A slightly biased attempt to discredit evolutio...

Originally posted by PBE6
If that's all you're asserting, then yes, I agree. However, your other posts imply that you consider any output from a computer program to be designed for. This is not true. The designer designs the algorithm, but is not always in control of the output. The goal in this case is not a specific piece of output, but the process itself.

A simple algorithm th wer is analogous in the case of a computer program that bases its iteration of random input.

I'm not at all suggesting that you will know the outcome of your code,
only that your code will do what you tell it to do. I also submit you do
not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for
several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control
the design of the algorithm! If you are a good coder you will be
building into your code error checking for inputs, in life what types of
functions for error checking were built into it? You control numbers
being generated by your number generator, you ask for numbers, you
get them; it is a planned event the running of code. By design every
thing in your software is there, no one randomly adds letters, numbers,
or a special Symbol in any of the code at any time randomly.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
The outcome is still random. Did that sink in?

A random outcome is not what ID is about. ID is about God designing the rules AND setting up the shocks such that the outcome was the one desired and the only one possible.

Yea sure big deal you write a piece of code to get a random result,
and again it is by design.
Kelly

Originally posted by Palynka
The outcome is still random. Did that sink in?

A random outcome is not what ID is about. ID is about God designing the rules AND setting up the shocks such that the outcome was the one desired and the only one possible.

Also ID does not automatically mean God, it means design, there are
more than a few things designed around us and not all of it is by
humans too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea sure big deal you write a piece of code to get a random result,
and again it is by design.
Kelly

Fallacy of equivocation.

There is only design in the setup, not on the outcome. ID says that the outcome was designed. Do you really not see the difference?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You may by all means code what you think is going on into a computer
program, no denying that, actually that is one of my points. It is just
like stealing someone else' design and running with it, here is code
that does this and you write yours to do what you think is the same
thing.

Does that mean that the other code wrote itself from the very
begi ...[text shortened]... front
of it, reproduced, heals itself, sees, hears, tastes, reasons, and other
odds and ends?

Unless I am mistaken you are changing your argument. At no point in my discussion on computers have I claimed that the laws of nature, or the rules surrounding natural selection came about without intelligence behind it.
In addition, you have claimed that the laws of nature and the rules of natural selection cannot lead to evolution.
Your argument above does not detract from my claims nor support yours.

Your reasoning is completely circular here, you write a piece of code to
perform a specific way, it does it, and then you shout as if you proved
something about how it could happen without any intelligence behind
it.
Where did I shout that? Quote my post. If I did shout that then I apologize for my mistake. My claim is that the laws of nature and the processes surrounding natural selection "perform in a specific way" that can be simulated in a computer program which can prove the possibility of certain outcomes being possible in the real world, via nothing other than the above mentioned laws and processes. The origin of those laws and processes is not part of my claim.

I also doubt you built your code to the level of sophistication that is
present in life too with all the weaknesses and strengths there, for
several reasons, one just being our computers are binary 1 and 0 life
isn’t like that, so you are mimicking something that is much more
complex than how our current computers systems function.
Kelly
It has been proven in computer science that binary code on a Turing machine is capable of simulating the logic of any (finite) computer no matter how complex. So your derision of binary is misplaced.
I have already fully admitted that we cannot currently simulate life and explained that it is not necessary to do so to prove my claim, so your argument here achieves nothing.
If anything it works against you. If a computer program simulation can demonstrate that evolution works with far simpler laws and processes than life has then your claims that life is incapable of doing so are even more ridiculous.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'm not at all suggesting that you will know the outcome of your code,
only that your code will do what you tell it to do. I also submit you do
not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for
several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control
the design of the algorithm! If you are a good coder you will be
bu ...[text shortened]... mly adds letters, numbers,
or a special Symbol in any of the code at any time randomly.
Kelly

I'm not at all suggesting that you will know the outcome of your code,
only that your code will do what you tell it to do.
Agreed.

I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
This is not a particularly good reason. In the coin flip example, I also designed the algorithm. It models reality exactly. I'd like to hear the other reasons.

If you are a good coder you will be building into your code error checking for inputs, in life what types of functions for error checking were built into it?
The replication of DNA is checked for errors in real life, is that what you mean?

You control numbers being generated by your number generator
No, you don't.

you ask for numbers, you get them
True, but just to be clear if you ask for a random number you get a number you couldn't predict.

it is a planned event the running of code.
True.

By design every thing in your software is there, no one randomly adds letters, numbers, or a special Symbol in any of the code at any time randomly.
True.

Originally posted by PBE6
[b]I'm not at all suggesting that you will know the outcome of your code,
only that your code will do what you tell it to do.
Agreed.

I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
This is not a parti ...[text shortened]... ds letters, numbers, or a special Symbol in any of the code at any time randomly.[/b]
True.[/b]

You control numbers being generated by your number generator

"No, you don't. "

Really, does your number generator, generate numbers or no?
Kelly

Originally posted by PBE6
[b]I'm not at all suggesting that you will know the outcome of your code,
only that your code will do what you tell it to do.
Agreed.

I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
This is not a parti ...[text shortened]... ds letters, numbers, or a special Symbol in any of the code at any time randomly.[/b]
True.[/b]

I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
"
This is not a particularly good reason. In the coin flip example, I also designed the algorithm. It models reality exactly. I'd like to hear the other reasons. "

In life through DNA everything is formed, from bone to blood. In
a coin flip you get heads or tails, pure chance. So in DNA are you
producing something that can just as easy give you tear drops or
toe nails every time a mutations occurs and do you dead end out
all the bad choices as well?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
"
This is not a particularly good reason. In the coin flip example, I also designed the algorithm. It models reality exactly. I'd like to hear the other reasons. " ...[text shortened]... ls every time a mutations occurs and do you dead end out
all the bad choices as well?
Kelly

DNA does in fact get checked for errors during transcription, and bad results are usually thrown out, but errors do occur. These errors result in random mutations (and sometimes cancer, unfortunately). Whether the resulting organism is fit enough to reproduce gets decided at the organism level however, not the DNA level.

