Guano (1)

Comments that seem to me to be in violation of the game rules will be moved here, and closed to further comment.  Do not regard having your post moved here as a reprimand, merely as a referee’s whistle. 🙂

Feel free to comment on them at any other peanut gallery of your choice.

1,658 thoughts on “Guano (1)”

  1. OM: But what position is that? I’ve not indicated any position here, I’m just asking *you* about *your* claims. This thread is about GAs, not my position. You are making claims, I’m asking you questions that I believe follow from those claims.

    If you don’t agree, fine. So I ask again, what sort of question am I “allowed” to ask you about this GA that you claim exists?

    For example, is the question “Is this GA in every cell, or just some of them?” a legitimate question?

    So you admitting cowardice- thanks.

  4. OM: It’s your GA, don’t you even know the first thing about it like where it is and how many copies there are in an organism?

    It’s NOT my GA asshole- I am NOT the designer of living organisms you wanker.

  5. OM – exposed its ignorance on Venter- exposed its ignorance on tetrapods- exposed its ignorance on DNA

    Yet it keeps coming back for more…

  6. Joe G: You don’t understand anything- you have no clue about GAs, science, life, no clue at all

    Easy there little fella. Let’s put your toys back in the pram and focus on the issues.

  7. Rich: Easy there little fella. Let’s put your toys back in the pram and focus on the issues.

    The issues are eviotards are assholes, losers and cry-babies because they cannot support the claims of their position.

  8. olegt: So where is a summary of your understanding of genetic algorithms? Citation please?

    Where is yours?

    Who the fuck are you, anyway?

  9. Joe G: Who the fuck are you, anyway?

    We all know who he is Joe, a working scientist. And a effin clever bloke!

    Who are you again?

  10. OM: Well, then that makes two of us then. Yet I’m on the winning side by default unless you can come up with some actual positive evidence other then baseless claims.

    You are a fucking loser without any positive evidence and only baseless claims.

  12. I explained it in my own words, I provided links and oleg I linked to my responses.

    If you are too stupid to fllow those links and read then you are too stupid to talk about GAs.

  13. olegt: Joe, this is a 6-page thread and no intelligent person has time to wade through hundreds of comments looking for your definition (which, dare I say, is not there). If you have a basic idea of what a GA is, please write it down in a few sentences. This is a very reasonable request and I have no idea why you are refusing it.

    YOU are NOT a reasonable person oleg.

    Make your case against me or fuck off.

  14. olegt: Joe, I can’t make a case against you if if I wanted. We still don’t know what you understand by a genetic algorithm. You have never so much as summarized what it is in your opinion.

    No. By your own admission, those links did not contain your definition of a GA. You “corrected Lizzies misconception.”

    So, how do you define a GA, Joe?

    GAs are already defined and I go by that.

    Make your case or fuck off, asshole.

  15. olegt: So, this is your definition of a GA, Joe? Just want to make sure. If you would like to expand it a little, go ahead. If not, we can discuss it.

    I told you already but obvioulsy you HAVE to be an asshole. I go by the standard and accepted definitions of GPs and GAs and EAs

  16. olegt: Good start. (We all can copy and paste from Wikipedia.)

    Go on.

    Nothing else to say- obvioulsy you are clueless wrt GAs. You have never demonstrated any understanding of GAs.

  17. OM:
    Joe claims that his GA can design new proteins.

    Dembski says differently.

    http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/NATSELEC.pdf

    Joe says that his GA is generating new information and genuinely solving the problem, not using information that has been smuggled in.
    Dembsky says differently

    Seems you are at odds with Dembski in many ways Joe. Perhaps you should write your own book!

    Umm Dembski and I agree and my scenario has nothing to do with natural selection.

    My scenario means new proteins came about by design- ie as per the GA.

    Information hasn’t been “smuggled” in- it was put there intentionally.

    As I said you are a waste of time…

  18. OM: But your GA is not designing them directly is it? It’s evolving a solution.

    Therefore evolution can design and you’ve just disproved the entirety of ID.

    ID is not anti-evolution

    ID is anti- the blind watchmaker evolution

    My scenario is intelligent design evolution.

    YOU are still a fucking wanker

  19. OM: It’s what you are claiming was put there intentionally. I’m asking you how you know that.

    So you don’t know anything about that either.

