Joined: Jan. 2007
<b>Patrick</b> Has chosen to respond to my post here: http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1968.
Since I've been banned from the thread for explaining how biologists use the word "random", I'm forced to reply here.
<i>As in, there are no intermediates? If so, thanks for making my point for me.</i>
Yes. This is what I've stated elsewhere re: the sparsity of the english language as a the number of letters in a word gets large. What exactly do you believe that this shows?
I'll repeat my previous question: Do we agree that the results indicate a 10^6 fold performance increase for blind darwininian search over exhaustive searches?