Replies

You have only a few years left to ignore such things as genetic programming. Just for the record, it answers the question of where the "information" comes from. It does not need to come from precognition of cause and effect. mutation and selection are sufficient.

Seems to me that the above is a total nonsequitur to what you responded to which was:

Yup, I am sure you will not. There is nothing to bash, no Christianity to insult and since it is true, there is nothing to refute. Better let the thread die eh? Like the leftist media, when you cannot bash the opposition you just try to make sure it does not get a hearing.

Now I understand why you and your fellow evolutionists are getting pretty desperate and you have to try to change the subject all the time. Nevertheless, I will address your point.

It is quite ridiculous of you (and other evolutionists) to claim that genetic programming does not need to be intelligent when you yourself admit in your statement that we, intelligent human beings, with all our scientific knowledge and millions of brains looking at the problems involved cannot figure them out even now. You are going to tell us that dumb luck is wiser than all these scientists trying to solve the problem?????

You guys have to be getting pretty desperate when you have to throw away the last piece of your silly theory - random change - in order to try to save it.

Just for the record, it answers the question of where the "information" comes from. It does not need to come from precognition of cause and effect. mutation and selection are sufficient.

Wouldn't the ultimate source of the information be the fitness function the programmer added? The genetic algorithm is not going to converge on "Have a Nice Day" if the original fitness function says "Methinks it is like a weasel" is the optimal one....