RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (356) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 4, Fostering a Greater Understanding of IDC< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,01:55   

Quote (sparc @ July 27 2012,01:47)
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 26 2012,23:27)
Is anybody aware of the upcoming Marks, Behe, Dembski, Sandford book Biological Information: New Perspectives.

I wonder what drove Springer to publish it. Maybe because the title of the conference was simolar to those organized by the Novartis Foundation New Perspective series. (ETA: my mistake, actually only on of the Novartis meeting titles contained "New Perspectives")
You may want to reserve an online book review copy.

It's five months since I first read about "Biological Information: New Perspectives". Is there any news or is it on its way to a silent death?

Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage - no luck. But I'm confident they'll find a religious publisher who will be happy to print it for an advance fee.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 495
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,03:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 26 2012,15:26)
PaV thinks PaV is oh-so-clever:
   
Quote
Tell me Timothy, how would you be able to distinguish a radically high mutation rate, taking place out of nowhere, and happening in the twinkle of geological time, from the intervention of an intelligent agent?


Well duh. It's amazing how they think that simply framing a question "radically high" "out of nowhere" "twinkle of geological time" is evidence enough for an intelligent agent.

Well, it's certainly all they actually need.

So, PaV, tell me something *anything* about this "intelligent agent" you claim did it. And why, PaV, why is this "intelligent agent" fiddling about with our DNA anyway?

And PaV, that's exactly the problem. If you can't tell the difference between X and "an intelligent agent" then what is "an intelligent agent" really adding?

Given that you couldn't even distinguish one mutation from the action of an intelligent agent - nor even a mutation-that didn't-happen from the action of an intelligent agent in preventing it - then I guess it must be intelligent agents all the way down. ID wins. PaV is doing a fine job of getting on my wick at the moment!

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
Bob O'H



Posts: 1956
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,03:17   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 27 2012,01:55)
Quote (sparc @ July 27 2012,01:47)
 
Quote (sparc @ Feb. 26 2012,23:27)
Is anybody aware of the upcoming Marks, Behe, Dembski, Sandford book Biological Information: New Perspectives.

I wonder what drove Springer to publish it. Maybe because the title of the conference was simolar to those organized by the Novartis Foundation New Perspective series. (ETA: my mistake, actually only on of the Novartis meeting titles contained "New Perspectives")
You may want to reserve an online book review copy.

It's five months since I first read about "Biological Information: New Perspectives". Is there any news or is it on its way to a silent death?

Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage - no luck. But I'm confident they'll find a religious publisher who will be happy to print it for an advance fee.

I'm down to receive a review copy (which I suspect will be a pdf), but haven't heard anything or some time.

If Springer do decide not to publish, I've no doubt we'll hear about it.

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
Soapy Sam



Posts: 495
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,03:26   

Maus - he's always good for a laugh too, innee? (sorry, no time for fiddling with long urls - it's the luskin/zimmer thread linked above). Have a good laugh at Joe's version of Occam's Razor on the way to the pudding.  

   
Quote
Joe: “But anyway I would say that one common design- or a design based on one standard- is more parsimonious than millions of just-so magical mystery mutations.”

Evolution is precisely ‘millions of just-so magical mystery mutations’. Take up HGT and Retrovirii before disagreeing too strongly.

timothya: “… is evidence that supports common descent.”

Flag thrown for Affirming the Consequent. You have two choices of Not Even Thinking available here. You can take Affirming the Consequent in that the existence of the consequent proves the antecedent. Or you can either take Raven’s Paradox and state that the failure to find the consequent proves that this proves that the antecedent that doesn’t exist proves the consequent that doesn’t either. Which is simply Affirming the Counterfactual Consequent. Both are mouth-breathing lackwit garbage that are necessary for stating ‘evidence of [insert random boggled nonsense here] proves unprovable thing’ as a portion of your metaphysical narcissism.

Please do not do this.


The Darwinist hangs his head, beaten by sheer intellect. "...evidence that supports ID" is exempted from this pseudo-intellectual asswipery by special dispensation, presumably.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
Freddie



Posts: 365
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,03:59   

It seems JoeG and PaV are in two different ID camps.  Schism!!

Also - PaV brings the laughs. Another case of "so close, yet so far ..."



