RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (501) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: Uncommonly Dense Thread 3, The Beast Marches On...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,13:21   

Quote
ETA: Oops misread the code. 'If' ... 'then' is followed by one statement (or several between "begin" and "end")


Is this the code in question?

 
Quote

Var
I:Integer;
L:Integer;
Begin
L:=0;
I:=0;
While I< =Length(New) do
 Begin
   If New[I]=Current[I] Then
   L:=L+1;
   I:=I+1;
 End;
 SameLetters:=L;
End;


Edit: still working on this...

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,13:53   

Yes, the code's not really in question, but my pascal parsing skills are.

I wouldn't have made this mistake if  Dawkins  had formatted his original code :) as follows:

Code Sample

While I <= Length(New) do
Begin
    If New[I]=Current[I] Then
        L:=L+1;
    I:=I+1;
End;

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,14:33   

Here's my BASIC interpretation:
Quote

Sub Weasel()
   Dim AlphabetText As String
   Dim Target As String, Parent As String, BestChild As String, Child As String
   Dim I As Integer, Best As Integer, Generation As Integer, Copies As Integer
   
   AlphabetText = "ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ "
   Target = "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL"
   Copies = 100
   
   Parent = ""
   Best = 0
   For I = 1 To Len(Target)
       Parent = Parent + RandChar(AlphabetText)
   Next
   Debug.Print Parent
   Generation = 1
   While Best < Len(Target)
       For I = 1 To Copies
           Child = Parent
           Mid(Child, RandNum(Len(Child)), 1) = RandChar(AlphabetText)
           If SameLetters(Child, Target) > Best Then
               BestChild = Child
               Best = SameLetters(Child, Target)
           End If
       Next
       Parent = BestChild
       If Generation Mod 10 = 0 Then Debug.Print CStr(Generation) + ":" + Parent
       Generation = Generation + 1
   Wend
   Debug.Print CStr(Generation) + ":" + Parent
End Sub

Function RandChar(AlphabetText As String) As String
   Dim c As Integer
   Randomize
   c = Int((27 * Rnd) + 1)
   RandChar = Mid(AlphabetText, c, 1)
End Function

Function RandNum(I As Integer) As Integer
   Randomize
   RandNum = Int((I * Rnd) + 1)
End Function

Function SameLetters(Child As String, Target As String) As Integer
   Dim L As Integer, I As Integer
   L = 0
   For I = 1 To Len(Child)
       If Mid(Child, I, 1) = Mid(Target, I, 1) Then
           L = L + 1
       End If
   Next
   SameLetters = L
End Function


It works, but it can't be Dawkins' code, because only one character per child can mutate. The effective mutation rate is approximately 4 percent, which gives decent results, but conceptually it isn't Dawkins.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,14:47   

I think I've discovered the weasel in the woodpile.

If only one letter per child can mutate, you have latching by default. It a correct letter changes, is impossible for a compensating mutation to produce the same fitness score.

Dembski is attempting to redeem himself by getting this obscure and badly formatted imposter accepted as Dawkins' code.

It does indeed satisfy KF's claim of implicit latching.

A Dawkins' Weasel, however, would give each and every letter in each and every child to mutate.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
steve_h



Posts: 544
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:08   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 19 2009,20:47)
It does indeed satisfy KF's claim of implicit latching.

Both versions of the program do. There's supposed to be a change in explicit latching to quasi latching between the two versions.  

I do hope Gordon of Talky tries to educate DrDr about this.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:13   

Interestingly, if you change the algorithm to allow each letter to mutate independently"

Quote

           Child = ""
           For J = 1 To Len(Parent)
               K = Int((100 * Rnd) + 1)
               If K < 5 Then
                   Child = Child + RandChar(AlphabetText)
               Else
                   Child = Child + Mid(Parent, J, 1)
               End If
           Next

           ' instead of this:
           'Mid(Child, RandNum(Len(Child)), 1) = RandChar(AlphabetText)

Not only does it not latch, but it reaches the target in about half the number of generations.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:13   

Quote (socle @ Sep. 19 2009,12:40)
Here we go again:  The Original Weasel(s)

   
Quote
Unless Richard Dawkins and his associates can show conclusively that these are not the originals (either by providing originals in their possession that differ, or by demonstrating that these programs in some way fail to perform as required), we shall regard the contest as closed, offer Oxfordensis his/her prize, and henceforward treat the programs below as the originals.


