Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Selling Stupid

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Granville Sewell’s sin is pointing out the obvious that anyone can understand. This represents a tremendous threat. As David Berlinski has observed, Darwinists — who have invested their worldview and even their careers in Darwinian storytelling — react with understandable hostility when told that their “theory” is simply not credible.

It’s really easy to figure out that the Darwinian mechanism of random mutation and natural selection cannot possibly do that with which it is credited. Life is fundamentally based on information and information processing — a software computer program and its associated, highly functionally integrated execution hardware. Computer programs don’t write themselves, and they especially don’t write themselves when random errors are thrown into the code. The fact that biological computer programs can survive random errors with remarkable robustness is evidence of tremendously sophisticated fault-tolerance engineering. The same goes for the hardware machinery of life.

One of my specialties in aerospace R&D engineering is guidance, navigation and control software. The task of designing GN&C algorithms and the associated hardware that would permit an ornithopter to land on a swaying tree branch in gusting wind is so far ahead of our most sophisticated human technology that we can only dream about such a thing. Yet, birds do this with ease.

Darwinists want us to believe that this all came about through a process of throwing monkey wrenches in working machinery and introducing random errors into highly sophisticated computer code.

In addition, they argue that because the sun provides energy available to do work, all the obvious engineering hurdles can be dismissed as irrelevant to the discussion.

This is simply not credible.

In fact, it’s downright stupid.

Selling stupid is a tough assignment.

No wonder Darwinists have their panties in a bunch.