--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 495
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,04:00   

Quote (Soapy Sam @ July 26 2012,04:44)
 
Quote (Soapy Sam @ July 24 2012,16:40)
Was Behe right?

Persuaded by the presence of the number two and the words 'gene' and 'mutation', PaV argues that a toxin tolerance mutation involving 2 substitutions is just like Behe's CCC.

Earth to PaV: just one of these mutations confers resistance. It doesn't need 'em both, so they can happen independently and recombine or fix serially - in either case, selection has something to get its teeth into - no Edge of Evolution here.

They appear to have done so, repeatedly. 18 species across 4 orders have a specific mutation, 11 of the 18 also have a second. Remarkable convergence, or a very busy God. The 7 species with only the one substitution were asked how they had the temerity to survive anyway, but declined to comment.

Another day, another bad day for understanding your own icons.

The point continues to be missed/side-stepped in comments.

    [...]

Then a leap from malarial parasites to elephants ...


PaV explains why he brought up elephants:

Quote
I used the worst case scenario simply to highlight the problems for Darwinism. I’ll let you fill in the rest.


Darwinism is in shreds because a particular species with a long generation time would take too long to achieve a particular pair of mutations that haven't been observed in that species? I'm devastated. Given that evolution is postulated to proceed solely by the most difficult paths available to it - the worst case scenario is very much the rule, in nature, as one can demonstrate by always picking it - it is indeed a bad day for Darwinism.

--------------
Evolutionists trust entropy for creation of life but are like men who horse a crocodile to get across a river - niwrad.

The organism could already metabolize citrus. Joe G

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1650
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,04:16   

In the ID tradition, Ann Gauger is telling lies and slander.  Denyse reprints them on UD under the title, "Ann Gauger sets record straight on Wistar II".

Ann:            
Quote
In June 2007, I attended a private conference in Boston, commemorating the famous Wistar Symposium of 1966. All participants were asked to keep the proceedings confidential – and all did. One participant, Daniel Brooks of the University of Toronto, later violated that agreement, however, and published his version of events on-line. That account can be found here.

"Here" doesn't have an address attached to it, but Ann tells her little white lies at http://www.biologicinstitute.org/..................  Note that that address goes to their front page, so the article, "What Really Happened at Wistar II By Ann Gauger" will probably be moved soon and you'll have to hunt for it.

So, did Daniel Brooks actually violate an agreement by talking?  Here's Dan Brookes talking about Wistar II:                    
Quote
A few days after the meeting ended, we all received an email stating that the ID people considered the conference a private meeting, and did not want any of us to discuss it, blog it, or publish anything about it. They said they had no intention of posting anything from the conference on the Discovery Institute’s web site (the entire proceedings were recorded). They claimed they would have some announcement at the time of the publication of the edited volume of presentations, in about a year, and wanted all of us to wait until then to say anything.

In other words, Brookes knew nothing of any "private meeting" until after it was over and he agreed to nothing.  That's lie #1.

Ann continues:                  
Quote
Several times now, that erroneous account has been quoted against me in different venues. In the interests of truth, I am therefore setting the record straight. This exercise may shed some light on the way science is done.

Well, it sheds some light on how ID is done.  Here's what Dan said about her findings:                  
Quote
The next presentation in this session was by Ann Gauger, a microbiologist and employee of the Biologic Institute, whose presentation was entitled, “Assessing the difficulty of pathway evolution: an experimental test.” Her presentation was remarkable in part because she performed experiments and reported original data.

 ...

She was then prompted by one of her colleagues to regale us with some new experimental finds. She gave what amounted to a second presentation, during which she discussed “leaky growth,” in microbial colonies at high densities, leading to horizontal transfer of genetic information, and announced that under such conditions she had actually found a novel variant that seemed to lead to enhanced colony growth. Gunther Wagner said, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” at which point the moderator halted questioning. We shuffled off for a coffee break with the admission hanging in the air that natural processes could not only produce new information, they could produce beneficial new information.

