Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Programming by Accident – The Darwinian Paradigm

Categories
Darwinism
Engineering
Evolutionary biology
Information
specified complexity
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The last couple of days I have spent too much time trying to rescue a hard drive.  This drive was intended for a Windows 10 system, but it would not appear anywhere in utilities.  BIOS could recognize it was plugged in, but that was it.  Nothing in Explorer, nothing in Disk Management, not even in the command-line diskpart partitioning utility.  In fact, just plugging the drive in would cause all of these to hang until terminated.

I went through the whole litany of troubleshooting procedures: BIOS check, memory diagnostics, different slots, direct plug, external connections, a special cloning hardware connection.  Nothing.

Finally, after painstaking effort on multiple different machines I was able to get a Linux command-line terminal on one of my machines to see the drive.  A couple of hours and several procedures later, I was eventually able to get the drive initialized and partitioned.  But it still would not accept a file system of any kind, just returning read/write errors every time a format was attempted, regardless of the partition chosen.

Thankfully, there wasn’t anything critical on the drive, so it is going back still under warranty.

—–

In the midst of this, yesterday I decided to deal with one of my little annoyances that has been around for several months.  I have another drive – perfectly good – that regularly drops out of the file manager.  This is completely unrelated to the problems with the other drive and it hasn’t been a big problem, since I know a workaround through diskpart.  But I figured I might as well take care of it too, while I was at it.

So I created a simple desktop shortcut to open the diskpart terminal at the administrator level and feed a short command-line text program into diskpart to mount the drive.  This allows me to mount the drive through a single click whenever I want, rather than having to go through the process manually in diskpart.

I created the shortcut, wrote the command-line text program, made sure the files were in the right location, unmounted the drive to test the program and clicked on the results of my efforts.  Nothing.

What could have gone wrong?

I opened the text file.  Everything looked good on a quick glance.  But with a little more troubleshooting I ascertained that diskpart had indeed been opened and had called the text script and had returned an error before closing in the background, so the error must be somewhere in my text file.  But where?

Then I noticed it.  A simple mistake.  One character mistyped.  In one of the command lines I had written “lixt vol” rather than “list vol”.  Not a big deal.  Just one character out of place.  After all, any other programmer would have known what I meant.  In fact the two letters are right next to each other on the keyboard.  A minor mistake.  Nothing but a “slight successive” change.

But it crashed the whole program.

I fixed the typo, re-ran the script, and it works perfectly.  So my little annoyance is now solved.

—–

But my thoughts kept coming back to this little incident last night.  This example, like a thousand I’ve seen before, shows the importance of information and how precise it sometimes has to be.  True, not every communication has to be this precise, not every instruction this clear.  But in the world of a 4-bit digital code, information storage, translation mechanisms, and instruction sets, a great deal of precision is required.

I continue to be astonished that people, otherwise intelligent people, are so committed to a materialist narrative or so naïve about systems engineering, that they think complex, integrated, functional systems can be built through random changes.

Nobody thinks this in the real world — not with bench science and with actual applications.  They would be laughed out of a job.

But in the conveniently-distant historical context of biology they continue to blindly assert that a highly scalable, massively parallel system architecture incorporating a 4-bit digital coding system and a super-dense, information-rich, three-dimensional, multi-layered, multi-directional database structure with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, utilizing file allocation, concatenation and bit-parity algorithms, operating subject to top-down protocol hierarchies all came about through a long accidental series of random changes to the code and the database.

Sure.

That’s the ticket.