It's fascinating to me how these people simply cannot accept the fact that the original program no longer exists, and that there will always be some uncertainty about its features.  They would actually rather declare programs they received from some random anonymous person on the internet to be the "originals".  LOL.

They're looking at WEASEL in the only terms they know; to them it's our scripture and if it's lost, so are whatever fundamental truths it may have contained.  Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god.  They can't grok the fact that only the principle behind WEASEL matters, and that any of a million possible implementations of the concept would demonstrate the same thing about selection.  

To them everything either proves or disproves Jebus, and if it disproves Jebus it must be attacked and destroyed, facts and reason be damned.  They don't understand why WEASEL is important, they don't understand that it's really not very important at all (it's really just a thought problem to help people understand one facet of evolution and you don't need to run or even write the program to understand what the algorithm does or does not do), and they don't understand that the idea either works or it doesn't, regardless of what idiot writes the code.  They think that if we can't produce the sacred scrolls, they win, because blind faith to a book is the only thing they understand and the only thing they care about.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:20   

Quote
Since they stake their entire worldview on an assumption of scriptural infallibility, they can only apprehend that establishing fallibility of WEASEL negates our god.


That is probably how some of them look at it, but I suspect Dembski is after a version of Weasel that rescues his dimwitted interpretation of it.

How convenient to come across someone with a Pascal version that superficially behaves like Weasel, but is actually a partitioned search.

My Explanatory Filter is twitching.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:47   

Interesting to note that my copy of TBW seems to have misprints in the "critical" Weasel chapter.

I assume they're misprints, because the number of characters in the children varies from 27 to 29.

The assumption of invisible spaces doesn't look like the correct explanation.

typos appear to explain this:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-334547

Quote
However, somethings not quite right since the first one is shorter then it should be…


--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:56   

My first implementation of the weasel behaved the same way: exactly one letter is changed.

Why? It's easier to handle mathematically: the neighbourhood of a string is then much smaller, and, when seen as a Markov chain, you have a sparser transition matrix.

That's why Dembski and Marks use a mutation probability of µ=10^{-5}  - and a generation size of two: then, they can come up with a neat differential equation.

But in reality, Dawkins weasel is well understood and nothing special: it's a very simple evolution strategy and studied as such since the 1970th.

   
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,15:58   

ouch, 1970s....
And even with this mutation, the algorithm doesn't latch...

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,16:21   

Quote (DiEb @ Sep. 19 2009,15:58)
ouch, 1970s....
And even with this mutation, the algorithm doesn't latch...

If only one character per child can mutate, characters cannot revert unless the entire population loses fitness.

In order for correct characters to change, there must be at least one compensation mutation.

In a population of 100, with only 27 values for characters, it would be rare for the entire population to lose fitness.

Of course it will happen occasionally, at a predictable rate.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,16:27   

It's most probable if almost every letter is correct. So, imagine 27 correct letters and a population of 100.
The probability that the next generation is worse is
(27/28)^100 = 2.63%
That's not so bad!

   
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,16:50   

It gets worse, of course, if a chosen letter is only changed with probability 26/27 ( as in the programs ). Then, we have a probability of a change to the worse at the last stage of (26/27 * 27/28)^100 = 0.06%...

But a more complicate calculation yields that the probability of a change to the worse during the run of such an algorithm with a generation size of 100 is 0.48%

That's quite observable :-)

   
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,17:51   



And here is a little bit more about the latching of the new weasel(s)...

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,18:59   

Quote
Well, it would be a pity if you didn’t need to declare a winner from nearly 400 comments, and still judge other contests and put up more contests, and solicit new prizes from publishers hit by the recession.


http://www.uncommondescent.com/evoluti....-334578

Considering that no one at UD has been able to understand how Weasel works (with the possible exception of Atom), how is she going to select a winner?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,19:50   

Frilly Gilly's incredulity is silly:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/



Quote
19 September 2009
Simply Not Credible
GilDodgen
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.


