>> Tired of pointing htis out- if you have valid criticisms,
I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be belittling either, but just like when we were talking about the geological dates, you’re proving yourself incapable of understanding the criticisms I’m making. This will be my last attempt:
1. If I ask you to flip a coin until you get five heads in a row, I have set a desired outcome. You will eventually achieve that outcome. That does not mean the algorithm isn’t random. It does not mean the process is directed.
2. “Generate” means “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.” When Batten says, “we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information,” he’s talking about NEW information, by the very meaning of the words.
3. >>Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story
Umm...because you say so?
[[I’m sorry, and I don’t mean to be belittling either, but just like when we were talking about the geological dates, you’re proving yourself incapable of understanding the criticisms I’m making. This will be my last attempt:]]
I understand htem fine- it’s you sir that are attempting to wave aside the obvious as thouigh they are meaninglyess. You aren’t offering criticisms but rather denials.
[[1. If I ask you to flip a coin until you get five heads in a row, I have set a desired outcome. You will eventually achieve that outcome. That does not mean the algorithm isn’t random. It does not mean the process is directed.]]
Lol- The program doesn’t simply ‘wait for the right combinations’ it DIRECTS them. In a coin flop, unless you control the flip in midair, it is indeed random- however with these GA systems- what you are in essence doing is controlling the flip in midair. These GA systems ENSURE that ONLY the ‘good mutations’ affect the outcome- comprende? The patterns are protected against the ‘bad mutations’- they aren’t simply ‘looking for a desired result- they are ENSURING a desired result- BIG difference. The magic wand of dismissal and denial doesn’t work here.
[[2. “Generate” means “to bring into existence; cause to be; produce.” When Batten says, “we are *not* saying that mutations and natural selection *cannot* generate information,” he’s talking about NEW information, by the very meaning of the words.]]
Lol- manipulation of a definition doesn’t help your case here- Generate also means to ‘brign forth from existing’ - A person ‘generating ideas’ does what? Yes, that’s right- using ALREADY established information/words, and using htose to generate an ourcome. He isn’t ‘creating’ anything, he is utilizing the information he already has and generating an idea. Generating information utilizing information already present is nothign more than MICROEvoltuion- you’ll have to do better than that- Besides- I really don’t care what a person’s PERSONAL OPINIONS are on an issue-= All I concern myself with are demonstratable scientific facts- not assumptions- Even if He personally believes NEW infromation can be produced- he would have ZERO evidence to back that up and it would be nothing but a personal opinion of his- I love ity when people say stuff like “What are you quoting Behe and his examples of irreducible complexity for? He beleives in Common Decent” As though Behe’;s person opinion means absolutely squat in light of hte issue of the facts of irreducible complexity that are being discussed. I guess to osme people that unless a person agrees 100% with another, then they can’t use any of the person’s relevent scientific facts lol-
[[3. >>Not “A” solution but “THE BEST solution- which makes them absolutely not representative of nature- end of story
Umm...because you say so?]]
No- because the facts say so. The proffesor in the lecture presented his material in the hopes of duping people into thinking that those who hold the idea that design is intellgiently caused are thick skulled idiots- however, his program is nothign but a lie disguised as science. He tried to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes by presenting only the facts that were favorable to his proposition and left out all the relevent information that was devestatign to his proposal- call it sins of ommission- somethign that is VERY common when scientists intend to malign and belittle those who don’t beleive in Macroevolution. The proffessor left out all the relevent points that the Dr. Batten exposed why? Because his lecture would have had NO merrit had he disclosed them- that’s why! While it might be fascinating to work on such projects, to then take and deceitful present them as somethign they are not isn’t science- it’s propoganda coupled with biased agenda! The proffessor CLEARLY stated that he created “Unintelligent Design” by purely random means- ‘just like evolution does’ was his inferrence. Bzzzzt! Wrong!
Folsk like the Proff. Aren’t content with objectively studying science- nope- they step outside hte bounds of objective science and wallow in the deceitful practice of Subjective agenda, and apparently, they will go to any lengths to try to malign those with whom they don’t agree. If you wish to fall for his indoctination, then by all means do so, but don’t expect those who are able to look at hte facts- ALL of the facts, and come to objective conclusions to follow suit. The proffessor’s whole intention was to refute the idea of intelligent design, but unfortunately he failed miserably- While the program was interesting- it sure as heck wasn’t what he claimed it to be!