27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeMost scientific journal articles start with a brief summary of the contents and conclusions of the article, which is called an "abstract." The full journal article is not freely available and I don't believe you if you claim you have read it.
If you only read the summary then yes, it's not terribly impressive.
The word 'summary' is also not very impressive, which is why I believe KN called it an 'abstract'.
I put up Dr Richard A Watson's credentials to show you that he has scientific credentials.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThere's nothing wrong with his credentials.
It is amusing to watch the anti-God squad up in arms when a non creationist even dares to mention the words 'intelligent' and 'design' when writing about evolution. I'm guessing they will attack his credentials as a scientist next.
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra• I went to the link dj2becker posted.
Most scientific journal articles start with a brief summary of the contents and conclusions of the article, which is called an "abstract." The full journal article is not freely available and I don't believe you if you claim you have read it.
• There was an article following the 'summary'.
• I never claimed (nor implied) that I had read the "full journal" article.
• Therefore, there is no reason for you to believe or not believe something you only imagined I was saying.
• Glad to have cleared that up for you.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @dj2beckerThe article does not support "intelligent design" in any way according to the authors of the article.
It is amusing to watch the anti-God squad up in arms when a non creationist even dares to mention the words 'intelligent' and 'design' when writing about evolution. I'm guessing they will attack his credentials as a scientist next.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIn response to my statement that I read the abstract of the article (the part you can access freely), you said you "read the article."
• I went to the link dj2becker posted.
• There was an article following the 'summary'.
• I never claimed (nor implied) that I had read the "full journal" article.
• Therefore, there is no reason for you to believe or not believe something you only imagined I was saying.
• Glad to have cleared that up for you.
Now you are contradicting that claim while claiming you're not.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerIt seems the anti-God squad wants to immediately muddy the waters rather than examine the topic.
It is amusing to watch the anti-God squad up in arms when a non creationist even dares to mention the words 'intelligent' and 'design' when writing about evolution. I'm guessing they will attack his credentials as a scientist next.
I believe Dr Watson's bold new idea will likey generate resistance rather than acceptance among credentialed evolutionists, and especially so from the old school fundamentalists. The fresh faced newcomer (Watson) undoubtedly faces an up hill battle in gaining any acceptance of his theory.
Ideas such as 'design' and 'intelligence' (and intelligence based learning systems) are much too radioactive for most atheists to handle. So in spite of the potential for owning this idea (instead of resisting it) I think they would rather ignore it and hope it quietly goes away.
27 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraI assumed you read the same article I did, the one that can be accessed from dj2beckers link. I also assumed the summary (preceding the article) was what you were calling an abstract. If I misunderstood anything you or FMF was saying then congratulations, you succeeded in muddying the waters and taking focus off the topic.
In response to my statement that I read the abstract of the article (the part you can access freely), you said you "read the article."
Now you are contradicting that claim while claiming you're not.
27 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @lemon-limeIt's quite amusing that you are trying to make a sort of argumentative virtue of NOT reading the pertinent article.
• I went to the link dj2becker posted.
• There was an article following the 'summary'.
• I never claimed (nor implied) that I had read the "full journal" article.
• Therefore, there is no reason for you to believe or not believe something you only imagined I was saying.
• Glad to have cleared that up for you.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @divegeesterSo says a card carrying member of the anti-God squad...
It's quite amusing that you are trying to make a sort of argumentative virtue of NOT reading the pertinent article.
It's quit amusing that you continue to portray yourself as something you are not.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeThe waters were clear from the get-go; I suggest you dust off your spectacles.
I assumed you read the same article I did, the one that can be accessed from dj2beckers link. I also assumed the summary (preceding the article) was what you were calling an abstract. If I misunderstood anything you or FMF was saying then congratulations, you succeeded in muddying the waters and taking focus off the topic.
The journal article makes no claim of finding evidence for intelligent design, and its author explicitly rejects it. Rather, what the article is aiming at is drawing a link between the way learning works (in neural networks) and the way in which evolution operates. Specifically, it addresses the "evolution of evolvability," the manner in which the DNA of organisms can influence future mutations. For instance, we know that the mutation rate of the DNA in organisms varies by organism, that is, DNA itself can affect the rate of mutations therein.
Your suggestion that biologists would be likely to reject the findings en masse is rather laughable considering it was published in a respected journal after peer review.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeAd hominems away!
So says a card carrying member of the anti-God squad...
It's quit amusing that you continue to portray yourself as something you are not.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @kazetnagorraThe journal article makes no claim of finding evidence for intelligent design...
The waters were clear from the get-go; I suggest you dust off your spectacles.
The journal article makes no claim of finding evidence for intelligent design, and its author explicitly rejects it. Rather, what the article is aiming at is drawing a link between the way learning works (in neural networks) and the way in which evolution operates. Specif ...[text shortened]... masse is rather laughable considering it was published in a respected journal after peer review.
I made no such claim either. I suggest you try reading with a clear mind, and stop trying to 'see' what isn't there.
27 Sep 17
1 edit
Originally posted by @kazetnagorra...published in a respected journal after peer review.
The waters were clear from the get-go; I suggest you dust off your spectacles.
The journal article makes no claim of finding evidence for intelligent design, and its author explicitly rejects it. Rather, what the article is aiming at is drawing a link between the way learning works (in neural networks) and the way in which evolution operates. Specif ...[text shortened]... masse is rather laughable considering it was published in a respected journal after peer review.
Yes, it passed the first test. But it still has a long way to go before it becomes fully incorporated into (becomes an established part of) evolution theory... when or if that ever happens.
PE met with some resistance when the 1972 'landmark' paper was published, but there was nothing inherently problematic with PE so it quickly gained full acceptance.
If there isn't anything problematic with Dr Watsons paper then what are you and FMF fussing over? No one here has said or suggested his paper supports the creationist definition of supernatural intelligent design.
27 Sep 17
Originally posted by @lemon-limeDr Watson's work simply does not support any notion of intelligent design regardless of how you define it, supernatural or otherwise.
If there isn't anything problematic with Dr Watsons paper then what are you and FMF fussing over? No one here has said or suggested his paper supports the creationist definition of supernatural intelligent design.