16 Replies to “No Comment”

  1. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    That is pretty impressive.

  2. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    At sites like UD they are at great pains to deny that this is “real” tool use, that animals can have “real” intelligence, and so in. In fact there are a whole series I have noted of scientific propositions that they want very badly to be false. These are a problem for them because they are a problem for religious doctrines. The ones I have noticed that people like Denyse O’Leary (“News” at UD) are upset about are:
    1. That there are multiple universes.
    2. That the Higgs Boson is real (it was called the “God Particle” and a particle can’t be God — even though it was originally nicknamed the Goddamned Particle because it was so hard to find, and “God Particle” was just an attempt to clean the language up).
    3. That there are animals that can make and use tools.
    4. That there is intelligence in animals such as the Great Apes.
    5. That humans can design artificially intelligent computers.

    The last is so upsetting to them that the Discovery Institute set up a whole Center to push their position, to explore the “challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI) in light of the enduring truth of human exceptionalism“. The membership of the Walter Bradley Center includes many names you will recognize from ID advocacy (its director is Robert Marks and the listed Fellows are William Dembski, Jay Richards, Michael Egnor, Jonathan Bartlett, Winston Ewert, and Eric Holloway).

  3. petrushka
    Ignored
    says:

    Don’t see the problem. The retrival hook is obviously designed. No trial and error.

  4. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Forgot a few more items that UD is upset with:

    6. That another origin of life has occurred elsewhere in the universe.
    7. That extraterrestrial intelligent beings exist (corollary of 6).
    8. That extraterrestrial intelligent beings have visited or could visit the earth (corollary of 6 and 7).

    Anyone notice any others?

  5. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein:

    Anyone notice any others?

    Junk DNA.

  6. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller: Junk DNA.

    Yes, of course. That’s the huge glaring (and hilarious) exception to their statements that it is not OK to make “bad design” arguments against them, because who knows what The Designer might want.

  7. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    I, for one, welcome out new crow overlords.

  8. Robert Byers
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m not impressed. Many birds swallow stones to help them digest. Thats smarter but still unimpressive. Woodpeckers use their beak with a understanding its a tool.
    In all these things its trivial acts of the memory. They have memorized the simple presumptions.
    They have never gone the next step because they are unintelligent relative to intelligence as a concept.

    The great error in these things is seeing memory as evidence for thinking.
    this bird never thought anything but already had it memorized as surely as to know it needs to make a nest.
    Nature shows its a great memory machine.
    mankind shows its a thing being, like God, on top of the universal memory machine.
    Thats why computers(AI) always are non thinking however glorious they memorize.
    The sign of thinking is you can make a mistake.
    Thats also why all human problems in mental areas, i say, are exclusively memory triggering problems. its impossible for immaterial souls to malfunction in thinking.
    (Unless concluding evolutionism is still viable!!!!!)

  9. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    And so Robert visits and proves Joe’s point.

  10. Kantian Naturalist Kantian Naturalist
    Ignored
    says:

    It’s also a consensus at Uncommon Descent that there are no viable, coherent alternatives to the philosophical assumptions that they regard as the inevitable conclusions of rational inquiry. They write as if no one has ever argued that free will isn’t required for responsible agency or that abstract objects are social constructions.

    And of course they are thoroughly convinced that there are no serious arguments in favor of distinguishing between sex and gender — after all, why bother reading any feminist theory when you already just know that’s bullshit to begin with?

  11. Richardthughes Richardthughes
    Ignored
    says:

    Empathy / Morality in other creatures.

  12. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    And there’s the Central Dogma of molecular biology (which they think, wrongly, is violated by epigenetics).

  13. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    No Comment

  14. Rumraket Rumraket
    Ignored
    says:

    How do you link a youtube video like that so it shows here? It it possible to link a video in a post in the same way?

  15. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Honey bees construct honeycomb; making almost perfect hexagons without using any tools, like protractors or any other measurement tools… How?

    Not only that, biomimetics try to copy their random, but very creative processes in many different ways because, as it turns out, using hexagons has many advantages, such the maximizing the use of space with little support…

    Guess what? NASA is using the bee idea to build spaceships that use the honeycomb like structures. This idea that supposedly originate by mindless processes will be also used in aeroplanes, cars and military.. In this case, I think that dumb luck deserves another Nobel Prize…

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.