RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2011,13:36   

PaV misses the point:
 
Quote
I’ve already posted a paper that has shown that, per his definition of complexity, neither ev or Tierra produce any on-going complexity. And the bit output they come up with, based on the standards of NFL’s description of CSI, demonstrates these programs don’t measure up to CSI. Likewise, I’ve stated elsewhere—and you’re aware—that I’ve looked at Tierra in some detail, but still in a cursory way, and from what I can see, it’s output is trivial. You have a “parasite” forming. A different “life form”. What does that mean actually? That a small assembly-language program, can, through generation of random changes, both lose its ability to “copy” itself, and then find a way to get another “organism” (i.e., a small program) to “copy” itself. Now I’m sure that with the smallness and simplicity of the programming (let’s remember the guy who wrote this “program” was a biologist, not a computer geek) might allow something like this to happen in random fashion IF YOU RUN the computer program long enough. Which is what happens. But from what I could see, both the loss and parasitism were the result of simply commands coming and going. Let’s remember that the “copy” command, and its execution, have already been programmed in. So this basically amounts to what we see in so-called microevolution when an operon is turned on and off in bacteria, for example.

Why should I spend another moment analyzing something as basic and simplistic as this output? Can you give me an answer, other than you would be interested in it? Well, excuse me if I don’t respond to your request.

 
Quote
Again, one could, and can, do an ANALYSIS of whether or not CSI is present within the output of those programs, using the definition of Dembski. This is a response to an entirely different question, and the one which I think you think you’re asking. But I’m not about to do it. You seem interested, so why don’t you do that?


--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
  15001 replies since Sep. 04 2009,16:20 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (501) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]