As I am only a poor engineer too I don't understand your objection to the words "per se", and I don't see why you couldn't use it when referring to energy destruction/conversion and could use it when referring to evolution. I thought it just meant "as such" but I must have missed some pejorative sense carried by "per se".
Go back and read some of his cut and paste drivel then. He deserved the slap upside the head. I am an accomplished engineer and for someone to lecture me about the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy is ludicrous,
B: THere's precious little evidence from you that you're accomplished in anything except as a vertiable fountain of ignorance w.r.t the natural world. Most accomplished engineers that I know, and I know a bunch, particularly at JPL, are aware of the use of Genetic Algorithms in circuit design. You haven't kept up with times.
B: Here's another example for you:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15621085.000
B: Now lets all watch while Jehu tries to tell us how this circuit was designed, even though nobody understands how it works. THis should be fun.
but what is worse he was in error in his little lecture, there is no "per se," in proved physical law.
B: ROFL. I merely pointed out that while energy can't be destroyed, it can be converted into mass. Most people don't know that. If you understood that, then bully for you! I'm not sure why you want to make a big deal out of it. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
I will reserve "per se" for evolution, since it has the most rickety mathematical scaffolding of any scientific theory.
B: Actually, I think its mathematical underpinnings are well founded, and well studied. Thats why engineers who are actually accomplishing something use Darwinian methods to design circuits which best human designers, even though how the circuit works is not understood. I don't know about anyone else, but I find that like way cool.
And some of the better critics and growing enemies of this "theory," are mathematicians!
B: You mean ignorant ones. According to them, results such as in:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg15621085.000 would be impossible. Who should I believe? Them or my own two eyes? Every mathematical work I've seen which purports to show Evolution is mathematically impossible is based on a mathematical model which has nothing to do with evolution. They all seem to start with the assumption that evolution occurs via purely random processes. Which of course, is simply not true. Mutation is random with respect to fitness, natural selection is not. NS is not random, but harnesses the randomness in the same manner as a genetic algorithm.
B: THe hallmark of a great theory, is that it results in the creation of whole new fields. TOE certainly has done that. Stochastic hill climbing methods and immunology are but two that owe there existence to Darwin. Doesn't that just bake your noodle?
Who demand accuracy and specifics. Not the unbelievable evolutionist's practice of throwing shit
B: Profanity is unnecessary.
on the blackboard and seeing what sticks "Punctuated Equilibrium indeed!"
B: Actually solutions from Genetic Algorithms in the course of their development actually do show something like PE behavior, in that the solution won't change much during the course of several iterations, and then bam, rapid change.
B: Methinks you doth protest too much.