The evolution of computers

Originally posted by KellyJay
Nope the sun doesn't have knowledge, and your claims of success
assumes something occured when you apply it to evolution taking
life and making it more than it was billions of years ago. A statement
of faith isn't proof only a statement of faith.
Kelly

A wonderful job of unintelligibility.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
A wonderful job of unintelligibility.

If I drop a rock does the sky need knowledge to do gravities work? I
think not, it only must do what the forces of the universe at work
cause it too. Processes will run their course, they will do so according
to the laws of the universe in place. You are however suggesting there
is something that takes this to a whole new level with evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If I drop a rock does the sky need knowledge to do gravities work? I
think not, it only must do what the forces of the universe at work
cause it too. Processes will run their course, they will do so according
to the laws of the universe in place. You are however suggesting there
is something that takes this to a whole new level with evolution.
Kelly

No! I'm not. Evolution is very much one of those processes. The only thing different about evolution is that life is involved. The processes might be competition rather than gravity, but it is the same thing!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
No! I'm not. Evolution is very much one of those processes. The only thing different about evolution is that life is involved. The processes might be competition rather than gravity, but it is the same thing!

No, it is not the same thing. Competition drives yes, but it drives
people forward with reasons to think things out, to come up with
better processes, solutions to problems, and ways to execute those
solutions and innovations. That is not the case with evolution and
natural selection, which is more like a shifting of that which can
remain after the changes in DNA not before! The methods to come
up with any new thing as far as a new system or organ within living
systems in evolution is completely backwards when you compare
it to the competition in computers. They are not even close to being
comparable as you are trying to make them out to be!
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No, it is not the same thing. Competition drives yes, but it drives
people forward with reasons to think things out, to come up with
better processes, solutions to problems, and ways to execute those
solutions and innovations. That is not the case with evolution and
natural selection, which is more like a shifting of that which can
remain after the cha ...[text shortened]... s. They are not even close to being
comparable as you are trying to make them out to be!
Kelly

Just once I'd like to read what you've written before you actually click on the POST button. You're stuff makes no sense.
For example, what does this post mean?
Can you rewrite it in a way that is intelligible?
I'm actually vaguely interested in the topic and would be interested in your point of view, but I can't make any sense of it ...

Originally posted by amannion
Just once I'd like to read what you've written before you actually click on the POST button. You're stuff makes no sense.
For example, what does this post mean?
Can you rewrite it in a way that is intelligible?
I'm actually vaguely interested in the topic and would be interested in your point of view, but I can't make any sense of it ...

Competition drives changes, it causes the need for them, it propels
the changes due to need for them, competition has in its best interest
the need for more innovative functional processes and designs. After
which all the changes must go through a series of test methodologies,
before the changes in computers occur, and are brought out into the
marketplace, which again is a do or die environment. Being able to
make the best typewriter ever created does nothing in a world of
word processors.

This is not the case with evolution in living systems and natural
selection, since natural selection is on the other side of all progress
and changes. Natural selection is more like a sifting process which
is after the mutations, it does not deal with progress in the same way
that competition does.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Competition drives changes, it causes the need for them, it propels
the changes due to need for them, competition has in its best interest
the need for more innovative functional processes and designs. After
which all the changes must go through a series of test methodologies,
before the changes in computers occur, and are brought out into the
marketpl ...[text shortened]... er the mutations, it does not deal with progress in the same way
that competition does.
Kelly

That sounds like a pretty fair characterisation. What are you getting at?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Competition drives changes, it causes the need for them, it propels
the changes due to need for them, competition has in its best interest
the need for more innovative functional processes and designs. After
which all the changes must go through a series of test methodologies,
before the changes in computers occur, and are brought out into the
marketpl ...[text shortened]... er the mutations, it does not deal with progress in the same way
that competition does.
Kelly

Who is this "competition" that you speak of? It's not the same competition that I understand - yours has "interests" and obviously therefore emotions. Seriously Kelly, go buy a dictionary.

Natural selection is simply the result of competition. It's differential survival, that's all. Your post about what happens during competition between computer manufacturers is no different to what happens during normal life for every organism on the planet, if you remove your subjective language.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Who is this "competition" that you speak of? It's not the same competition that I understand - yours has "interests" and obviously therefore emotions. Seriously Kelly, go buy a dictionary.

Natural selection is simply the result of competition. It's differential survival, that's all. Your post about what happens during competition between computer ...[text shortened]... ing normal life for every organism on the planet, if you remove your subjective language.

Natural selection is an after the fact guiding force behind evolutionary
change, it does not submit ideas as to how to design a better heart
or anything else. Engineers and the designing power of the computer
industry are always looking for new ways to make the processors,
sound cards, video cards, hard drives, fans and so on to work better.
There is nothing driving life to change into to something better more
efficient and so on a cellular level. There is a struggle for survival as
life can be a struggle, but that does not translate into something
within DNA having to change into something better or worse, except in
the minds of the true believers of evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Natural selection is an after the fact guiding force behind evolutionary
change, it does not submit ideas as to how to design a better heart
or anything else. Engineers and the designing power of the computer
industry are always looking for new ways to make the processors,
sound cards, video cards, hard drives, fans and so on to work better.
There is n ...[text shortened]... into something better or worse, except in
the minds of the true believers of evolution.
Kelly

waffle waffle waffle obscure obscure obscure.

Sound familiar? It certainly does to me.

You could get exactly the same result as a concious designer by trial and error, given enough attempts. Don't even bother to try and waffle around that one.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
waffle waffle waffle obscure obscure obscure.

Sound familiar? It certainly does to me.

You could get exactly the same result as a concious designer by trial and error, given enough attempts. Don't even bother to try and waffle around that one.

You 'believe' life had unlimited amounts of chances with unlimited
amounts of time to give us the variety of life we have today through
evolutionary change?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
You 'believe' life had unlimited amounts of chances with unlimited
amounts of time to give us the variety of life we have today through
evolutionary change?
Kelly

All the evidence suggests that the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, and life around 3.9 billion years. The evidence also suggests that the current diversity of life is most likely explained by modification through descent.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All the evidence suggests that the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, and life around 3.9 billion years. The evidence also suggests that the current diversity of life is most likely explained by modification through descent.

Jeez, I thought this thread would talk about Louder Than A Bomb's free fuzzy logic stuff.

like spark:

http://www.louderthanabomb.com/spark_features.htm

Originally posted by scottishinnz
All the evidence suggests that the planet has been around for 4.5 billion years, and life around 3.9 billion years. The evidence also suggests that the current diversity of life is most likely explained by modification through descent.

Okay, so the time we have to work with is 3.9 billion years, and if you
believe that, how large do you believe the original starting population
was at the beginning of life? Were there 3 life forms to begin with, 3
hundred, 3 thousand, 3 million, 3 billion all starting off at or near the
same time?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, so the time we have to work with is 3.9 billion years, and if you
believe that, how large do you believe the original starting population
was at the beginning of life? Were there 3 life forms to begin with, 3
hundred, 3 thousand, 3 million, 3 billion all starting off at or near the
same time?
Kelly

That is impossible to tell. Only one major cellular plan made it though (we can, for all intents and purposes ignore the Archae, I think). So, let's say one "type" of organism, possibly having a single precursor, or being the amalgamation of two proto-life-forms there is not sufficient evidence for definitive statements.