Comments
Eric Anderson @52: Follow up to the off topic comments I wrote before. Regarding the word play question: Thank you for the clarification. I've seen the words "then" and "than" used interchangeably in wrong contexts. Also the words "effect" and "affect" and other words that sound kind of similar but spell slightly different. That seems to be a problem that occurs mainly in English language, because it has a very vague (blurred?) phonetic consistency, compared to languages like Polish, German, and specially Spanish, where the letters almost always sound the same way in any word, according to certain phonetic rules. Perhaps the "Dionosio" case is related to this too? Once I read that in the US government years ago they didn't know Slovakia and Slovenia were different nations! :) IOW, it seems like English speakers are not very careful when it comes to spelling because their first language is not very consistent in that area. I'm not aware of a "spelling" contest in Spanish -at least in "Castilla", where the correct Spanish is spoken. If one says the words correctly in "lengua Castellana" then the spelling is piece of cake because what you hear is exactly how it should be written, perhaps except for a very few cases which don't come to my mind now. To a Spanish-speaker the English phonetics is not difficult in the sense that it does not add new sounds that don't exist in Spanish (maybe with the exception of the short 'i' sound?). The problem is the consistency between the written text and the way it sounds in different contexts. See for example the word "READ" which may sound very different depending on whether it is present or past tense. I don't recall any case of a word in Spanish that may sound different in different contexts. The letter 'i' has short and long sounds. Our common friend gpuccio writes often about quantification using 'bits' but if you add an 'e' to 'bit' it turns into the word 'bite' where the same letter 'i' sounds completely different. BTW, this letter has generated some funny anecdotes where some Spanish speakers, used to say 'i' in 'bit' as you would say 'beet'. The short 'i' sound is not difficult to say but it's not commonly used in Spanish, at least as far as I remember. Therefore, Spanish speakers sometimes may pronounce 'bit' as 'beet' or 'beat', which could be confusing for the listener. The worse happens when a Spanish speaker uses the short 'i' sound even for words like 'beat', 'beet' or 'sheet'. :) That actually happened to me. I couldn't figure out why everybody in the room was laughing out so loud after I said that word 'sheet' with my confusing phonetic translation algorithm that replaced the 'ee' with a short 'i' sound. :) There are other examples that could illustrate the difference between a language where the phonetic rules are more consistent vs. English where the phonetic inconsistencies appear quite often. Maybe that's why spelling is such a big deal in the English language? On the other hand, Russian and Polish languages have sounds that I can't pronounce correctly, maybe because I did not hear them when I was a child? That's a hypothesis I've read somewhere out there. A colleague tried to teach me how to say "good morning!" in mandarin (Chinese) to no avail. He really tried hard, but his student was worse than incompetent. :) It didn't work. I though I was saying exactly what he was telling me, but apparently he was hearing something different, which was not quite correct. Several years ago -after my failed attempt to learn Chinese- when my wife and I visited a few cities in China (Shanghai, Dalian, Beijing, TianJin), I tried to test how close I was from the correct pronunciation of that friendly greeting and to my pleasant surprise some locals reacted as if they had understood what I said. At least they smiled back. :) Perhaps it was understood, though it was said with a heavy accent? I don't know. In Spanish what they teach in school is orthography which is kind of like spelling, but written. One has to learn how the words are written. Once you know to write them correctly, you should say them correctly too, assuming you speak the original "castellano" and not one of the many variations derived from it. Many Spanish speakers say the 'c' and 'z' sounds like 's' which is incorrect.Dionisio
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
02:04 AM
2
02
04
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson @52: Regarding the spelling question: Maybe it wasn't clear enough, so let me repeat what I wrote @51: the name misspelling is not an issue at all. Not a big deal. No problema. I just wanted to satisfy my curiosity about the process that leads someone to writing the name that way. Fat finger typo? Editor auto-correct feature? Saw that name spelling somewhere else before (maybe actually here in this same website)? You're not the only person who has written it that way. As I said, I'm trying to learn a little about written communication for a project I'm working on. If you can provide a description of what thinking process led to writing the name that way, it could be a nice addition to my research on this topic. Thank you in advance if you decide to help me with this.Dionisio
April 10, 2017
April
04
Apr
10
10
2017
12:57 AM
12
12
57
AM