As for the first part of your question, is it equally easy to form tear drops or toe nails? I assume you mean from the same starting point, and that when you said "tear drops and toe nails" it was for rhetorical effect but you meant any two specific structures that arise from DNA processes. The answer to that question is no (in general). The reason is relatively straight forward, too.

To keep things simple, if a piece of DNA has "n" modes of mutation available at any time, and the random mutation rate is "r" mutations per mode (which is less than 1), then the odds of achieving the "m" specific mutations required to go from the starting point to the specific different structure are simply (r^m) * (1-r)^(m-n). This function is maximized when m = n*r, so if you have 100 mutation modes, and the rate of mutation is 1/100, the most likely occurrence of the mutation will be (100)*(1/100) = 1 mutation. As "m" increases or decreases from here, the probability of achieving the required mutations drops off precipitously (although the distribution is not symmetrical). Therefore, it's highly unlikely that a change to a "tear drop or toe nail" would be equally easy.

Originally posted by KellyJay
You control numbers being generated by your number generator

"No, you don't. "

Really, does your number generator, generate numbers or no?
Kelly

Yes, it generates numbers. However, although I know the biggest and smallest numbers it could generate, I can't predict which number it will generate.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm!
"
This is not a particularly good reason. In the coin flip example, I also designed the algorithm. It models reality exactly. I'd like to hear the other reasons. " ...[text shortened]... ls every time a mutations occurs and do you dead end out
all the bad choices as well?
Kelly

…I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm! ..….

Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to comprehend the simple difference between an “algorithm” and the “output of the simulation the algorithm makes“?

… In life through DNA everything is formed, from bone to blood. In
a coin flip you get heads or tails, pure chance.
.….

The analogy works for mutations but NOT natural selection which is NOT “pure chance” and predictably selects for whichever mutations maximise the chances of survival in the short run by selecting for those mutations that give immediate survival benefits.

…So in DNA are you
producing something that can just as easy give you tear drops or
toe nails every time a mutations occurs and do you dead end out
all the bad choices as well? .….

Natural selection makes only “mindless-choices” (so “choices” is really totally the right word here) but non of those “mindless-choices” are “bad choices” in the very short run (because they always give immediate benefit in the short run else they would not be selected) and in the very narrow sense that those that are selected are those mutations that give survival benefits even although some may lead to design flaws either in the long run or may even be immediate design flaws (despite increasing the chances of survival in the sort run!) because there could have been an even better mutation that could give a better design with no flaws but, by chance, that better mutation never took place. And natural selection isn’t a random process and it still eliminates all the bad mutations with time in favour for the best ones that HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here.

Originally posted by Palynka
Fallacy of equivocation.

There is only design in the setup, not on the outcome. ID says that the outcome was designed. Do you really not see the difference?

Yes I agree, there is design in the setup not the outcome, I've been
saying that all along, and I'm stressing the "SETUP", which is the
designed part of the whole process. You can setup a random number
generator, it does what, generates numbers, from there you can do
so many things it isn't funny, if, then, else, while, loops, hash,
and go on and on the point is you design the full setup to DO A
TASK and that is the point. If you do not see the folly in saying you
have proved evolution can do something without seeing you setup
the whole process to do what you programmed it too, there isn't much
more that can be said to explain it to you. If you still feel that a
designed setup proves a supposedly non-designed setup can do
some very complex work without seeing how unimpressive that point
is I cannot explain it to you.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yes I agree, there is design in the setup not the outcome, I've been
saying that all along, and I'm stressing the "SETUP", which is the
designed part of the whole process. You can setup a random number
generator, it does what, generates numbers, from there you can do
so many things it isn't funny, if, then, else, while, loops, hash,
and go on and on th lex work without seeing how unimpressive that point
is I cannot explain it to you.
Kelly

If you do not see the folly in... - funny you say that.

...there isn't much more that can be said to explain it to you. - you cannot explain anything to an expert in programming about programming.

I cannot explain it to you. - this is the first sensible thing you've written. You cannot explain *anything* that you cannot understand.

Give up, KJ, don't even try teach people knowing what they're talking about from you no-existant experience.

You don't bring you down yourself, but other creationists as well, and worse, all the christian kind in the long run. I know that most of christians are more humble than you. Not pretending to know things they evidently don't anything about. Rejecting those part of science not known to them. Ordinary good christians don't do that.

If god created evolution, why deny it?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
[b]If you do not see the folly in... - funny you say that.

...there isn't much more that can be said to explain it to you. - you cannot explain anything to an expert in programming about programming.

I cannot explain it to you. - this is the first sensible thing you've written. You cannot explain *anything* that you cannot understa ...[text shortened]... o them. Ordinary good christians don't do that.

If god created evolution, why deny it?[/b]

I will sit on my hands. I will sit on my hands.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…I also submit you do not get to tell me that your algorithms are purely like life as well, for several reasons, but this one is a very important reason you control the design of the algorithm! ..….

Yes -you can control the design of the algorithm but NOT necessarily the output of a simulation the algorithm makes -are you unable to compreh ...[text shortened]... at HAVE occurred -there is nothing hard to comprehend here and there is no logical problem here.[/b]

That was a misprint:

…Natural selection makes only “mindless-choices” (so “choices” is really totally the right word here)
..….

It should have been “(so “choices” is really totally the WRONG word here)”