Comments
Nullasalus:
“Retaining the null” is not the same as saying “science can’t determine or infer an answer here”.
Well, in Fisherian hypothesis testing that's exactly what it means. However, Fisherian hypothesis testing isn't the only way of testing a hypothesis.
In the latter case, there is no ‘null’ – there’s no “scientific position on what science can’t determine”. And just what the null should be in science, particularly in this context, is controversial itself.
Exactly. Formulating your null is absolutely crucial. Without a clearly formulated null, we cannot make any successful inference.
And it goes without saying that “blind and purposeless” is itself not demonstrated. It is, at best, an assumption – and a metaphysical one at that.
No, it certainly is not demonstrated. To demonstrate it you'd have to set it up as an alternative hypothesis to something, and that would be very difficult to do, because you'd have a heck of lot of trouble formulating your null. That's why scientific hypothesis are generally far more specific. They may arise from theories, but they refer to a very specific aspect of that theory. For instance, we can't hope to demonstrate that the whole of life can be accounted for by Darwinian evolution. What we can do is test the hypothesis that Darwinian processes, can, for example, generate novelty, complexity, function, etc, given self replicating entities that reproduce with variance, and where that variance results in differential reproduction. So that means we have a candidate mechanism for the generation of novelty etc in a system that reproduces with variance etc. And so on. But it's an iterative process, and no scientific theory is ever complete. There will always be gaps :) And we cannot conclude that those gaps are not filled with something extraordinary like a God. However, nor can we conclude that they are.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
That’s why we often “retain the null”. Retaining the null doesn’t rule out something else, it just means we don’t consider the something else has been demonstrated. "Retaining the null" is not the same as saying "science can't determine or infer an answer here". In the latter case, there is no 'null' - there's no "scientific position on what science can't determine". And just what the null should be in science, particularly in this context, is controversial itself. And it goes without saying that "blind and purposeless" is itself not demonstrated. It is, at best, an assumption - and a metaphysical one at that.nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
Nullasalus:
And in cases where science is incapable of making a determination either way, the proper result is not to go with what you personally think is simpler – but to say “science can’t determine or infer an answer here”.
I absolutely agree :) That's why we often "retain the null". Retaining the null doesn't rule out something else, it just means we don't consider the something else has been demonstrated.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT
Well, no. The reason is a simple scientific principle, which is parsimony, otherwise known as Occam’s razor. Occam's razor is a philosophical principle first and foremost, not a "scientific principle". Its application in science in general, much less this particular situation, is debated in numerous ways - and whether it's simpler to believe in blind, unguided processes (the very existence of which, in a relevant sense, is not demonstrated by science nor can it be) versus inferring intelligence (the existence of which, broadly, is known) is a subject of debate itself. And in cases where science is incapable of making a determination either way, the proper result is not to go with what you personally think is simpler - but to say "science can't determine or infer an answer here".nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PDT
Mike1962:
The putative process is “compatible” or “consistent” with what is observed thus far. Sure.
Cool :)
And what you mean is that there is no contradiction. Whoopee. But it’s explanatory power is practically nil for all except some very simple changes to earth’s biological objects.
But simple changes are all we need. No-one is postulating radical changes, except as the accumulation of simple changes over time.
Go ahead and make the leap of faith if you want. I won’t, because there is no proof of concept to the scale of functional complexity that exists. It’s an open question. The only reason in the world why anyone would “take a side” is because of an a prior philosophical commitment to non-intelligent causation.
Well, no. The reason is a simple scientific principle, which is parsimony, otherwise known as Occam's razor.
Sorry, no sale. I’m not such a bigot as that.
I'm sure you aren't, but then nor am I.
We understand your position on this. Have at it. No one is going to burn you at the stake. But it’s not persuasive to those of us who have no desire to “drink the coolaid” of materialistic faith that people such as you exhibit.
It has nothing to do with "materialistic faith". It is simply to do with scientific methodology: do not multiply entities unnecessarily; an explanation should be as simple as it needs to be, but no simpler. That doesn't prevent even the scientist having faith in something beyond the simplicity of an explanation that works.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT
PS: the "Can you?" is Mike's. Sorry!Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
04:00 PM
4
04
00
PM
PDT