PDT
Dionisio @51: I'm terribly sorry I've been spelling your name wrong! For some reason I've been thinking "osio" instead of "isio". I'll try to remember in the future, but if one slips past me, I hope you'll forgive me beforehand. ---- As to your question, the words "descent" and "dissent" sound very similar in standard American English. There is a very slight difference in the initial vowel sound, such that next to each other you could tell them apart. However, in the right context they sound essentially identical to the ear and could easily be mistaken for each other. I can't speak for Bill, but if he were putting together a website that challenged the normal Darwinian paradigm, the website could certainly be called something like "Dissent from Darwinism." Then if you think further about this dissent and want to make a little word play, you could write "Common Dissent", as it sounds virtually identical to "Common Descent" in context. But the dissent really is not that common, given that most academics and institutions still support the Darwinian paradigm. So how about "Uncommon Dissent." But then at that point you've kind of lost the obvious tie back to Darwinism, as you could be dissenting from anything. So, one last twist brings it back to "Uncommon Descent". It has the sound of "dissent", gives the hint that it is about "dissent" and that the dissent is going against the institutional and academic status quo. But the spelling of the last word also gives a clear tie back to Darwinism. Anyway, I'm just speculating here about how Bill came up with the name. Maybe not exactly this thought process, but probably something along those lines. To my mind, at least, rather clever. ---- Then Charles adds his own clever quip @50. Totally different meaning, and very different sound with the word "decent", but spelled similarly enough to be a word play in writing, rather than sound. Good stuff!Eric Anderson
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
10:18 PM
10
10
18
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson @49: My reading comprehension -specially in English- is rather poor. Sorry, but I did not understand well what you wrote @49. Can you explain it differently? Thanks. PS. Off topic: I see Dionosio in lieu of Dionisio. Was that a "fat-finger" typo or an auto-editor replacement? My auto-editor suggests these two (Greek/Latin?) options: Dionysius, Dionysus, but not Dionosio. This is not important at all. Just curious, because this same misspelling has shown in other posts in this website before. Also, these days I'm trying to learn a little about written communication in English (not my first language). That's why I'm paying attention to otherwise irrelevant details. BTW, FYI - Dionisio is a Spanish version of a Greek name.Dionisio
April 9, 2017
April
04
Apr
9
09
2017
02:18 AM
2
02
18
AM
PDT
Actually pretty clever.
That's uncommonly decent of you to say so.Charles
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PDT
Dionosio, maybe this was already clarified, but: Uncommon descent is not a particular position on the science, so much as a play on words. Playing off both terms: common/uncommon and descent/dissent. Hinting at all terms, but not directly affirming which. Actually pretty clever.Eric Anderson
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
09:58 PM
9
09
58
PM
PDT
William J. Murray @45:
You cannot reason a person out of an unreasonable position. These people think you can get the most sophisticated computer-driven and regulated hardware and software in the world via chance interactions of chemistry. It’s insanity beyond the reach of reasonable discourse.
There is much merit in what you say. I don't think there is a lot of opportunity to have a rational discussion with some of the committed materialists who refuse to address the central issues relating to OOL, information in biology, and so forth. You are probably quite right that many of them have adopted an irrational position purposely and intentionally,* so there is little likelihood of having a rational discussion. As has been noted by others: The materialism comes first; the science is added as a later gloss. What I'm hoping is that there are a few individuals who have questions, who aren't quite sure what to make of all this, who perhaps hold to the materialist view, but only because it is what they've heard or what they were taught in school. A lot of those people may be willing to look objectively at the evidence and shift their viewpoint. But the person who starts with the materialism -- yes, it is pretty tough to have a rational discussion if they hold it as an a priori truth. Nevertheless, occasionally even the committed materialist is open-minded enough to look hard in the mirror (Anthony Flew, for example). But it is rare. And so we soldier on . . . :) ----- * Note, I'm not suggesting they have purposely and intentionally done something that they themselves consider irrational. Just that they have purposely and intentionally taken a position that matches their worldview. And the evidence in this case happens to show that the position is irrational.Eric Anderson
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
09:54 PM
9
09
54
PM
PDT