    We can’t have a discussion until you get an education

  20. OM: How does it know to stop? If there is more then one solution does it stop at the first one or carry on looking for a better solution?

    Why do you think you infantile actions are meaningful?

  21. OM: No, the meaningful part is your response. It illustrates the vacuity of your position.

    Said the vacuous wanker

  23. Joe G: However I do understand that you can’t support your position.

    My position is that you are making it up as you go along. And it’s well supported.

  24. OM: you said

    GAs don’t look up solutions. They create them.

    And anyway “maybe”? You mean you don’t *know*? What a shock.

    BTW a GA is a SEARCH HEURISTIC to it does search for solutions.

    YOU get a double-dumbass for that bit of wankery…

  25. OM:
    Joe G,
    So there are no predefined solutions, but at the same time the solution was put there intentionally?

    How can both of these things be true Joe?

    They are not both true. You are just a moron.

  27. Joe G: Finally, RichTard comes out and admits it.

    Yes, I’ve admitted you, Joe Gallien, is an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child. Although admit is probably the wrong word, eh Joe?

  28. Rich: Yes, I’ve admitted you, Joe Gallien, is an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child. Although admit is probably the wrong word, eh Joe?

    But the evidence says that you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child- I will stick with the evidence, thanks anyway.

  29. OM: For someone so concerned with the exact meaning of words it’s amazing that you refuse to clarify your own when asked.

    For someone trying to use semantic bullshit to trip me, you get your panties in a twist when I expose your ignorance.

  30. Rich: No Joe, as always, you’re confusing evidence with your agenda driven opinion.

    BWAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

    breath

    BWAAAAAAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA

    I have archives of your ignorance…

  31. Joe G: BWAAAAAAAHHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAbreathBWAAAAAAHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAI have archives of your ignorance…

    Filed between CSI calcs and tick studies (consistent with baraminology), no doubt. See that ‘Bwaaahaaa’ thing – flattered you copied me, but try to add a little something of yourself.

  32. Rich: Filed between CSI calcs and tick studies (consistent with baraminology), no doubt. See that ‘Bwaaahaaa’ thing – flattered you copied me, but try to add a little something of yourself.

    Nice egomaniac thing- as if you were the ONE who invented BWAAAAHAAAA

  33. Joe G: Nice egomaniac thing- as if you were the ONE who invented BWAAAAHAAAA

    No, I’m not. I’m just the one you took it from. Like I said, flattered. but then again, most of your shtick is derivative.

  34. Joe G,

    Joe G: “When I lose an argument I will let you know.”

    You indicated you lost when you changed tactics from addressing the message to addressing the messenger.

    Good lawyers have a strong case with a cool delivery.

    You however, have lost your cool.

  36. Rich: No, I’m not. I’m just the one you took it from. Like I said, flattered. but then again, most of your shtick is derivative.

    As I said you are an egomaniac just because that is what you really think.

    Unfortunately I have used that well before I ever heard of you.

  38. Joe G: As I said you are an egomaniac just because that is what you really think.Unfortunately I have used that well before I ever heard of you.

    Link away, cupcake!

  41. Rich: Link away, cupcake!

    Link away to stuff I used on the internet in the early 2000s?

    Thank you for proving that you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child

  42. Rich: And there. ladies and gentlemen, is some lost cool.

    And another bald assertion.

    I would say the accuser has the lost cool…

  44. Joe G: And another bald assertion.I would say the accuser has the lost cool…

    So telling people to shut up isn’t support for a person having los their cool? really?

  45. Joe G: obtuse, petulant, intellectual child

    Falttered again, Joe. But you should work on your own stuff. Oh, wait, let me guess, You’ve used that LOADS, before.

  46. Rich: So telling people to shut up isn’t support for a person having los their cool? really?

    Why would it be?

    Make your case

  47. Rich: Falttered again, Joe. But you should work on your own stuff. Oh, wait, let me guess, You’ve used that LOADS, before.

    YOU admitted to it already. When you confirmed it I just pointed it out.

  49. BTW Rich saying:

    What are you talking about?

    Please make your case.

    Or shut up.

    Thanks

    Is not the same as telling someone to shut up- another RichTARD FAIL

  50. Rich: Eh? what did I admit?

    That you are an obtuse, petulant, intellectual child- you just said it in the middle of nothing as if you were confessing.

Comments are closed.