🚀 go-pugleaf

go to 
    http://alife.santafe.edu/
  And get a real understanding of what you are talking about before you 
stick your other foot in your mouth.

moggy@lisp.com.au (Brett Phillips) writes:

[The usuall introductory drivell...]

>I am not sure that I fit into this group of people, but I often listen in 
>on the arguements.  I am not ashamed to say that I believe in Creation, 
>why should I be?  Is it wrong to have faith in something unprovable?  If I 
>thought that evolution was a viable explaination to mine/our existence, 
>then I would question my faith.  So far my [unbiased] studies have 
>revealed insufficient evidence to shake the foundations on which I base my 
>faith.  

>Evolution certainly has some valid science and very logical points, and I 
>don't deny that evolution evolution could take place.  Though I personally 
>believe that in our case, it didn't.

>What I am really posting is my opinion, and no-one elses, concerning GA's. 
>I have a few points to express, they are:

>1) The findings of GA's imply that the development which is being measured 
>over so many generations is independent of development of other structures 
>which are necessary for function.  (ie. the eye may have evolved, but it 
>would be useless unless the organism has the neural processes and/or the 
>mental processes to translate and utilise the information perceived by 
>the eye)

They do not. They imply that if a structure is neccessary for function it 
will develop, if it can at all, with a certainty of 1

>2) The changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the original 
>data input which clearly is a consequent to human design of the 
>sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used 
>for the simulation.  (hmmm..get it?)  These are therefore NOT random.

They are not. They depend only on the test function which measures the 
fitness. This is an implimentation of the principle of natural selection. 
No other information needs to be suplied.

>3) Lastly, there is a translation error in such sumulations involving 
>computer hardware/software.  This can take the form of electronic error in 
>single bits which are coding for a particular digit.  Over many loops in 
>this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably.  Was the 
>simulation repeated using different PCs?

If this were the case the computer would not function at all. You 
obviously don't have any idea of how computers work.

>I hold no grudges against anyone for any belief they hold, but it is 
>offending the way that Steve McGrew labels people a 'Creationist' as if it 
>were a dirty word. Why can't you accept someone for who they are not what 
>they believe?

It is my belief that Creationist is a dirty word as it equates to 
deliberatly ignorant.