gpuccio: Ok, I understand now. Thanks. I don't subscribe to either one because I don't understand them exactly. Yes, the tricky word just hit me back. :) To understand both concepts very well I'd have to dedicate time I lack. That's why I stay on the sidelines in those discussions.Dionisio
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
12:45 PM
12
12
45
PM
PDT
Dionisio: "BTW, the name UD of this blog does not seem general enough to cover the entire ID spectrum, at least as far as I can tell as an outsider. I’ve noticed that both CD and UD groups of folks share the central ID paradigm. Hence the UD/CD controversy seems peripheral to ID. Did I get this right?" Yes. I think the name was originally chosen by Dembski, who probably does not accept CD.gpuccio
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT
With regards to anyone who thinks it's a mature, intelligent position to believe on can get the machinery and coding necessary for life from chance interactions of chemistry: no rational debate is possible. It's doomed from the outset. It is strictly a fanatical ideological position that can - ultimately - only be effectively defended via irrational means. You cannot reason a person out of an unreasonable position. These people think you can get the most sophisticated computer-driven and regulated hardware and software in the world via chance interactions of chemistry. It's insanity beyond the reach of reasonable discourse.William J Murray
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
02:10 AM
2
02
10
AM
PDT
RE: a quote in the heading of a blog? Doesn't it seem taken out of context? What does that quote have to do with an open forum for general discussions on different topics? Wasn't that quote taken from a letter about a war? Does it make sense to quote something that was said long ago in a war context? Perhaps sometimes it may, but this time it doesn't seem to fit. Words and phrases may have contextual meanings. A site that uses a quote -indirectly associated with a particular worldview- taken out of context as their heading is not serious IMO. BTW, the name UD of this blog does not seem general enough to cover the entire ID spectrum, at least as far as I can tell as an outsider. I've noticed that both CD and UD groups of folks share the central ID paradigm. Hence the UD/CD controversy seems peripheral to ID. Did I get this right? Not long ago a close relative argued that there wasn't anything wrong with The Eagles' Hotel California because they repeat the phrase "Such a lovely place" a few times through the song. So much for out of context quotes.Dionisio
April 8, 2017
April
04
Apr
8
08
2017
12:00 AM
12
12
00
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Just an afterthought to post #42. In my personal experience, indeed, the "argument" of: "think it possible you may be mistaken" (or something similar) always surfaces from intolerant interlocutors when they are no more available to discuss. This argument, like most so called "skepticism", is in no way a rational attitude, but rather a form of abuse. It is the worst enemy of honest discussion and intellectual confrontation. The reason is very simple: any honest discussant knows that it is "possible" that he, like anybody else, may be mistaken. That's simply obvious. Still, anyone who enters a discussion with honesty does that because he believes in some idea, and is available to share and test his views with others. So, a honest conviction is not in any conflict with the "possibility" of being wrong: exactly because I know that anyone can be wrong, I accept to test my conviction with you, who think differently. So, I am certainly available to change my ideas, but if, and only if, you, my interlocutor, really give me some reason to do that, and you have to do it in an honest intellectual confrontation. Otherwise, I have absolutely no reason to change my ideas, because I honestly believe that they are true. Now, if my interlocutor just appeals to the "possibility" that I could be wrong (like, I suppose, himself and anybody else), he is not giving me any reason to abandon what I believe: he is only trying to abuse me intellectually, to shake my honest convictions with a brutal attack. In the same way, being skeptic "a priori" is not a form of open-mindedness, but again an intellectual abuse. Any idea deserves to be honestly considered, if one chooses to do so, or simply ignored (in both senses) if one is not interested in it. But no one should be, "a priori", skeptic about anything, if he chooses to consider and evaluate that idea. Skepticism is only a form of prejudice.gpuccio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: In a sense, the quote in TSZ's heading could be considered appropriate, IMO. Indeed, while it seems to encourage a tolerant discussion, it comes from a personage of history that, whatever his merits, is not exactly a perfect example of cognitive tolerance. Like, I would say, most discussions on that "skeptical" site. :)gpuccio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT
Eric Anderson: Oh well, whatever.Dionisio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
gpuccio:
I certainly don’t want to belittle it. The discussion, I believe, originated from rvb8’s repeated invitations, on more than one thread, to go there as a requisite for personal survival.