It didn't just seem to "lead to enhanced colony growth," it did.  Here's how she describes the experiment:                
Quote
The work involved screening cells for their ability to grow on medium lacking biotin, an essential vitamin. Normally bacterial cells can either take up biotin from their environment, or make it themselves using a four-step dedicated pathway. The cells I worked with lacked the first enzyme in that pathway, called BioF, and thus could not make biotin. We were testing whether a structurally similar enzyme called Kbl could be mutated enough to allow it to substitute for the missing BioF, and thus allow the cells to grow.
This sounds like the recent research trumpeted by Axe and Gauger where they found that one enzyme can't mutate into a different enzyme in a week or two, therefore Jesus.                
Quote
I normally plated cells at a low density of 500 colonies or less per plate. But one experiment was plated at about 5000 colonies per plate, and left to grow over the weekend. When I checked the plates, I found that a few colonies had grown where none were expected. I isolated those colonies and checked their ability to grow on minimal medium again. It was reproducible.

Colonies grew where none grew before.  From none at all to a few is a whopping big growth enhancement!            
Quote
I was excited, because I thought I might have found a mutant strain that could now make biotin, either using Kbl or some other bypass mechanism to replace the missing BioF.

But to Ann, it turned out not to be evolution after all because the cells didn't evolve the way she wanted them to.          
Quote
Thus the mutation these cells carried, whatever it was, did not allow them to make biotin for themselves. It only allowed them to take up biotin from their environment more readily.

This is the result I reported at the private meeting. No mistake—the mutated cells grew on medium without added biotin, but this ability was the result of increasing their ability to scavenge biotin from the medium, not because they could make biotin, as witnessed by their inability to grow on medium containing streptavidin. These cells had not found a way to replace BioF function, which was the whole point of the experiment.

I explained this to the group, and one participant, biologist Günter Wagner of Yale, said, smiling, “So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?” I said, “Yes,” also smiling, and everyone laughed. Then the session ended.

Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed— namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place. It was beneficial only in the sense that the mutant cells could scavenge biotin from the medium better than before, which allowed them to grow better.
Well, that's evolution in a nutshell right there.  A mutation gave the cells the ability to scavage a necessary vitamin better than before, thus allowing them to grow.  Too bad if it didn't happen exactly the way you were hoping, but the mutated cells still grow where the original cells died.

That's Evolution in Action.

I score Ann with two lies and a slander here:

Lie 1: Implying that the meeting was supposed to be confidential when the announcement was apparently made via email several days after the conference.  

Lie 2: Saying that the mutation she discovered didn't enhance colony growth when it clearly did.  

The Slander: Implying that Brookes violated a confidentiality agreement that he never made.

That's ID in Action!

If Pvt. Gordon of the Montseratt Highlanders Reinactment and Chowder Society reads this, I'm sure he will copy it to UD.  NOT!

P.S. Here's a

permanent link to Ann's article.

Edited to add permanent link and generally spiff things up a bit.

Edited by CeilingCat on July 27 2012,04:39

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1650
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,05:30   

I left out the last two paragraphs by Ann Gauger:    
Quote
In his leaked report, Dan Brooks claimed that I had found a mutant with beneficial new information. This is stretching things quite a bit. What I probably found was a mutant with an extra copy of the genes required to transport biotin from the medium, or with a higher affinity for biotin. That kind of mutation would help glean every available biotin molecule from the environment, but it would not help make biotin in the first place. There was no new genetic function generated, with sufficient information to make biotin. In the end, this adaptation would be a dead end for these cells once exogenous biotin was exhausted.

Of course the UNmutated cells hit a dead end instantly - they didn't grow at all.  Face it, Ann, your cells evolved.  They are able to grow where their ancestors can only die.  And they did it in a weekend.
   
Quote
In charity, I would offer that perhaps Brooks didn’t follow the details of the experiments I discussed because he is not a geneticist or a molecular biologist. The alternative explanation, that he deliberately misrepresented things to put me in a bad light and to score a talking point, would be unfortunate.

I'd like to say in charity that we could excuse a couple of lies and a bit of character assassination because this is ID and you don't have anything else, but I'm not feeling too charitable towards ID today.  You lied and you slandered.  I hope you post more at UD in the future.  You fit right in.  Have you met Gordon?  Or Joe?  You're in for a real treat.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2594
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,06:40   

Now we remember why we read this forum.

