Artificial Intelligence Darwinism Intelligent Design Mathematics Natural selection

How much computing power would we need to evolve computer via Darwinian evolution that can program itself ?

But read the fine print: We would need to run many trials of planets in parallel in order to simulate the real conditions in the universe. Yampolskiy concludes, ‘In fact, depending on some assumptions we make regarding multiverse, quantum aspects of biology, and probabilistic nature of Darwinian algorithm such compute may never be available.’”

Intelligent Design Natural selection science education

At Oscillations: “Natural selection” issue stirs again at College Boards

It goes on and gets way better. You’ll be amazed at the idiocracy that the testing establishment takes for granted and promotes. Read at her site about how one testcrat even administered the same test twice, a fact advertised on the internet… and more. By the way, why don’t we hear much about this from other science writers?

Back to Basics of ID Functionally Specified Complex Information & Organization Natural selection Paley's ghost speaks out

Paley’s Ghost speaks out: the problem of [neo-]darwinist evolutionary incrementalism

One of the common weak arguments against the design inference on functionally specific, complex organisation and/or associated information (FSCO/I, a functional form of specified complexity) is the idea that body-plan level macro-evolution is “simply” the accumulation of lots and lots of micro-evolutionary adaptations in a grand climb of fitness. It seems to be back on Read More…