oops, missed the last part of your post: <blockquote:At best, as I said before, Dawkin’s Weasel program shows that small changes can be accumulated if you have a powerful enough (intelligently designed) random generator Well, a powerful enough self-replicator. The random generator doesn't have to be intelligently designed. Better if it isn't. If you can feed in atmospheric static, that's best of all.
and a powerful enough (intelligently designed) selection mechanism
No. You don't need a "selection mechanism". All you need is a fitness function, and as is said, you can generate that randomly as well. But obviously if you do in fact want to solve a problem for your own benefit (like writing a nice bit of useful code) then you will design your fitness function. But it doesn't actually have to be designed.
that are matched for a certain purpose (matching to the search string.) Everyone knows this. The weasel program makes no case for a blind evolution system unless you can FIRST demonstrate that the randomization source and the selection source of earth’s life is NOT intelligently designed.
The blind part is the random trial part. That's it's important not to latch. If you latch, it's not random, and your mutations can only get better, not worse. That's not "blind" - it's biased in favour of what works. But I don't think Dawkins' one latched, and all the copies I've seen didn't, and the one I wrote myself didn't. Can you?Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:59 PM
3
03
59
PM
PDT
Elizabeth L: We have a process that is compatible with what we see, so we need not postulate any other.
The putative process is "compatible" or "consistent" with what is observed thus far. Sure. And what you mean is that there is no contradiction. Whoopee. But it's explanatory power is practically nil for all except some very simple changes to earth's biological objects. Go ahead and make the leap of faith if you want. I won't, because there is no proof of concept to the scale of functional complexity that exists. It's an open question. The only reason in the world why anyone would "take a side" is because of an a prior philosophical commitment to non-intelligent causation. Sorry, no sale. I'm not such a bigot as that. We understand your position on this. Have at it. No one is going to burn you at the stake. But it's not persuasive to those of us who have no desire to "drink the coolaid" of materialistic faith that people such as you exhibit.mike1962
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:55 PM
3
03
55
PM
PDT
Well, it is a low bar, Nullasalus. That’s why the Design inference is very weak (at least with regard to the Origin of Species, not with regard to the Origin of Life). I agree that the inference to evolution being blind and purposeless is very weak indeed. The inference to it not being blind and purposeless is quite a bit stronger. We have a process that is compatible with what we see, so we need not postulate any other. And this process is entirely compatible with evolution being directed, guided, and purposeful. Indeed, that general - and broad - claim is far more supported than 'blind' or 'non-purposeful'. The only support present, and even possible, for such is (metaphysical) assumption. And those assumptions aren't necessary. We could, but we need not. 'Need'? 'Need' rarely shows up in science - you can always draw epicycles if you wish, or appeal to merely needing more time to properly explain what we see, etc. As it stands, a variety of factors - some philosophical, some empirical - give great warrant to concluding the evolution is, after all, a guided, purposeful process. That someone can nevertheless insist that it's blind and purposeful doesn't keep me up. If the desperate need to believe in blindness and lack of purpose to keep their warm fuzzies, they're welcome to. ;)nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
Mike1962
Elizabeth L: So yes, if you call “solving the presented problem of survival” as “having foresight”, then Darwinian processes have foresight.
Dawkin’s “weasel” string is highly specified, and the latching mechanism is very simple compared to the search string, i.e, the “context” of selection.
Ah. If there was a "latching mechanism", then I agree, it wasn't Darwinian. But was there? I've written one, and I certainly didn't latch. They are dead easy to write. It wouldn't be much fun if you latched, anyway. But if you are talking about a latching program sure. I agree.
If you think this is analogous to biological life you’re going to have to demonstrate that the biological randomization mechanism(s) of earth are sufficient to generate enough trials such that the context of the environment of earth is capable to “matching” it to it’s “predetermined goal” of “fitness.”
Well, no, it doesn't have to be "predetermined" at all. In life, of course, it is constantly changing. I've done sims like that (very simple ones anyway) where the fitneess criteria fluctuate randomly, and your evolving population have to keep adapting to the new environment. You can even do them so that the evolving population itself is part of the environment (by introducing competition, for instance).
Of course, you can’t.
Can't what? Make life-sized model? No, you are right, we can't. But that's not the purpose of a model.
Something to remember: Dawkin’s simulation has a PRE-DETERMINED GOAL THAT WAS SET BY AN INTELLIGENCE
But that is no difference to a very simple natural scenario in which there is a single solution to survival.
PLUS A RANDOM GENERATOR DESIGNED BY AN INTELLIGENCE FITTING TO THE GOAL.
Yes. But now you are talking about abiogenesis not Darwinian evolution. Darwinian evolution can't, by definition, account for the simplest organism capable of Darwinian evolution.