Quote (CeilingCat @ July 27 2012,04:16)
In the ID tradition, Ann Gauger is telling lies and slander.  Denyse reprints them on UD under the title, "Ann Gauger sets record straight on Wistar II".

Ann:    
Quote
In June 2007, I attended a private conference in Boston, commemorating the famous Wistar Symposium of 1966. All participants were asked to keep the proceedings confidential – and all did. One participant, Daniel Brooks of the University of Toronto, later violated that agreement, however, and published his version of events on-line. That account can be found here.

Intelligent Design advocate accidentally discovers surprising evolutionary novelty. Turns blind eye.



Quote
Ann Gauger: It was beneficial only in the sense that the mutant cells could scavenge biotin from the medium better than before, which allowed them to grow better.

Only in the sense that it allowed them to grow and reproduce better. There's a word for that.

Quote
Ann Gauger: "So, a beneficial mutation happened right in your lab?" I said "Yes," also smiling, and everyone laughed. Then the session ended.

Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed -- namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place.

Poor Ann. Outsmarted by evolution — again!

--------------
There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,07:32   

Quote
Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed -- namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place.


The problem posed not solved != a problem solved.

Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

Ann, please do keep on working. The more lab work that ID supporters do the better, as every time you'll lose.

Square meter of soil anyone?

--------------
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

  
BillB



Posts: 354
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,08:11   

Quote (Zachriel @ July 27 2012,12:40)
Now we remember why we read this forum.

Quote
Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed -- namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place.

Poor Ann. Outsmarted by evolution — again!

The shorter version: It evolved, but not in the direction we wanted.

The headline: ID scientists produce evidence against directed evolution by an intelligent designer!

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3549
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,09:08   

This would be a loss of function, right?

Does Casey know he has a mole in his organization?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,09:25   

Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,08:11)
Quote (Zachriel @ July 27 2012,12:40)
Now we remember why we read this forum.

 
Quote
Günter Wagner (and most of the other participants, I assume) knew that the mutant strain I found did not solve the problem I had posed -- namely, how new enzyme functions, or the ability to make biotin, arise in the first place.

Poor Ann. Outsmarted by evolution — again!

The shorter version: It evolved, but not in the direction we wanted.

The headline: ID scientists produce evidence against directed evolution by an intelligent designer!

The shortest version: It evolved, even if we didn't want it to.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3549
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,09:48   

Looks to me like the Discovery Institute just confessed to supression of evidence. That will be interesting when they try to make the case that their science can be trusted.

Contrast this with the public catfight over the possible interbreeding between humans and possible cousins of neanderthals in Africa.

On one hand they are gloating because scientists disagree in public. On the other hand they try to justify hiding of evidence supporting evolution when it is found by one of their own.

I wonder why comments are turned off.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,09:51   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,10:02   

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 27 2012,08:48)
I wonder why comments are turned off.

No comment.  :p

  
BillB



Posts: 354
Joined: Aug. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,10:07   

Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,12:08   

Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Wonderful stuff.

And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :)

But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors.

Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage.

--------------
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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4008
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,12:35   

Desired result? I doubt that what they wanted was a radio connection to another piece of hardware.  :p

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,12:36   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,12:08)
Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Wonderful stuff.

And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :)

But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors.

Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage.

If anyone has any recent research along these lines, I'd love to read it.

I have a keen interest in this area as well.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1254
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,13:38   

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 27 2012,09:48)
...
Contrast this with the public catfight over the possible interbreeding between humans and possible cousins of neanderthals in Africa.

On one hand they are gloating because scientists disagree in public. On the other hand they try to justify hiding of evidence supporting evolution when it is found by one of their own.

I wonder why comments are turned off.


Denyse and Klinghoffer are trying to use it to distract from Chromosome Gate.

UD Headline:
     
Quote
New York Times report on human evolution controversy vindicates book Science and Human Origins

You wish.

     
Quote
Commenting on Nicholas Wade’s New York Times article, “Genetic Data and Fossil Evidence Tell Differing Tales of Human Origins” (July 26, 2012), David Klinghoffer notes the effort to keep a lid on a growing controversy in human origins by insulting those who draw attention to it as “creationists” and “science deniers”:


I bet scientists issue those press releases and write articles to keep the lid on. Fiendishly clever - they want to drown the public in science so people get bored and tune out.

