I’m not going to waste any more time.

    -Q

  35. 35
    GaryGaulin says:

    I can see that Querius proved to be shockingly deceptive. The kind of person everyone needs to stay away from.

    With the hundreds of hours of unscientific garbage they are in favor of forcing all students in Japan to waste time studying for homework their goal would destroy the Japanese economy too. It’s scientists would have to leave the country or be subjected to daily insults about their being “materialists” practicing “scientism” and have to endure all the rest of their defamatory abuse.

  36. 36
    Trumper says:

    GG – Let’s see if we can raise the bar a couple notches on this discussion eh? I fully understand the fear that ID puts out there for most folks…that is the implication of God or a god. In reality though it does not purport to claim that, rather it points to an ‘intelligence’.

    Now that intelligence can be far superior or sub-par…it matters not to the level of intelligence…just that the designed object has an affiliation (if you will) to that intelligence. Heck it could even be alien but it still would not matter. Design and information are detected…nothing to fear there. What intelligence caused such a design? Nothing to fear there either….unless of course your whole existence comes into question by having to wrestle with the difference between ‘meaningful’ and ‘meaningless’.

  37. 37
    GaryGaulin says:

    Trumper I already know intelligence caused our design. You can stop telling me what I already know.

    Now raise YOUR bar a couple of notches and scientifically explain how the said “intelligence” caused our design. Show me a “scientific theory”.

  38. 38
    Trumper says:

    GG – your “scientific theory” cry is a nice fallback plan. Since you “already know intelligence caused our design”…how is it that you “know” this? I’m going to assume that you ‘know’ this by empirical evidences from the 100s of scientific studies done on DNA and the information coded w/in it….science will shed little light on “how” intelligence caused our design…or why.
    Let me help you out a bit: Lets take the scientific miracle of the Big Bang….or theory if you prefer. Scientific theory breaks down at any point before the Big Bang and the creation of time-space….it falls into conjecture and faith or educated guessing at best. Yet we mostly all agree that it occurred and approximately when because we have evidence that appears to support the existence of it.

    If you brush up on Godel’s theorem….you’ll see why answering your question is rather fool-hearty. Same can be said of me if I asked you to explain why the Big Bang occurred…scientifically you can’t (if you are applying it correctly)…..nothing in science can be used to measure anything before that event….we had no carbon atoms to test…radiation to decay, not even time for it, as that did not exist either. Basically it was something outside of our subset that we can’t claim knowledge of or about….if we could that that would exist in our subset.
    and then peek at Godel’s Ontological Proof … or just save that bar for another time.

  39. 39
    Querius says:

    Trumper,

    Did you make any sense of the #35 post? It’s simply a meltdown of completely random non sequitur and ad hominem attacks, a verbal ink cloud of vituperation released to cover an ignoble retreat.

    Are you sure it’s worth it to write any further responses?

    Actually, there’s a good chance that GG is simply an AI bot selecting paragraphs out of a library based on keywords just to waste everyone’s time. I’ve read about a support tech doing exactly that, and I wouldn’t doubt that it’s been done here before.

    Think about it.

    -Q

  40. 40
    GaryGaulin says:

    Trumper:

    Since you “already know intelligence caused our design”…how is it that you “know” this?

    Scientific model.
    Duh?

  41. 41
    Trumper says:

    GG – you seem quite astute there, considering you have offered little to further your position in the eyes of posters here….yes including yourself.
    Hopefully you are still in deep thought about my previous post (but your last reply seems to supply everyone with ample evidence that you only grasp the simpler things).
    ….”Duh”… that must be how you raise the bar eh?

    I do have to hand it to you, you are indeed entertaining.

    T

  42. 42
    Trumper says:

    -Q It is starting to look that way, I can’t argue that.

    T

  43. 43
    GaryGaulin says:

    GG – you seem quite astute there, considering you have offered little to further your position in the eyes of posters here…

    No offense but the posters here do not have the many years of cognitive science related experience required to fairly judge a scientific model for explaining how “intelligence” and “intelligent cause” works.

    To be scientifically useful a model has to make sense and work as advertised for someone like this:
    http://www.camppeavy.com/

    If you want an opinion from someone who matters then email Camp. He already knows about the ID Lab model and should not mind letting you know what he thinks of what I have in comparison to what you (don’t) have for him to experiment with.

  44. 44
    Querius says:

    Trumper,

    It’s actually tempting to create such a program. Copy a bunch of self-standing paragraphs, add some metadata on subject, type (assertion, rebuttal, challenge, wild claims, examples), tone, a library of ad hominems, some categorized links, deprecating introductions, assorted questioning on the definitions of common terms, dismissive conclusions, and then assemble them in some kind of order–sorta like painting by color in words–along the line of ELIZA. Finally, personalize some of it to make it seem like it came from a real person, and then cut and paste it in and watch the fun begin!

    If you get cornered, blast them with personal attacks, accusations, and declare yourself the winner. Oh, I suppose you can create some sock puppets to agree with your AI and say how brilliant the AI persona is, and so on.

    They way you can tell you’re dealing with one of these programs is that they never stay on topic for long, seriously consider what you wrote, or delve into any scientific detail. My personal rule is that as soon as they begin to resort to abuse, it means that they’ve conceded the argument and you can leave them to their vituperation. 😉

    -Q

  45. 45
    Trumper says:

    Thanks for the input there GG…. I guess that is to be expected given the recent feedback and past post checking I have done. I’ll be sure to note, that for future reference I should not expect anything ground breaking from you nor anticipate an adult dialog.
    I don’t consider you a troll though…you at least try to make a point…

Leave a Reply