Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Suboptimal design

Expand Messages
  • JamesG
    Me: As you may know, Kamran, Dawkins s METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL computer simulation of evolution (like all other such computer simulations) does not mimic
    Message 1 of 121 , Dec 31, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Me: "As you may know, Kamran, Dawkins's "METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL" computer simulation of evolution (like all other such computer simulations) does not mimic Darwinian evolution. His simulation operates with that phrase as its target, making it quite unlike Darwinian evolution (which has no targets, goals, aims, or purposes), and there is no chance that his simulation would fail to achieve the target. The only question is how many iterations (or generations) it takes for the simulation to achieve success. Dawkins himself admitted (in "The Blind Watchmaker") that his simulation was 'misleading in important ways' because the selection function he programmed operated 'according to the criterion of resemblance to a distant ideal target... Life isn't like that.' Randomly generated letters that match the target sequence are selected and retained precisely because they match. Thus, Dawkins's simulation (like all others) smuggles intelligence into a process that is supposed to mimic the unintelligent process of Darwinian evolution. To the extent that such computer simulations tell us anything about evolution, they tell us that intelligence is vital to evolutionary searches achieving success."
      D R Lindberg: "This is NOT the computer simulation of evolution that Dawkins discusses in 'The Greatest Show on Earth'..."

      Right. Dawkins presented his "METHINKSITISLIKEAWEASEL" computer simulation of evolution in "The Blind Watchmaker." In "The Greatest Show on Earth," he presented his computer simulation of artificial selection (not evolution).

      Jim in Missouri
    • Laurie Appleton
      ... From: David To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and
      Message 121 of 121 , Feb 11, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: David
        To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 11:02 AM
        Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: where is the evidence? (earth, wind and fire)





        >
        > David Williams: This letter says nothing about creationists having better scientific evidence than evolutionary biologists because they don't. This letter may fool scientific simpletons but not me.
        >
        >
        >
        > LA> Your comment shows only that your belief in evolutionism is more like a religion with you rather than a science. The following by a noted evolutionist seems to sum up your position;
        >
        > ----------------------------
        >
        > "It is as a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly
        > held, and holds men's minds. . . The modified but still
        > characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an
        > orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor,
        > and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in
        > scientific truth."'
        >
        > (Marjorie Grene, ENCOUNTER, November 1959, p.49)
        >
        > ======================
        >
        >
        >
        > Laurie.
        >
        > "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
        > incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
        > will arise to serve the needs of the coming era." (Sir Julian Huxley 1959)
        >

        David Williams: This is a red herring. You have no real scientific evidence for creationism, so you keep repeating the same old stale quotes and red herrings.


        LA> Your continuing belief in evolutionism seems to be based on what seems to be more like a religious faith than science! What scientific evidence convinced you so positively that "people came from monkeys"? Did you know that Sir Fred Hoyle and his co-author of several books both renounced their atheism and concluded that there "must be a God".? i.e.;

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

        "Once we see, however, that the probability of life
        originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make
        the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think
        that the favourable properties of physics on which life
        depends are in every respect deliberate.". . . .

        "It is therefore almost inevitable that our own
        measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the
        higher intelligence to our left, even to the extreme
        idealized limit of God."

        (Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at
        Cambridge University) and Chandra Wickramasinghe (Professor of
        Astronomy and Applied Mathematics at University College,
        Cardiff), "Convergence to God", in Evolution from Space,
        J.M.Dent & Sons Ltd, London, 1981, pp.141 and 144.)

        =====================



        Laurie.

        "We used to have an open mind, now we [with Hoyle] realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

        ..







        No virus found in this message.
        Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
        Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6095 - Release Date: 02/10/13


        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.