[Elsie]

Methinks there is a PROBLEM with this example.  Any of you great minds see it??

 

The Dawkins program to produce the string "Methinks it is like a weasel" involves three processes:

1. Random variation -- on each "generation", 1/8th of the character strings in the "population" (size selected by user) have one of their text characters completely randomized to some other character.

2. Selection -- the character string which has the most "correct" characters (or if more than one such string exists, the most recent such) is flagged, and a) will be "bred", and b) won't itself be mutated or replaced by one of its own "offspring".

3. Reproduction -- the current "most fit" character string undergoes "sexual reproduction' with randomly chosen other strings, and the resulting offspring replace the "mates". (This is actually more akin to biological lateral gene transfer.)

So all three of the processes necessary for evolution to take place are in the Dawkins program. And, as predicted by "evolutionists", the results are swift and sure -- the mutating, reproducing, subject-to-selection population very quickly (within seconds) produces a Shakespeare text string which the creationist "pure random" methods would not have produced before the Earth permanently froze over.

Methinks there is a PROBLEM with this example.  Any of you great minds see it??

 

The Dawkins program to produce the string "Methinks it is like a weasel" involves three processes:

1. Random variation -- on each "generation", 1/8th of the character strings in the "population" (size selected by user) have one of their text characters completely randomized to some other character.

2. Selection -- the character string which has the most "correct" characters (or if more than one such string exists, the most recent such) is flagged, and a) will be "bred", and b) won't itself be mutated or replaced by one of its own "offspring".

3. Reproduction -- the current "most fit" character string undergoes "sexual reproduction' with randomly chosen other strings, and the resulting offspring replace the "mates". (This is actually more akin to biological lateral gene transfer.)

So all three of the processes necessary for evolution to take place are in the Dawkins program. And, as predicted by "evolutionists", the results are swift and sure -- the mutating, reproducing, subject-to-selection population very quickly (within seconds) produces a Shakespeare text string which the creationist "pure random" methods would not have produced before the Earth permanently froze over.

[Mark Felton]

I've done research in genetic (evolutionary) programming. A program I use develops the formula for the area of a circle, without pi being originally present. It derives the formula on its own using evolutionary processes. The processes are very powerful and we use them to help solve very difficult problems.

But these processes do not disprove creationism. They affirm a higher creative power.

In your Dawkins program you have made several "Divine" creations.

1) You, God, have created the original material with which to work, the "1/8th of the character strings in the "population"". You have assigned certain properties to this material.

2) You, God, have created a set of rules, in step 2, by which the selection process will proceed. Since when do molecules make such decisions?

3) What force drives them to "breed" in the first place?
Why should they come together?

Evolutionary processes do take place within prescribed limits and only under the conditions previously CREATED by some creative power.