Do you think earth’s biological system is analogous to that? If so, demonstrate it.
No, and I've said why. But I do agree that Darwinian evolution doesn't latch. At best, as I said before, Dawkin’s Weasel program shows that small changes can be accumulated if you have a powerful enough (intelligently designed) random generator and a powerful enough (intelligently designed) selection mechanism that are matched for a certain purpose (matching to the search string.) Everyone knows this. The weasel program makes no case for a blind evolution system unless you can FIRST demonstrate that the randomization source and the selection source of earth’s life is NOT intelligently designed. Can you?Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:52 PM
3
03
52
PM
PDT
Well, it is a low bar, Nullasalus. That's why the Design inference is very weak (at least with regard to the Origin of Species, not with regard to the Origin of Life). We have a process that is compatible with what we see, so we need not postulate any other. We could, but we need not. The null, as I keep explaining to Mung, is retained :)Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT
To continue... Edit last sentence: The weasel program makes no case for a blind evolution system AT ALL.mike1962
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
Elizabeth L: So yes, if you call “solving the presented problem of survival” as “having foresight”, then Darwinian processes have foresight.
Dawkin's "weasel" string is highly specified, and the latching mechanism is very simple compared to the search string, i.e, the "context" of selection. If you think this is analogous to biological life you're going to have to demonstrate that the biological randomization mechanism(s) of earth are sufficient to generate enough trials such that the context of the environment of earth is capable to "matching" it to it's "predetermined goal" of "fitness." Of course, you can't. Something to remember: Dawkin's simulation has a PRE-DETERMINED GOAL THAT WAS SET BY AN INTELLIGENCE PLUS A RANDOM GENERATOR DESIGNED BY AN INTELLIGENCE FITTING TO THE GOAL. Do you think earth's biological system is analogous to that? If so, demonstrate it. At best, as I said before, Dawkin's Weasel program shows that small changes can be accumulated if you have a powerful enough (intelligently designed) random generator and a powerful enough (intelligently designed) selection mechanism that are matched for a certain purpose (matching to the search string.) Everyone knows this. The weasel program makes no case for a blind evolution system unless you can FIRST demonstrate that the randomization source and the selection source of earth's life is NOT intelligently designed. Can you?mike1962
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
mike1962, but it does not demonstrate *Darwinian* (blind, purposeless) evolution. It's not possible to demonstrate that, which is part of the problem here. At least not in a meaningful way, with regard to ID, TE, etc. You can demonstrate a general process, sure. You can identify mechanisms of both variation and selection. That the actual instantiated process is purposeless? Not demonstrable by science. Blind, in the sense of the variation and selection was not intended or guided by any mind? Again, not demonstrable. You can, however, at times demonstrate when, how, and to what proximate degree the process is guided. (Talk to the programmer, make inferences about such and such being programmed or purposeful, etc.) Doubly so in the context of simulations, where you can do everything from bias the mutations to intervene directly in the process with your eye on influencing the results. (I suppose these would be called miracles, eh?) The best you can get on the 'blind, purposeless' front is compatibility: "What I see is compatible with...!" But logical compatibility is a ridiculously low bar.nullasalus
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:33 PM
3
03
33
PM
PDT
I'm so sorry, Mung! If you said that, you were absolutely right IMO :) I hope it will be the first of many occasions when you, DrBot, and myself agree! Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT
As DrBot said, all searches are “targeted” or they wouldn’t be searches.
Credit where credit is due please. DrBot was just parroting something I wrote in a prior thread. Of course, I don't know what I am talking about, so ...Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT
Mike1962:
Weasel is Darwinian. It just has an extremely simple problem to solve and that problem has only one solution.
No it isn’t. Darwinian mechanisms have no “goal” or “foresight.” Targeted searches do. Weasel is a targeted search. You could say it’s demonstration of intelligent evolution.
As DrBot said, all searches are "targeted" or they wouldn't be searches. Of course Dawkins had a "goal" when he wrote WEASEL. In addition, the only solution to the problem of survival posed by the digital organisms in WEASEL is to spell out "methinks it is like a weasel". If there were two solutions, for example if both: "methinks it is like a weasel" and "I think she is looking east " then that would still be a "targeted search" in that as in the original, the "target" is survival in the current environment, but there are two solutions. If the solution to survival is any pronouncable string of pseudo words, then there are many solutions, but it is still a targeted search. If the solution to survival is a piece of code that forms a NAND gate, then there are many solutions, but it is still a targeted search. If the solution to survival is not being eaten by