Edited for clarification

Edited by Kattarina98 on July 27 2012,13:46

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1650
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,15:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 27 2012,12:36)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,12:08)
 
Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)
   
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Wonderful stuff.

And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :)

But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors.

Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage.

If anyone has any recent research along these lines, I'd love to read it.

I have a keen interest in this area as well.

Just Google  hardware evolution.  The first result should be "Adrian Thompson's Hardware Evolution Page".

I remember reading an article about 20 years ago about a researcher who hooked a small computer up to a FPGA (field programmable gate array) chip.  A FPGA is a chip with thousands of logic gates on it that are unconnected.  By sending in a string of ones and zeros, you can "wire" the gates together into just about any circuit you want.  You can literally wire them into something as complex as a microprocessor if you want.

They programmed the small computer to send in a string of random ones and zeros which caused the FPGA to wire it's internal gates up randomly.  The computer would then feed two audio tones into the FPGA and look at two specific output pins.  The goal was to have one of the pins go high when one audio tone was sent into the FPGA and the other pin to go high when the other audio tone was sent in.  The string of random ones and zeros was then changed a little bit in a random fashion and the test was repeated.

Very early in the program, the FPGA wired the outputs of two gates together, which is normally a very big design no-no, and the output of one of the gates was made low and the output of the second gate was made high.  This misfiring screwed up the internal voltages in the FPGA so badly that it stopped operating as a digital chip and started acting as an analog circuit instead.

After tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds of Darwinian evolution, the chip finally reliably detected the two tones and made the appropriate pins go high when they were detected - and nobody understood how it worked!  They could look at the string of ones and zeros that made it work, and see how the gates were wired together, but the resulting circuit made no sense.  The digital gates were operating as a bastard analog circuit and nothing made sense.

For instance, there were groups of gates wired to each other and to nothing else.  They weren't wired to any other part of the circuit and didn't seem to be doing anything but wasting power, but if you took them out the chip stopped detecting the audio tones!

And nobody had any idea of why.  But unguided evolution had made it work.  Ann Gauger has just had a small taste of the power of Darwinian evolution and she has no idea if what's going on either.

Edited from a PC to remove iPad-induced typos.

Edited by CeilingCat on July 27 2012,19:41

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
CeilingCat



Posts: 1650
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,15:13   

My last message was written with an iPad.  My apologies for the typos, but you just can't edit with this setup.

Never mind.

Edited by CeilingCat on July 27 2012,19:42

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
keiths



Posts: 2040
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,16:22   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2012,23:55)
Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage...

Just for a second, my brain thought you meant Dave Springer's homepage. What a tard mine that would be.

Has anyone sighted him lately?

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number.  -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don’t belong there and thoughts into my mind that don’t belong there. -- KF

  
Patrick



Posts: 549
Joined: July 2011

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,16:41   

Quote (keiths @ July 27 2012,17:22)
Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 26 2012,23:55)
Every now and then, I check Springer's homepage...

Just for a second, my brain thought you meant Dave Springer's homepage. What a tard mine that would be.

Has anyone sighted him lately?


  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3549
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,17:26   

Quote
it stopped operating as a digital chip and started acting as an analog circuit instead.


Sort of like the way a bunch of digital neurons behaves collectively like an analog computer, and no one knows how it works.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,18:43   

Did you hear that cock crow Gordo?
Quote
And, the timeline projected — here, across three million years (as though someone was ticking off on a diary) — is riddled with all sorts of circularities. And this is not just a matter of those despised silly Young Earth Creationists — note the “typical” adjectives that show another problem of projection of a programmed dismissal talking point string — who cannot accept the all but certain findings of “science.” If you cannot see and understand the circularities in geo-dating systems, you have a problem with basic inductive logic. (I have a lot more respect for say the dating of star clusters based on the physics of H-balls leading to the HR plot and the observed branch-points heading to the Giants branch. There are some assumptions in this, but there is nowhere near as much circularity in the system.)


Watch Gordo assert that because "geo-dating" is wrong he don't have to answer no specific points.

He makes it clear what he's after:
Quote
At no point has there been an actual empirical demonstration with actual direct observations and measurements of the actual facts.