--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 19 2009,21:03   

it is hard to convince dishonest lackwits of anything that is for sure

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
creeky belly



Posts: 205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,01:20   

I went for the numerical alphabet for convenience and wrote it up in python. It has a variable alphabet length, phrase length, number of generations, population size, and flat mutation rate per letter (plus a random 'phrase' every time). Anyone enjoy python? (insert Randall Munroe joke here)

 
Quote
import pylab as p
import numpy as N
import copy as c

# main function - runs WEASEL simulation
def main(let=27,lin=20,pop=50,mut=0.05,gen=100):

   # 'let' = length of alphabet
   # 'lin' = 'phrase' length
   # 'pop' = number of offspring
   # 'mut' = probability of mutation of any letter in offspring
   # 'gen' = number of generations to simulate
   
   #create an array of 'lin' elements from a 'let' length alphabet
   target = N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)])
   
   #create initial population of completely random lines (offspring)
   offsp = []
   for i in N.arange(0,pop,1):
       offsp.append(N.array([int(let*p.rand()) for x in N.arange(0,lin,1)]))
       
   #store best fit
   curbest=-1
       
   ##loop over generations
   for i in N.arange(0,gen,1):

       #initialize best fit offspring parameters
       bestfit=0
       bestoff=offsp[int(p.rand()*(pop-1))]
       newoff=[]

       ##loop over offspring
       for off in offsp:
   
           #initialize fitness
           currentfit = 0

           ##loop over 'letters' in 'phrase'
           for pos in N.arange(0,lin,1):
               
               #letters match => (fitness+1)
               if target[pos]==off[pos]:
                   currentfit=currentfit+1
           ##end letter loop
           
           #found a more fit individual, use it to populate next generation
           if currentfit>bestfit:
               bestoff=off
               bestfit=currentfit

       ##end offspring loop

       #only output if there's a change in fitness between generations
       if curbest != bestfit:
           print 'Best fit candidate %s out of %s in generation %s'% (bestfit,lin,i)
           curbest = bestfit

       ##create next generation from the most fit candidate from previous generation
       for k in N.arange(0,pop,1):
           
           #make a copy of 'fittest' offspring
           coff = c.copy(bestoff)
           
           #create an array of uniform random numbers [0,1) of the 'phrase' length
           probs = p.rand(lin)

           ##loop over random number array
           for z in N.arange(0,lin,1):

               #mutate corresponding letter if random number is less than the mutation rate
               if probs[z]<mut:
                   coff[z]=int(let*p.rand())
           
           ##end random array loop
           
           #add offspring to next generation
           newoff.append(coff)

       #set new generation
       offsp=newoff

       ##end 'reproduction' loop

   ##end generation loop
   
   print 'Target',target
   print 'Best  ',bestoff


Here's some sample output:

 
Quote
In [106]: we.main(lin=25,let=27,pop=100,mut=0.05,gen=50)
Best fit candidate 4 out of 25 in generation 0
Best fit candidate 5 out of 25 in generation 1
Best fit candidate 6 out of 25 in generation 2
Best fit candidate 8 out of 25 in generation 3
Best fit candidate 9 out of 25 in generation 4
Best fit candidate 10 out of 25 in generation 5
Best fit candidate 11 out of 25 in generation 6
Best fit candidate 12 out of 25 in generation 7
Best fit candidate 13 out of 25 in generation 8
Best fit candidate 14 out of 25 in generation 9
Best fit candidate 15 out of 25 in generation 10
Best fit candidate 16 out of 25 in generation 13
Best fit candidate 17 out of 25 in generation 14
Best fit candidate 18 out of 25 in generation 16
Best fit candidate 19 out of 25 in generation 22
Best fit candidate 20 out of 25 in generation 27
Best fit candidate 21 out of 25 in generation 28
Best fit candidate 22 out of 25 in generation 34
Best fit candidate 23 out of 25 in generation 35
Target [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 17 10  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]
Best   [ 2  1 25 14  6 10  3 10 21 16 12 15  5 19  5 10 11  1 18 23 24  3 21  8  8]

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,03:52   

What amuses me about the weasel: all programs I've seen until now define the fitness of a string as the number of correct letters. That's the obvious choice - though many others are possible (e.g., length of longest correct substring): Dawkins only stated that the string is chosen which most resembles the target.