Fair enough. We certainly needn't go there to have productive discussions. Probably quite the opposite. Indeed, that is part of the reason I haven't bothered with TSZ.
However, what really happens there is often a disappointment, at least for me.
No doubt. And I am certainly willing to "belittle" a poor argument or failed logic. ----- Dionosio:
Would you consider serious a website whose home page headline contains non-serious statements based on a particular worldview perspective?
Is it a little cheeky? Sure. Is it in appropriate? I don't think it is that bad. Look, if we had a website dedicated to challenging Darwinism and the tagline on the home page was Darwin's quote -- you know the one about a fair assessment can be obtained only by carefully looking at both sides of an issue -- it would be a little cute. Perhaps a little too on the nose. Perhaps annoying to Darwin supporters. But it wouldn't be beyond the pale. ----- In any event, I am more than happy to eviscerate -- yes, belittle -- any poor arguments, failed logic, or misunderstandings that come up on TSZ. I just don't think it is helpful for people here to make a lot of noise about the small number of posts or visitors or Alexa ratings they have. I don't care whether it is a site run by a single individual with no following. If they have good arguments I'm supportive. If the arguments are terrible, then fair game for belittlement. ----- Anyway, enough on that. I didn't mean to make a big deal out of this. Just a reminder to us all -- which goodness knows, I regularly need -- to be careful with my tone and to focus on the arguments and the issues, not the messenger. Again, I appreciate all the great comments and thoughts you guys and others have shared the past couple of weeks -- I hope you know that. Good discussions.Eric Anderson
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
10:57 AM
10
10
57
AM
PDT
gpuccio: Glad to have a doctor in the club too!Dionisio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
#36 error correction: "Though I don't think..."Dionisio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
Dionisio: Count me in as a fellow-addicted! :)gpuccio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:15 AM
7
07
15
AM
PDT
gpuccio: Agree, who wants to be "shredded"? :) Though I don't thing they have what is needed to do it. They even lack the power to turn on the shredder. :) If they were serious on science -specially biology, where WYSIWYG (unlike astrophysics)- they could have responded to your challenging OPs and follow-up comments which present some interesting scientific concepts and deals with real issues science faces in biology more than any other branch of science. I think that's what UB was logically expecting at the start of one of your latest OPs. Lately I've been told to stop the information gathering phase and move on to the next in the project I'm working on, but can't resist the attraction to reading newer research papers. It's an addiction that is dragging me down on the project.Dionisio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
Dionisio: I agree with you that the headline there is rather inappropriate. Moreover, I find the whole concept of "skepticism" deeply irritating, and therefore even the name itself of the site is rather annoying for me. It's just my personal feeling, but it's enough, even if there were no other reasons, not to comply with rvb8's friendly encouragements to go there to be "shredded". :)gpuccio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson and gpuccio: Let me explain the last statement in my comment @32: "In any case they belittle themselves right from their own home page, even before reading any post." Would you consider serious a website whose home page headline contains non-serious statements based on a particular worldview perspective? Does that indicate goodwill and good attitude of their authors? Is that conducive to discussions on any subject? Is that an invitation to serious open-minded discussions? The prisoners sent to Auschwitz concentration camp could read the sign "Arbeit Macht Frei" at the entrance, but they had no choice on whether to enter or not. However, that phrase by itself -had it not been associated with such a horrendous history- would not mean explicitly any derogatory or disrespectful statement against any particular philosophical worldview. People could agree or disagree with its meaning, but it wouldn't mock any particular belief. You may compare that to the headline in this blog UD. Perhaps its name is not accepted by many folks, but it doesn't mock their way of thinking. Still I would have called it differently, maybe ID instead of UD, but that's not of my business. However, the subtitle is serious, simple and clear, and it does not mock anyone's ideas or beliefs. In the discussion threads the OPs and follow-up comments may seem sometimes off that line, but that's up to every individual. It seems like the Areopagus in Athens in the first century of this age was a place where representatives of different worldviews were invited to present their ideas and discuss. The Roman Coliseum was completely different. The former was conducive to open discussion while the latter was a place to avoid unless you were part of the audience that was entertained and could thumb down the victims' fate at their will.Dionisio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
