[js1138]

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?????

This paragraph simply doesn't make any sense. How is it a response to the article I posted?

As a point of reference, you have been razzing a "Hamlet" program because -- you claim -- it doesn't even run. Now there is a program that has designed a patentable electronic circuit by random mutation and selection. The circuit exceeds the ability to the programmer to understand it. In other words, the programmer could not possibly have designed the circuit, and yet it emerged from randomness.

[gore3000]

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?????-me-

This paragraph simply doesn't make any sense. How is it a response to the article I posted?

First of all, my post to you was a response to your post that said:

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.

Second of all, your article ASSUMES that those patented discoveries were the result of evolution. There is no reason for such an assumption. The fact that scientists, even with our tremendous knowledge and the brains of millions of people working on these problems are constantly looking at how organisms solve some of these problems shows quite well that these organisms were intelligently designed by someone much more capable than us human beings.

As a point of reference, you have been razzing a "Hamlet" program because -- you claim -- it doesn't even run.

Wrong. The problem with Dawkins's program is not that it does not run. The problem is that it does not model the way evolution supposedly works. For it to work as evolution supposedly does it would have to be able to write an original Shakesperean play.