The only exception is the algorithm of Dembski and Marks...

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,04:59   

I am  not amused but what strikes me is the inability of ID'ers to recognize that Weasel is just about fitness. The target is just a vehicle for fitness; there's got to be something against which to measure fitness.

Fitness is a requirement for survival just as in real life.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
DiEb



Posts: 312
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,05:04   

Yep, it's striking how the whole idea of fitness or a fitness function is missing from Dembski's and Marks's paper: for them, the fitness function seems to be given implicitly  by the search space, which is amazingly odd as they are talking so much about no free lunch theorems.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,08:25   

The other interesting thing about the ID/Creationists is how they transmogrify the concept of fitness into the concept of search.

They are all obsessed with retrospective astonishment at complex functions, as if these functions were goals. Behe is particularly stuck on the idea that any test of evolution must produce a flagellum or the test disproves evolution.

It is, of course, interesting when evolution produces a specific adaptation, but the history of life includes a lot of extinction, examples where adaptations were not produced. I think you could argue that adaptation is the unusual case.

Behe and Dembski sit around looking at lottery winners and speculating about what great and powerful agent arrange for them to be the winners.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Maya



Posts: 702
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,08:43   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 19 2009,19:50)
Frilly Gilly's incredulity is silly:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/simply-not-credible/



 
Quote
19 September 2009
Simply Not Credible
GilDodgen
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.

Oh. My. Goddess.

I went on the tard wagon this week, but I fell off because I had to see for myself that they were still ranting about that silly little program.

I'm not going to start a sock during school, but would someone please point out the giant freaking elephant in the middle of the room to these morons:  It doesn't matter in the slightest how Dawkins implemented his algorithm.  The point is that the algorithm demonstrates cumulative selection.

Now, sure, it's worth demonstrating yet again that Dembski is completely lacking in integrity and that the IDiots of UD lack the ability to comprehend, well, almost any science topic, but that's just:



Regardless of all that, anyone can implement Dawkins algorithm and show how random mutation and variable reproductive success result in populations evolving to be more fit in their environment.  In two pages, twenty-some years ago, Dawkins provided more supporting evidence for one small facet of evolutionary theory than Dembski has ever provided for his entire preferred brand of creationism.

Dembski must dream of one day being relevant enough to be considered Dawkins' bitch.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,08:59   

Quote
In two pages, twenty-some years ago, Dawkins provided more supporting evidence for one small facet of evolutionary theory than Dembski has ever provided for his entire preferred brand of creationism.



That's the problem for the IDiots. Anyone can make a complicated demonstration, full of wheels and gizmos to the point where it takes hours of concentration to understand.

Simple demonstrations that any 12 year old can follow are works of genius. And very dangerous to the opposition.

I wonder what kind of simple demonstration you could make to illustrate ID.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,09:18   

If my understanding is right, another facet of the concept of fitness in evolution is that it works even with a moving target. Evolution has no target; it is always about immediate fitness. As long as the fitness landscape don't change too fast. Otherwise, extinction.

In a nutshell what Darwin said 150 years ago - and still going strong.

ETA:

Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,10:44   

Quote
Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?


Yes of course it should be possible

Grand knob gobbler Gordon Mullings hisself provides a moving target with unworkable latching every time  he posts anything to with Weasel.

He has that many permutations of moving targets.....

....oh wait...

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3326
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,10:51   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 20 2009,08:59)
I wonder what kind of simple demonstration you could make to illustrate ID.



--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
Zachriel



Posts: 2723
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,10:57   

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 20 2009,09:18)
Shouldn't it be possible to write a version of Weasel with moving target - and wouldn't that prove unworkable with latching?



Wandering Weasel (XLS file)

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

You never step on the same tard twice—for it's not the same tard and you're not the same person.

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2009,11:21   

I'm confused. What is it that wanders?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

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

Pages: (501) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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