a predator, there are a vast number of solutions, but it is still a targeted search. So yes, if you call "solving the presented problem of survival" as "having foresight", then Darwinian processes have foresight. But what is usually meant by that phrase is that it is entirely trial and error - it doesn't pre-select likely solutions. It simply throws the stuff at the wall to see if it sticks. The wall is the target. What sticks is the solution. Now, what really would be a "targeted search" in a manner that would NOT, at least as far as we know it, resemble biological evolution, would be a search in which instead of "blind" trial and error, each partly successful solution was scrutinised by some additional process that analysed it for where it had gone wrong before devising the next one. This of course is how human designers do it. But with Darwinian processes (including Avida) this doesn't happen. Mutations are as likely to make things worse as better, and, in fact, more likely as the evolving "solution" gets better, and there are more ways to worsen it than improve it. It is in this sense that both WEASEL and Avida are NOT targetted. Both are as likely to throw worse solutions at the problem as better. In fact it's sort of frustrating watching WEASEL programs, because you get nearly all the letters there, and then, dammit, just as it gets the final one, it loses one it already has! Fun, though. Have you ever written one?
That’s why Dawkins wrote it.
He wrote it to demonstrate the idea of the accumulation of the selection of small modifications contra the idea of a whirlwind blowing thru a junk yard producing a 747, etc. It does demonstrate that,
Yes, it does.
but it does not demonstrate *Darwinian* (blind, purposeless) evolution.
Yes, it does :) See above.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
02:31 PM
2
02
31
PM
PDT
Mung:
Hi Lizzie. Thanks for your post. This could explain some of the misunderstanding and give us something to work with. I asked: “Are all evolutionary processes Darwinian? Can an evolutionary process be non-Darwinian?” Is your answer YES to both those questions? Or can I take it that you were saying YES to the second question and that therefore your answer to the first question is NO? cheers
The second thing. Evolutionary processes can be non-Darwinian. An example would be genetic engineering. Drift is an important non-Darwinian mechanism, although you could argue that it is closely related, in that it involves differential reproduction - however the differential reproduction is independent of the phenotypic effects of the inherited genotype. Artificial selection is Darwinian, it's just that the environment that the critters have to survive in includes opinionated human beings with their own purposes. Even Intelligent Design could be Darwinian, if the Designer merely pre-screened (or designed) the variants, and let the resulting differential reproduction run its course. Darwin did not actually propose a variance-producing mechanism. However, I think this would be stretching things a bit.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Hi, ciphertext!
Per Elizabeth Liddle:
Often that code is creative, innovative and useful. But I’ll keep trying. For clarity, no I don’t mean that computers write their own code in general, but that it it is possible for code to write code, and for that code to be extremely creative, efficient, and functional.
What is meant by the terms “creative”, “innovative”, “useful”, “efficient”, and “functional”?
I meant them in the following senses: creative: uses solutions that, in a human being, we might call "lateral thinking". DrBot had a nice example above, about a faultchecker that checked its own faults. innovative: uses solutions that hadn't previously been proposed. useful: solutions are put to some practical human purpose, such as receiving better radio signals, or running a better transport system (I think that one's been done). efficient: uses economical code (e.g. few command lines). functional: does something. Cheers LizzieElizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Per Elizabeth Liddle:
Often that code is creative, innovative and useful.
But I’ll keep trying. For clarity, no I don’t mean that computers write their own code in general, but that it it is possible for code to write code, and for that code to be extremely creative, efficient, and functional.
What is meant by the terms "creative", "innovative", "useful", "efficient", and "functional"?ciphertext
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
Weasel is Darwinian. It just has an extremely simple problem to solve and that problem has only one solution. No it isn't. Darwinian mechanisms have no "goal" or "foresight." Targeted searches do. Weasel is a targeted search. You could say it's demonstration of intelligent evolution.
That’s why Dawkins wrote it.
He wrote it to demonstrate the idea of the accumulation of the selection of small modifications contra the idea of a whirlwind blowing thru a junk yard producing a 747, etc. It does demonstrate that, but it does not demonstrate *Darwinian* (blind, purposeless) evolution.mike1962
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Hi Lizzie. Thanks for your post. This could explain some of the misunderstanding and give us something to work with. I asked: "Are all evolutionary processes Darwinian? Can an evolutionary process be non-Darwinian?" Is your answer YES to both those questions? Or can I take it that you were saying YES to the second question and that therefore your answer to the first question is NO? cheersMung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:16 PM
12
12
16
PM
PDT
DrBot, Do you have a reference to where MathGrrl and I debated or discussed Avida? No comment on Joseph's post #26? You deny Lizzie was responding to the comment in the OP about computer programs not writing themselves (maybe she was quoting it by mistake and thinking of something completely different)?
Mung, I see little point in carrying on conversations with you.
Evidence that I do know what I'm talking about is ignored. Maybe that could have something to do with it?Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
Mung:
You regard the processes within Avida as Darwinian. I don’t. No surprise there I suppose. :) How can we resolve the difference of opinion, or at least discuss it in a meaningful way? Do you at least see why in one case, when you say “evolutionary processes” when what you really mean by that is Darwinian processes that I might think you were equivocating?
I try to be careful when I use each precisely so as not to equivocate. I use "evolutionary processes" to denote processes that include factors like drift (and sometimes some others). I use "Darwinian processes" denote, strictly, processes in which self-replicators replicate with variants, and in which the variance confers different degrees of reproductive success. If I used the wrong term at any point, it was accidental, but I do try to be careful.
Are all evolutionary processes Darwinian? Can an evolutionary process be non-Darwinian?
Yes.
Think Weasel.
Weasel is Darwinian. It just has an extremely simple problem to solve and that problem has only one solution. That's why Dawkins wrote it. Avida has more difficult problems for its organisms to solve, and there are a possibly infinite set of solutions to each. So it's more like biology. But both are Darwinian.Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
12:07 PM
12
12
07
PM
PDT
DrBot:
I see no evidence of this either!
I take it you just ignore it when I quote from standard texts in the field. Is it because they refute what you say or do you have as better reason? Think back to the FEA thread and the subject of representation. You still think the chromosome/genome in a GA doesn't need to be designed? We can actually test that claim in a real GA if you want. You recall me explaining that you were talking about how a GA works and I said I was talking about what it takes to get a GA to work? There's a difference, don't you know.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
But the argument that once Darwinian process have got going they can’t generate further functional complexity is simply falsified by programs like Avida.
You regard the processes within Avida as Darwinian. I don't. No surprise there I suppose. :) How can we resolve the difference of opinion, or at least discuss it in a meaningful way? Do you at least see why in one case, when you say "evolutionary processes" when what you really mean by that is Darwinian processes that I might think you were equivocating? Are all evolutionary processes Darwinian? Can an evolutionary process be non-Darwinian? Think Weasel.Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Ah, well, that makes two of us, Mung. We should get on fine :) Now, about that null hypothesis...Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT
Elizabeth Liddle:
And I’m sorry if I offended you.
I haven't taken offense. Not even what DrBot wrote offended me. So no worries. Heck, look what StephenB had to say about me, lol. I think that if I take offense at something I need to look at myself and ask why. Why did that offend me. I'm not easily offended, and it it happens I easily forgive. Do unto others, and all that. ;)Mung
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:40 AM
11
11
40
AM
PDT
I’m interested in honest debate.
If you are interested in serious debate then I would be very happy - I see no evidence of this so far though.
it’s not because I don’t know what I’m talking about
I see no evidence of this either!DrBot
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
Yes,I would agree that not all GAs etc write code. I wasn't making a broader claim. I was merely pointing out that some can. One Black Swan and all that. Yes, I know what a DSL is. And I'm sorry if I offended you. The thing is I don't usually have this much difficulty in making myself understood, and I'm finding it frustrating when you seem to simply misread my words (simple for simplest, for example) and then partially quote me in a manner that makes it look as though I meant something quite different from what I did mean! I am honestly trying to bullet proof my posts before posting, but communication does require effort from both ends, and I just didn't get the impression you were putting it in. But I'll keep trying. For clarity, no I don't mean that computers write their own code in general, but that it it is possible for code to write code, and for that code to be extremely creative, efficient, and functional. That seems to me to be a serious impediment to any argument that, once you have a Darwinian set up complexity can't emerge. Yes, the challenge is to address the issue as to how the Darwinian set up got going in the first place (you can't, as I have been reminded a few times) account for something by invoking itself to explain it. But the argument that once Darwinian process have got going they can't generate further functional complexity is simply falsified by programs like Avida. IMO. And it hasn't been changed by any argument made on this thread!Elizabeth Liddle
June 28, 2011
June
06
Jun
28
28
2011
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT
1 3 4 5 6 7 10

Leave a Reply