03:06 AM
3
03
06
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson: "Personally, I think UD would be better off with some of the prior debaters back. I don’t know if Elizabeth and others have been banned or just choose not to comment here anymore. I fear the former. I don’t have any authority in that regard and would oppose banning generally, except for the most egregious behavior." Again, I do agree with you! :) "I don’t think it is appropriate for us to belittle the site generally." I certainly don't want to belittle it. The discussion, I believe, originated from rvb8's repeated invitations, on more than one thread, to go there as a requisite for personal survival. :) However, I am always amazed at the existence of sites that mainly seem to exist in order to criticize another site (in this case, us) or in general another view of things. There are many worldviews that I disagree with, some of them I certainly strongly dislike, but I would never go to some site only to criticize those worldviews. I believe in positive intellectual action: I love ID theory, and I come here to support and defend it. If, in doing that, there is the need to criticize neo-darwinism, I do that happily, but criticizing neo-darwinism is not my real aim. However, TSZ is not the only site which feeds vastly on what we write here, and it is certainly the best of them. I appreciate their basic idea of a site open to different types of discussants, which derives probably from Lizzie's original good attitude. However, what really happens there is often a disappointment, at least for me.gpuccio
April 7, 2017
April
04
Apr
7
07
2017
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Eric Anderson @25:
I don’t think it is appropriate for us to belittle the site generally.
Can you point to a case where someone here belittled that site? Thanks. Does indicating facts count as belittling? If someone says that Rio de Janeiro seems to have a much higher crime rate than Bergen based on media reports, could that be considered 'belittling' Rio? In any case they belittle themselves right from their own home page, even before reading any post.Dionisio
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
09:35 PM
9
09
35
PM
PDT
This topic proposed by Eric: Programming by Accidents</b> (or even <b>Programing <i>With</i>  Accidents</b> reminds me of the following Challenge launched by niwrad under the title: <i>"The Darwinist and the computer programmer”</i> at Uncommondescent on November 5, 2013: </p> niwrad: <blockquote> …… Programmer (P): “What’s your problem? I can program whatever you want. What we need is a detailed description of the phenomenon and a correct model of the process.” Darwinist (D): “I would like to simulate biological evolution, the process thanks to which a species transforms into another species, by means of random mutations and natural selection”. </blockquote> </p> My response is at <b># 41</b> in the blog <p><a href="https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-darwinist-and-the-computer-programmer/#comment-479274“ rel="nofollow">https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-darwinist-and-the-computer-programmer/#comment-479274</a></p> and this is an exercise in trying to harness the <b> creative power of errors</b> with a real (or only thought) experiment
…… Programmer (P): “What’s your problem? I can program whatever you want. What we need is a detailed description of the phenomenon and a correct model of the process.” Darwinist (D): “I would like to simulate biological evolution, the process thanks to which a species transforms into another species, by means of random mutations and natural selection”.
My response is at
# 41 in the blog https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/the-darwinist-and-the-computer-programmer/#comment-479274 and this is an exercise in trying to harness the creative power of errors with a real (or only thought) experimentInVivoVeritas
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT
john_a_designer asked: > Just out of curiousity have any other ID’ists here read The Blind Watchmaker? I read it until I got to the weasel program that described how simple the probability of getting what you needed was; the first one arrives, and gets locked in, then the next, etc. then I burst out laughing and not sure I read any further, except some occasional, ad hoc sectionses58
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
12:49 PM
12
12
49
PM
PDT
rvb8 @ 7,
It is true that engineers and programmers are usually the most sceptical of evolutionary power, but once again the analogy is poor.
“All living cells that we know of on this planet are ‘DNA software’-driven biological machines comprised of hundreds of thousands of protein robots, coded for by the DNA, that carry out precise functions.” That sounds to me like an engineering, programming analogy. Oh, oh… tisk, tisk! Does anyone know who said that? (Without cheating-- googling.) Was he an ID’ist? Can rvb8 match his credentials? I don’t know much about rvb8, but what I know of his contributions here, I kind of doubt it. I wonder if he has read Dawkins’ 1986 book, The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins used a computer programming analogy for Darwinian evolution and DNA… Again, I kind of doubt that or that rvb8 is very well read at all. Just out of curiousity have any other ID’ists here read The Blind Watchmaker?john_a_designer