Er, about that whole ID thing Gordo?
Quote
See the problem, and notice how you are lining up next to another objector who evidently does not understand the inductive logic of science?

I’ll let that stand for now.

That is what you have to face.


His entire argument seems to be this:
Quote
The pivotal problem is, no such thing has been SHOWN.

Nothing specific. Just "dating is wrong, therefore nothing like the claim can be shown".

You total utter coward Gordon E Mullings.

Quote
Let me clip 41 above again, for those who came in late (the links and emphases are there):


Clip it over and over, until you address a specific point with a specific rebuttal you just look like a fool when you claim "it's just wrong".

Selective hyper skepticism much Gordo?

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3265
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,18:45   

Quote (CeilingCat @ July 27 2012,15:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 27 2012,12:36)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,12:08)
 
Quote (BillB @ July 27 2012,10:07)
   
Quote (Henry J @ July 27 2012,15:51)
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 27 2012,06:32)
Reminds me of that story when they were trying to evolve a timer mechanism. They ended up evolving a radio receiver that took the "time" from a nearby computer's oscillations.

:D

Ahh. Evolvable hardware. Fond memories (I worked with the people behind it)

Wonderful stuff.

And at what point did you sneak the desired result in? :)

But seriously, I love all that sort of stuff. I think we may be approaching a confluence of factors that'll allow something big to happen, faster computers, GPUs that are very good at simulating specific types of interaction, massive connectivity and now little cheap hardware boxes full of input and output sensors.

Who knows what the next bill gates is cooking up in their garage.

If anyone has any recent research along these lines, I'd love to read it.

I have a keen interest in this area as well.

Just Google.  Hardware evolution.  The first result should be "Adrian Thompson's Hardware Evolution Page".

I remember reading an article about 20 years ago about a researcher who hooked a small computer up to a FPGA (field programmable gate array) chip.  A FPGA is a chip with thousands of logic gates on it that are unconnected.  By sending in a string of ones and zeros, you can "wire" the gates together into just about any circuit you want.  You can literally wire them into something as complex as a microprocessor if you want.

They programmed the small computer to send in a string of random ones and zeros which caused the FPGA to wire it's internal gates up randomly.  The computer would then feed two audio tones into the FPGA and look at two specific output pins.  The goal was to have one of the pins go high when one audio tone was sent into the FPGA and the other pin to go high when the other audio tone was sent in.  The string of random ones and zeros was then changed a little bit in a random fashion and the test was repeated.

Very early in the program, the FPGA wired the outputs of two gates together, which is normally a very big design no-no, and the output of one of the gates was made low and the output of the second gate was made high.  This misfiring screwed up the internal voltages in the FPGA so badly that it stopped operating as a digital chip and started acting as an analog circuit instead.

After tens or maybe hundreds of thousands of rounds of Darwinian evolution, the chip finally reliably detected the two tones and made the appropriate pins go high when they were detected - and nobody understood how it worked!  They could look at the string of ones and zeros that made it work, and see how the gates were wired together, but the resulting circuit made no sense.  The dial gates were operating as a bastard analog circuit and nothing made sense.

For instance, there were groups of gates wired to each other and to nothing else.  They weren't wired to any other part of the circuit and didn't seem to be doing anything but wasting power, but if you took them out the chip stopped detecting the audio tones!

And nobody had any idea of why.  But unguided evolution had made it work.  Ann Gauger has just had a small taste of the power of Darwinian evolution and she has no idea if what's going on either.

OK, that's the last real research into the subject I've seen.  It's a shame that I can't find anything else about it.

It almost makes me want to learn programming and get some of the FPGAs... a lot of them... and see what I can come up with.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
CeilingCat



Posts: 1650
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,19:38   

Adafruit has a FPGA starter kit for only $99.95.  It comes with a training course and software.

It's on my to-buy list.

With this and a PC you should be able to do a lot of experimenting with hardware evolution.

--------------
Like every other academic field, philosophy of religion has its share of hacks and mediocrities.   Edward Feser

‘Anything is a “real possibility” in the mind of one seeking to deny the obvious.’ – William J Murray

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3549
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 27 2012,19:53   

You might want to google brains in silicon.

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
  10669 replies since Aug. 31 2011,21:06 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (356) < ... 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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