Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Uncommonly Dense Thread 2

Pages: (500) < ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... >

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,13:10    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,13:07) maybe the author of this... ahem... book....  picked on the discovery institute because they too have been long associated withdesign detection FAIL the wiki entry for the voynich manuscript is an interesting read i had never heard of this thing before.  CSI technicians, to the secret labs!!! If the Spanish original was published in 2007, his research may have begun in 2004, motivated in part by Gilder's book on Brahe and Kepler. That would put the DI at the height of their pre KvD boasting, with Prez GW Shrub endorsing the intelligent design concept in August 2005. In that era the plot points about the DI's links to the gummamint start to make sense. Voynich Manuscript is a really tough nut to crack! I read a lot about it a couple years ago when I was more into cryptography. I don't think it is a hoax, more like an early TIMECUBE. The connection to Drebbel is interesting to me. ETA clarity -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,13:57    Legendary1 assesses the smarts of a few UD commenters: Quote Kairosfocus: I have to give it to you, you are an intellectual heavyweight on this site. In terms of intelligence, I would say you outrank Dembski by some degrees, Gil by more, Clive by even more than that, and O’Leary and bornagain by leagues and leagues. For example, I highly doubt that you think Gil’s claim that modeling natural selection would take building errors into the hardware is anything but foolish. Still, don’t get too proud: really all you’ve done is mastered the art of the pseudoscientist. You’ve grown good at digging up the corpse of long dead, refuted arguments, slapping some undertakers make-up on them, clothing them in a new suit of scientific language, and parading them around. This does not mean they aren’t still long ago dead and refuted... -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,14:11    ahhh suicide sock.  it's hard to flame a bunch of flamers -------------- 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

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,14:41    As O'Leary can say it... Quote 4 O'Leary 06/09/2009 11:33 am David Kellogg, Beckwith distanced himself from ID and resigned from the Discovery Institute in (I think) 2007 - to make clear that he had distanced himself, or so I heard. As a constitutional law prof, he had only said it was constitutional to teach ID, not that he agreed with it. That is somewhat like me saying that it is constitutional to teach that Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the British throne. That doesn’t mean I agree with the view. Beckwith's name is not in the UD Author list. Was it disappeared? I cannot find a reference to it. I think a better analogy would be to say "I don't agree with Holocaust Denial, I just think it is ok to teach." But than I would lose via an appeal to Godwin. -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Hermagoras Posts: 1260 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,14:42    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ June 09 2009,14:11) ahhh suicide sock.  it's hard to flame a bunch of flamers Legendary's post should have been followed by a cry of Banzai! just before the fireball. -------------- "I am not currently proving that objective morality is true. I did that a long time ago and you missed it." -- StephenB http://paralepsis.blogspot.com/....pot.com

KCdgw Posts: 376 Joined: Sep. 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,14:58    Quote (Hermagoras @ June 09 2009,14:42)   Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,14:11) ahhh suicide sock.  it's hard to flame a bunch of flamers Legendary's post should have been followed by a cry of Banzai! just before the fireball. Or, in despair at the sheer monumental level of tard, this: KC Edited by KCdgw on June 09 2009,14:58 -------------- Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,14:59    Clive, whose idea of cleverness is to increment the integer at the end of legendary1's name, is not amused: Quote Legendary4, ——”Kairosfocus: I have to give it to you, you are an intellectual heavyweight on this site. In terms of intelligence, I would say you outrank Dembski by some degrees, Gil by more, Clive by even more than that, and O’Leary and bornagain by leagues and leagues.” This is insulting and inappropriate. If you want to play this game, I think you’re a total moron. Says Clive, who obviously wants to play the same game. Methinks that legendary1 dost now see "Your comment is awaiting moderation" at the head of each post, if he hasn't been banned outright. L1, if you're reading this, PM me.  I have some advice I'd like to share. -------------- 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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,15:14    Interesting: Quote LegendaryNone, I have put you in moderation, but I have not blacklisted you. Partly to give you an opportunity to straighten up, and partly because I want the satisfaction of deleting your nonsense if you don’t. I think Barry must have smacked Clive around for his heavy-handed moderation of late, because 1) Clive didn't ban L1, and 2) he quietly removed Diffaxial from moderation a few days ago. -------------- 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

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,15:18    half off a pile of crap is a pile of crap in other news clive thinks he is cleverererer Quote David Kellogg, For what it’s worth, I think it’s perfectly fine to teach materialistic evolution and methodological naturalism in a literature or creative writing class psst hey clive thanks a whole bunch for sharing your opinion.  i eagerly await more of your opinions -------------- 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

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,15:20    Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,15:14) Interesting: Quote LegendaryNone, I have put you in moderation, but I have not blacklisted you. Partly to give you an opportunity to straighten up, and partly because I want the satisfaction of deleting your nonsense if you don’t. I think Barry must have smacked Clive around for his heavy-handed moderation of late, because 1) Clive didn't ban L1, and 2) he quietly removed Diffaxial from moderation a few days ago. Wah wah censorship Wah wah expelled! -------------- "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: June 09 2009,15:20    what is the probability that clive=barry=baylor bear=gil dodgen? or some of those relations? how many sets of fingerprints run UD? I'd use another currency but some of them are compromised by various respectable morpho considerations. -------------- 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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,15:43    I've noticed that Denyse likes to use pseudo-jargon like "sci jo" and "graff" that no self-respecting journalist would actually use: Quote For persons troubled by formatting issues: For reasons I do not understand, when I shuttle between Blogger and WordPress, a curious outcome is that WordPress recognizes only the first paragraph of a multi-graff quote as an indented quote. I must - as a result - indent the rest of the quote manually. That tends to cause the rest of an extended quote to look slightly different from the first graff. Does she think it makes her sound cool? In concluding her comment, Denyse inadvertently sums up her life: Quote I do not know how to solve the problem at present (if I did, I would just solve it). -------------- 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

sledgehammer Posts: 533 Joined: Sep. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,16:08    Frosty gives us a woo-nderfully precise scientific definition of Intelligence and ID: (emphasis added)       Quote Now ID claims that intelligence is a non-physical explanation for the specified complexity of things. Hence, ID does not need to fallow [sic] a materialistic universal synthesis as it never claims this model to be the one true template of intelligence or for scientific inquiry. Intelligence is interwoven throughout the universe and it is the one natural acting force, cause and explanation that can pick and choose how and when it get’s [sic] involved. And this constitutes the explanatory benefit that an ID perspective beings [sic] to science. Linky-dinky ETA [sic]s -------------- The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny is alleviated by their lack of consistency. -A. Einstein  (H/T, JAD) If evolution is true, you could not know that it's true because your brain is nothing but chemicals. ?Think about that. -K. Hovind

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,16:12    Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,15:20) how many sets of fingerprints run UD? IIRC they became a registered charity. Is it possible to look up some details there? Might be interesting. It might be possible to see how much cash they are raking in via their paypal donation link. Anybody pull that data? Do charities have to tell? I bet it's under $100 a year in any case! -------------- 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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,16:52    Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned: Quote 9 June 2009 A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen In another thread a fellow who goes by Legendary made some rather derisive comments about a suggestion I once made, concerning making computer programs that purport to model biological evolution more realistic. The suggestion was half serious and half tongue-in-cheek, since it would be impractical. My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems. Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations. Thus, a realistic simulation would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion, just as a real organism’s ability to survive and reproduce would be affected randomly by mutational interference. A mutation might cause an enzyme to malfunction and the organism would suffer an early demise, or it might be rendered sterile, and the beneficial mutations would never be passed on. Of course, this would not be practical, and each “organism” would require its own computer, but the point should be clear: A simulation can’t just arbitrarily ignore aspects of the reality it purports to simulate, because taking them into account would be likely to result in an undesirable outcome. As a footnote, I highly recommend reading Eric Anderson’s piece on Avida here. -------------- 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

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,17:02    The tard keeps on flowing. Clive Hayden: Quote All valid questions. My own personal point of view is to withdraw the terms natural and supernatural, or at least, be open minded about how they’re used or abused. Radio waves were once considered supernatural, particle wave duality could still be considered supernatural, it depends on your philosophical presuppositions that you bring to the topic. In my own opinion, all of nature could be considered supernatural, since we have no reason to believe that we know better, given that the sample of nature, or supernature, is 1. I have other reasons for thinking so, but it would take a lot of explaining, or I could just refer you to The Ethics of Elfland in Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton, which is worth quoting in full. It must be remembered that methodological naturalism is no different from philosophical naturalism, so if methodological supernaturalism is to be dismissed because it presupposes philosophical supernaturalism, the same grounds would be in place to dismiss methodological naturalism given that it presupposes philosophical naturalism. It just depends on where you draw these lines between natural and supernatural. There have been shifts in where people have drawn these lines over the years. It would be folly to claim that nothing should exist except methodological naturalism, for that is not itself proven or even able to be demonstrated by methodological naturalism for the precise reason that it is a philosophical position. When Harvard opens its first ID lab, it will take these engineering principles and wed them to biological science as a way of understanding more fully how the mechanics of whatever system they’re studying works, just like Jonathan Wells did for the turbine like mechanism that he studied, and how Michael Egnor studied the stabilizing ability of the brain while pounded under heavy blood flow. Put simply, these engineering principles help in understanding what is being studied. That is, at least, one way in which ID helps even methodological naturalism. To rule it out of hand is, to me, stifling. [tardlighting mine] -------------- 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

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,17:48    Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52) Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:         Quote 9 June 2009 A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen In another thread a fellow who goes by Legendary made some rather derisive comments about a suggestion I once made, concerning making computer programs that purport to model biological evolution more realistic. The suggestion was half serious and half tongue-in-cheek, since it would be impractical. My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems. Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations. Thus, a realistic simulation would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion, just as a real organism’s ability to survive and reproduce would be affected randomly by mutational interference. A mutation might cause an enzyme to malfunction and the organism would suffer an early demise, or it might be rendered sterile, and the beneficial mutations would never be passed on. Of course, this would not be practical, and each “organism” would require its own computer, but the point should be clear: A simulation can’t just arbitrarily ignore aspects of the reality it purports to simulate, because taking them into account would be likely to result in an undesirable outcome. As a footnote, I highly recommend reading Eric Anderson’s piece on Avida here. Achh Err Gack Whatthe? so when Gil said he was only joking about that, he wasn't joking about the  ridiculousness of DNA mutation affecting the fundamental laws of physics and chemistry, only about the difficulty of modelling those crazy changes on both his precious finite element analysis software and his checkers program (bangs head on <looks around for something suitable and fails> moves eyebrows a bit) If DNA mutations do affect the laws of physics, how on earth    Heaven  not-specified did Teh Designer model his plan before he/she/He poofedcdesinged it into existence?

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,17:58    Anyone know what the Harvard cafeteria serves? I heard they have pasta and rice and  (gasp!) fish and (Eeek!!) pork (*). The opportunities for ID research are endless. (*) actually, I didn't.

JLT Posts: 740 Joined: Jan. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,18:06    Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,23:48)     Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52) Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:                 Quote 9 June 2009 A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen [snip mindblowing idiocy] Achh Err Gack Whatthe? [snip] Seconded. Also: <head explodes> -------------- "Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...] Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,18:09    SLEEPER AGENT GILTARD ACTIVATED. -------------- "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

carlsonjok Posts: 3326 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,18:14    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 09 2009,16:12) Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,June 09 2009,15:20) how many sets of fingerprints run UD? IIRC they became a registered charity. Is it possible to look up some details there? Might be interesting. It might be possible to see how much cash they are raking in via their paypal donation link. Anybody pull that data? Do charities have to tell? I bet it's under $100 a year in any case! The only thing available at this time is their articles of incorporation.  No tax documents yet. -------------- 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!)

Louis Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,18:28    Quote (JLT @ June 10 2009,00:06) Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,23:48)       Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52) Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:                 Quote 9 June 2009 A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen [snip mindblowing idiocy] Achh Err Gack Whatthe? [snip] Seconded. Also: <head explodes> Thirded. Oh and one vital discovery: coffee = gud. It's amazing what a grinder, a cafetiere and some truly world class beans can accomplish. Pass it on, buy some stocks. I think this will be a big hit one day. In fact I can confidently predict that there will, in the future, be a small coffee boutique in every major town and city, possibly turning over nearly £100 a day in coffee sales. You heard it here first folks. Louis P.S. Those Wall Street fat cats don't want you to know about it. They are Darwinists who are trying to suppress the truth. It's part of a global conspiracy involving Space Lizards and the Illuminati. Oh no! I've said too much. P.P.S. Hmmmm I think the combination of excessive caffeine, sleep deprivation and exposure to T.A.R.D. has done busted mah brainy stem. Quick, Nurse!  The screens! -------------- Bye.

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:23    Unfucking Believable:     Quote A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen In another thread a fellow who goes by Legendary made some rather derisive comments about a suggestion I once made, concerning making computer programs that purport to model biological evolution more realistic. The suggestion was half serious and half tongue-in-cheek, since it would be impractical. My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems. Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations.Thus, a realistic simulation would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion, just as a real organism’s ability to survive and reproduce would be affected randomly by mutational interference. A mutation might cause an enzyme to malfunction and the organism would suffer an early demise, or it might be rendered sterile, and the beneficial mutations would never be passed on. Of course, this would not be practical, and each “organism” would require its own computer, but the point should be clear: A simulation can’t just arbitrarily ignore aspects of the reality it purports to simulate, because taking them into account would be likely to result in an undesirable outcome. Somebody better put Gil on suicide watch. Don't bother commenting: Go here, and here instead. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

Lou FCD Posts: 5455 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:26    Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ June 09 2009,20:23) Unfucking Believable:       Quote A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen In another thread a fellow who goes by Legendary made some rather derisive comments about a suggestion I once made, concerning making computer programs that purport to model biological evolution more realistic. The suggestion was half serious and half tongue-in-cheek, since it would be impractical. My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems. Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations.Thus, a realistic simulation would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion, just as a real organism’s ability to survive and reproduce would be affected randomly by mutational interference. A mutation might cause an enzyme to malfunction and the organism would suffer an early demise, or it might be rendered sterile, and the beneficial mutations would never be passed on. Of course, this would not be practical, and each “organism” would require its own computer, but the point should be clear: A simulation can’t just arbitrarily ignore aspects of the reality it purports to simulate, because taking them into account would be likely to result in an undesirable outcome. Somebody better put Gil on suicide watch. Don't bother commenting: Go [URL=http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-realistic-computational-simulation-of-random-mutation-filtered-by-natural-selection-in-b iology/]here[/URL], and here instead. you am late to da party, RB. Har har, etc. etc. etc. -------------- “Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas? Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:45    Quote (Lou FCD @ June 09 2009,20:26) you am late to da party, RB. Har har, etc. etc. etc. Wow that's weird. In my simulation of AtBC my comment was the first. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

dvunkannon Posts: 1377 Joined: June 2008 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:49    Quote (Louis @ June 09 2009,19:28) Quote (JLT @ June 10 2009,00:06) Quote (steve_h @ June 09 2009,23:48)       Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,22:52) Unbelievable. He still hasn't learned:                   Quote 9 June 2009 A More Realistic Computer Simulation of Biological Evolution GilDodgen [snip mindblowing idiocy] Achh Err Gack Whatthe? [snip] Seconded. Also: <head explodes> Thirded. Oh and one vital discovery: coffee = gud. It's amazing what a grinder, a cafetiere and some truly world class beans can accomplish. Pass it on, buy some stocks. I think this will be a big hit one day. In fact I can confidently predict that there will, in the future, be a small coffee boutique in every major town and city, possibly turning over nearly £100 a day in coffee sales. You heard it here first folks. Louis P.S. Those Wall Street fat cats don't want you to know about it. They are Darwinists who are trying to suppress the truth. It's part of a global conspiracy involving Space Lizards and the Illuminati. Oh no! I've said too much. P.P.S. Hmmmm I think the combination of excessive caffeine, sleep deprivation and exposure to T.A.R.D. has done busted mah brainy stem. Quick, Nurse!  The screens! Louis, The most valuable internationally traded commodity is oil, the second is coffee. (Just counting legal ones, here) With your help, we can take the number one spot! -------------- I’m referring to evolution, not changes in allele frequencies. - Cornelius Hunter I’m not an evolutionist, I’m a change in allele frequentist! - Nakashima

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:49    Gil Dodgen:   Quote My argument was as follows: Computer programs that purport to model biological evolution invariably isolate the effects of “mutations” to only those aspects of the “organism” that have a chance of helping the organism approach the desired goal (EQU in the case of Avida, for example). But this ignores an extremely important aspect of modeling living systems. Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, including its ability to survive and reproduce. The computer program, OS, and hardware represent the features of the simulation that keep the organism alive and allow it to reproduce, but this is artificially isolated from the effects of mutations. Uh, Gil, those experiments started with an ancestor organism (see the "creature.tmp.heads" file in that archive) whose only capability was self-replication. That self-replication, though, is dependent upon the instructions that are part of the organism, and mutation can and does disrupt self-replication in some of the offspring organisms. It helps if you know something about what you presume to criticize, Gil. -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

Reciprocating Bill Posts: 4265 Joined: Oct. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,19:56    Quote (keiths @ June 09 2009,18:02) The tard keeps on flowing. Clive Hayden:     Quote In my own opinion, all of nature could be considered supernatural Gotta love it. And, somehow, this comports with Gil's mutating hardware. -------------- Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be. "The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you." - David Foster Wallace "Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down." - Barry Arrington

silverspoon Posts: 123 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,20:13    Quote (dvunkannon @ June 09 2009,14:41) As O'Leary can say it...   Quote 4 O'Leary 06/09/2009 11:33 am David Kellogg, Beckwith distanced himself from ID and resigned from the Discovery Institute in (I think) 2007 - to make clear that he had distanced himself, or so I heard. As a constitutional law prof, he had only said it was constitutional to teach ID, not that he agreed with it. That is somewhat like me saying that it is constitutional to teach that Mary Queen of Scots was the rightful heir to the British throne. That doesn’t mean I agree with the view. I don’t think being a professor of philosophy & church-state studies in the department of philosophy at Baylor means Beckwith is a “constitutional law professor“. Maybe it would if he had a law degree; which he doesn’t. Or perhaps if he taught in Baylor’s school of law; which he doesn’t. Or maybe, just maybe granny tard is practicing the tried & true creationist tactic of exaggerating a fellow tard‘s qualifications, y’all. -------------- Grand Poobah of the nuclear mafia

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: June 09 2009,20:14    Gil Dodgen:   Quote Gil Has Never Grasped the Nature of a Simulation Model Correction:   Quote Gil will Never Grasp the Nature of a Simulation Model.

Pages: (500) < ... 360 361 362 363 364 [365] 366 367 368 369 370 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard