A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not changed my argument go back and read it!

I have been saying that when you program code it does what it is
coded to do, so when someone says they programmed some code
to evolved a creature and they call it proof for evolution I laught at
them. I cry for those that think it is proof, because all they are really
doing is looking a piece of code work out its programming, if they
buy into that junk they are ready for the Koolaid.
Kelly

But I never claimed to have programmed code to evolve a creature.
My claim was that someone programmed code that simulates processes similar to natural selection, that do not include inputs of intelligence and yet the program resulted in output significantly more complex than the input.
I also claim that someone programmed code to simulate natural selection, and 'creatures' evolved.
You appear not to understand the subtleties, but I can assure you that I do, and that you are wrong to dismiss computer programming proofs of certain scientific theories.
If you still do not understand it, then I would be glad to explain it in more detail.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not changed my argument go back and read it!

I have been saying that when you program code it does what it is
coded to do, so when someone says they programmed some code
to evolved a creature and they call it proof for evolution I laught at
them. I cry for those that think it is proof, because all they are really
doing is looking a piece of code work out its programming, if they
buy into that junk they are ready for the Koolaid.
Kelly

…I have been saying that when you program code it does what it is
coded to do,
….

-and what it is told to do it perform a simulation -nothing more -it is NOT told what the outcome of the simulation should be nor should not be and yet, in this case, the simulation shows evolution.

Do you deny that a program to perform a computer simulation by iteration does NOT have within its code what the outcome should be? -this is very basic computer science which you deny.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Do you deny that a program to perform a computer simulation by iteration does NOT have within its code what the outcome should be? -this is very basic computer science which you deny.

KJ denes every sicence there is. He denies evolution, BigBang, dendrochronology, radiometrics, and not computer science. Shorly de denies science as a whole. If it's spelled s-c-i-e-n-c-e he denies it, without any thoughts.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
If it's spelled s-c-i-e-n-c-e he denies it, without any thoughts.

Is that why you spelt it "s-i-c-e-n-c-e"?

Originally posted by Nordlys
Is that why you spelt it "s-i-c-e-n-c-e"?

Better clean your contacts girl🙂

Originally posted by Nordlys
Is that why you spelt it "s-i-c-e-n-c-e"?

So he wouldn't deny my posting ever existed... 😞

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have not changed my argument go back and read it!

I have been saying that when you program code it does what it is
coded to do, so when someone says they programmed some code
to evolved a creature and they call it proof for evolution I laught at
them. I cry for those that think it is proof, because all they are really
doing is looking a piece of code work out its programming, if they
buy into that junk they are ready for the Koolaid.
Kelly

I think it safe to say you have never heard of 'genetic programming'.
They give some parameters they need the program to come up with, like an optimized design for an antenna, and the program randomly sticks small changes in the design, and after a while, a new design emerges that no engineer would have ever thought of. It is real, it is here and it is now. I used the example of antenna design because that was one of the first products of this new software. It evolves as it runs, the design gets better each time. Sounds like programmed evolution to me.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think it safe to say you have never heard of 'genetic programming'.
They give some parameters they need the program to come up with, like an optimized design for an antenna, and the program randomly sticks small changes in the design, and after a while, a new design emerges that no engineer would have ever thought of. It is real, it is here and it is now ...[text shortened]... evolves as it runs, the design gets better each time. Sounds like programmed evolution to me.

"It evolves as it runs, the design gets better each time. Sounds like programmed evolution to me.[/b]"

With respect to software, it does what it is programmed to do, nothing
more nothing less. If it were any other way we would not be able to
trust computers at all to track money or anything else. So to take
something that does just what we tell it to do, and have it do it, then
turn around and point to it and say see this is proof life evolved
through evolution is a joke. Life stands or falls on its own merits with
respect to evolution, the only thing that having a computer program
do that does causes something to evolve is prove it can be with
an intelligent design, it does not prove it can be done without one.

If you fail to see that pointing to a designed piece of code that does
what you claim happens without a design involved I think you are
kidding yourself.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"It evolves as it runs, the design gets better each time. Sounds like programmed evolution to me."

With respect to software, it does what it is programmed to do, nothing
more nothing less. If it were any other way we would not be able to
trust computers at all to track money or anything else. So to take
something that does just what we tell it to ...[text shortened]... es
what you claim happens without a design involved I think you are
kidding yourself.
Kelly[/b]

As it pertains to computer code (and the only computer code I ever fooled around with was the
old BASIC that was on my Apple ][gs), it seems to me that KellyJay's point is a valid one.

Any flaw in computer programing (not resulting from corruption/bad hardware) is the product of
the programmer. A program may not do what the programmer wanted it to do, that's for sure, but
it always does what it's told to do. If a program is 'misbehaving,' then it's misbehaving because of
some flaw in the design process.

If this is incorrect, then I'd love to hear how a program could do something other than what it was
programed to do.

And I apologize if I've misunderstood you, KellyJay, in trying to pose my question.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
As it pertains to computer code (and the only computer code I ever fooled around with was the
old BASIC that was on my Apple ][gs), it seems to me that KellyJay's point is a valid one.

Any flaw in computer programing (not resulting from corruption/bad hardware) is the product of
the programmer. A program may not do what the programmer wanted it to do, apologize if I've misunderstood you, KellyJay, in trying to pose my question.

Nemesio

Yes, His point is one of validity, It all depends on how you define the system. The same way it is in every science Iv'e studied...its all about relativity...science doesn't do well with 'why', it does well with 'how' from a relative standpoint...

not saying it won't do well with the question 'why' someday, but there is still a vast quantity of work to be done in the field of 'how'

people that think that science will yield an ultimate answer for existence, are just as delusional as those that think religion will do so.

What if we are working on a problem that has no solutions from our frame of reference?

Originally posted by Nemesio
As it pertains to computer code (and the only computer code I ever fooled around with was the
old BASIC that was on my Apple ][gs), it seems to me that KellyJay's point is a valid one.

Any flaw in computer programing (not resulting from corruption/bad hardware) is the product of
the programmer. A program may not do what the programmer wanted it to do, ...[text shortened]... apologize if I've misunderstood you, KellyJay, in trying to pose my question.

Nemesio

Computers do what they are told, yes.

The thing is, they can be told to produce random results in different cases. You can create a software system that can model a somewhat random process and then have a software model that acts upon that.

Since it is a computer they are really called "pseudo-random number generators" since they can't get to 100% random, although they can get to a point where noone would be able to predict it without a lot of work and can definitely be set to approach a given random distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Random_number_generation#Computational_methods

It is very possible to create a software application for which you could not predict the output.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Yes, His point is one of validity, It all depends on how you define the system. The same way it is in every science Iv'e studied...its all about relativity...science doesn't do well with 'why', it does well with 'how' from a relative standpoint...

not saying it won't do well with the question 'why' someday, but there is still a vast quantity of work to hat if we are working on a problem that has no solutions from our frame of reference?

…people that think that science will yield an ultimate answer for existence,
.….

What on earth are you talking about?
-neither I nor any one that is as interested in science as I am that I know of thinks that science will yield an “ultimate answer for existence”, -whatever that is supposed to mean!
What is an “ultimate answer for existence”? -I have no idea -it certainly is not a term that has any scientific meaning in any field of science that I am aware of.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…people that think that science will yield an ultimate answer for existence,
.….

What on earth are you talking about?
-neither I nor any one that is as interested in science as I am that I know of thinks that science will yield an “ultimate answer for existence”, -whatever that is supposed to mean!
What is an “ultimate answer for exis ...[text shortened]... tainly is not a term that has any scientific meaning in any field of science that I am aware of.[/b]

Ask yourself this; Why do peple try to model the universe? Is it not so we can look at the system as a coherent whole? perhaps I'm mistaken? Are you saying that we don't make parallel assumptions, based on our models, to our reality? I always thought we have been on a quest to decode the mystery of existence...which is probably why I won't make it as a scientist, because apparently, scientists have another agenda...What is your agenda?

To me, these questions are the most fundimental, relative to cognative self-perception.

Originally posted by joe shmo
Ask yourself this; Why do peple try to model the universe? Is it not so we can look at the system as a coherent whole? perhaps I'm mistaken? Are you saying that we don't make parallel assumptions, based on our models, to our reality? I always thought we have been on a quest to decode the mystery of existence...which is probably why I won't make it as a ...[text shortened]... a?

To me, these questions are the most fundimental, relative to cognative self-perception.

Are you saying the 'model' of the universe creationists make and the model science continually improves are equal? I hope not, because the creationist view won't change even a thousand years from now, they will be spouting the same dogma while a thousand years from now, assuming our civilization survives the coming crunches, we will have so much clearer answers to the big questions while creationists will still be going, the world was created in 7 days. Which does not mean I think even a thousand years more of scientific development will be enough, maybe yes maybe no but the path to knowledge is clear with science. Of course scientists have agenda's, no shocker there, but the truth of some bit of science will out after the smoke clears. The same could not be said of christianity or islam.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Are you saying the 'model' of the universe creationists make and the model science continually improves are equal? I hope not, because the creationist view won't change even a thousand years from now, they will be spouting the same dogma while a thousand years from now, assuming our civilization survives the coming crunches, we will have so much clearer ans ...[text shortened]... cience will out after the smoke clears. The same could not be said of christianity or islam.

No, I would say they are not equally valid...Science is on the rise , and religion is on the fall...but it all goes to show that views change over time...Religion gave birth to science, One can assert by analogy that science, as we know it, may be less valid in the future.