Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Simply Not Credible

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

This thread inspired the following observations.

The bottom line is that none of Dawkins’ computer programs have any relevance to biological evolution, because of this in WEASEL1:
Target:Text=’METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL’;
and this in WEASEL2:
WRITELN(’Type target phrase in capital letters’);
READLN(TARGET);

which allows the user to enter the “target” phrase. No search is required, because the solution has been provided in advance. These programs are just hideously inefficient means of printing out what could have been printed out when the program launched. The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

The bottom line is that the proposed Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection makes no sense on its face, as an explanation for the kinds of highly sophisticated information-processing engineering we see in living systems. It is a claim that an inherently entropic process can produce unlimited neg-entropic results, from the lowest to the highest levels (the cell to the piano concerti of Rachmaninoff). The magic wand of “deep time” (which is not very deep in terms of probabilistic resources) cannot be waved to make this transparent lunacy believable.

The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.

Comments
The information for the solution was explicitly supplied by the programmer. Once this is recognized, further conversation about the relevance of the programs to biological evolution is no more illuminating than conjecture about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
The only relevance to biological evolution claimed for it by its author was as an illustration of the point that cumulative selection can reach a target far faster than a purely random search. That the target was set by the author is simply irrelevant to the point he was trying to make. He wanted to demonstrate the relative speed and efficiency of cumulative selection. That's what he did. That's all he did. Why is that so hard to grasp?
The Darwinian mechanism as an explanation for all of life is simply not credible. Most people have enough sense to recognize this, which is why the consensus “scientists” — with all their prestige, academic credentials, and incestuous self-congratulation — are having such a hard time convincing people that they have it all figured out, when they obviously don’t.
So what you're saying is that Joe the Plumber and Gil the Programmer understand biology better than professional biologists? Suppose we turn this round a little. Suppose Gil the Programmer is told by Joe the Plumber that his understanding of how water flows round pipework gives him a special insight into the way electrons flows around the circuits of a computer. On this basis, Joe has decided that much of the code Gil has written is so much crap. What are the chances of Joe being right and how do you think Gil would react to this?Seversky
September 19, 2009
September
09
Sep
19
19
2009
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8

Leave a Reply