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
11:39 AM
11
11
39
AM
PDT
When computer based designers/programmers become a standardized industry and the science behind it becomes far more lucrative than Darwin's social agenda, we may finally start developing a formal knowledge of what a given heuristic CANNOT EVER build under a given set of conditions. Because that, really, is what Darwin so naively proposed; an algorithm; while stating that mathematics has no place in biology, which is how he could allow himself such a poor definition. Not to say there'll be direct conflict. Darwinists will still say "that's engineering and this is biology", and "it's a bad analogy". The real fun comes when machine based biological/medicinal research and GMO design starts bearing a bounty of wealth using the same algorithmic basis as the machine based programmers/engineers; i.e., out of their "bad analogy". At that point, they will be reduced to an odd species of Luddite.LocalMinimum
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PDT
Eric: In the OP you said: "massively parallel system architecture" Here's a post on that I had made on that topic (probably originally 10 years ago, but could only find this one) es58 October 11, 2015 at 6:23 pm “computer program” it also seems to contain: loaders, schedulers, assemblers, extraordinary data storage and fetching; massive parallelism and multi-programming; functions provided by an operating system (which of course is a “computer program”), all serendipitously arranged, lucky for us on this post: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/he-said-it-bill-gates-on-the-genome-as-software/ (sorry I don't recall the syntax for just linking to individual posts, but, if you get 1 character wrong, it wouldn't work anyway) REW April 6, 2017 at 7:35 am I think this post could be expanded almost to book length – its that important That was my thought as soon as I read about this stuff in the appendix of Behe's 1st book about 15 years ago. Eric wrote: Yours is but a restatement of the argument Elizabeth Liddle made previously in these pages: namely, biological systems are too well designed, therefore cannot be designed. This is such a remarkably illogical position, and has been well-eviscerated in previous discussions. If this is really EL's position, which appears to be a massive leap of faith, the entire TSZ should consist of 1 single post, with that text, preceded by: "Our declaration of faith:..."es58
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT
john_a_designer @24:
The burden of proof is on those who believe that some mindless, purposeless process can “create” a planned and purposeful (teleological) process. Frankly, this is something our regular interlocutors consistently and persistently fail to do.
Exactly. We know that intelligent beings can create complex, functional, integrated, information-rich systems. And there is no observational evidence these systems ever come about otherwise. The burden of proof is clearly on those claiming they have discovered a different state of affairs, that they know of a viable designer substitute. That burden has not been met since the days of Darwin. Not even close. All we have ever received are bald claims and vague assertions. Meanwhile the evidence continues to mount against such a proposition . . . ----- Part of the value in focusing on specific issues, such as the generation and maintenance of information in a complex, functional, integrated system, is that is forces people to get away from vague assertions and look into the actual details. As I have noted before: The perception of evolutionary theory's explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion.Eric Anderson
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
10:22 AM
10
10
22
AM
PDT
gpuccio @10: Yes, Elizabeth was, if committed to some strange positions, a polite and capable debater. As far as TSZ, I don't visit there and cannot comment on the content or lack thereof. I don't think it is appropriate for us to belittle the site generally. Bad arguments and poor logic, sure. But not the effort involved in the site generally. Although we enjoy our discussions here, we should remember that UD remains a rather obscure site itself with only a small and eclectic band of regular authors and commenters (with a slightly broader silent viewer base). In any event, I'm happy to eviscerate TSZ for any failed arguments they put up that I find out about through the grapevine, but not for being small or having few views and the like. Personally, I think UD would be better off with some of the prior debaters back. I don't know if Elizabeth and others have been banned or just choose not to comment here anymore. I fear the former. I don't have any authority in that regard and would oppose banning generally, except for the most egregious behavior.Eric Anderson
April 6, 2017
April
04
Apr
6
06
2017
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply