Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[gore3000]

Your paradigm of "The Sims" is just a game.

It is not a paradigm, it is an example. It shows that one can do whatever one pleases with a computer program and prove 'anything' one likes. I have already shown the fault in this program in modeling reality which of course you are trying with verbiage to forget. In addition, a model for the entire set of facts which affect life is far too complex (and indeed unknown in its entirety). So any model of such a reality is perforce not a true one.

In addition, see the post above. If evolution is true, why does it need models as proof? Why cannot it prove itself from real life? Science is about real observable things so by saying that evolution requires a simulation to give proof of itself you (and all evolutionists) are admitting that evolution is not science.

[Doctor Stochastic]

So far, you are the only person that has considered "The Sims" as other than a game.

Just because one cannot simulate all of reality does not imply that one cannot simulate some of reality. You better hope that people can simulate things such as nuclear reactor and weapons safety. Your life does depend on these simulations. Do you feel lucky? Well, do you?

No one needs models of evolution as proof. Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.

[longshadow]

Creationists seem to be unable to grasp the idea that scientific theories do not require proof nor can any theory be proven.

It's just one of his moronically-recycled word games, where he equivocates the meaning of "proof." He'll use it as though it meant "demonstration of metaphysical certitude," but when challenged, he'll claim he only meant "evidence." He's used this bait'n'switch tactic dating back two years, and was called on it back then.

Yet he's back yet again to make a raving fool of himself, using the same tired, fallacious argument......

But what can one expect from a person who thinks that nuclear fission is a "chemical reaction," that "a circle is not an ellipse," that "1⁷²⁰" is a really big number, that the planets whiz around in "wildly elliptical" orbits, and that infrared radiation causes sunburn?

[null and void]

No, I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

You're Popeye the sailor man? toot! toot!

[PatrickHenry]

PLACEMARKER Hee hee!

[whattajoke]

Of course they [prokaryotes] were. [designed by the Christian god.]

I will disregard your millionth allusion to abiogenesis, which, of course, has nothing to do with evolution.

Ok, now that that's settled, I should be more specific. You said yes, bacteria was specially created. Bacteria are only a part of Kingdom Monera or Kingdom Archaea, depending on your taxonomy preference. What about Archaebacteria? What about Mycoplasmas? What about Crenarchaeota? Some of these things may not even be considered "life" by creationists, I'd suppose.

And, dear creation "scientist," where do viruses figure in? These are important questions, since you still have to come up with a competing theory to evolution, before you displace it. There has been much study into these things by actual scientists, while the creationists have conveniently disregarded this entire Kingdom. Why is that? Too difficult? ICR can't spring for the necessary equipment?

Methinks it's because a freaking .5 micron filament crenarchaeota that lives in boiling sulphurous water doesn't exactly fit the description of Noah's floating zoo, nor does it fit in with "ID" or "creation."

Very convenient, Gore.

[AndrewC]

And, dear creation "scientist," where do viruses figure in?

You are into asking questions. How about answering one? Where do prions fit in your scheme of things?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Yes Patrick, I have asked you and your minions several times on this thread to show a single post where you discuss the subject at hand. All your posts are either nasty placemarkers or insults. Therefore, since neither you nor your fellow thugs can show a single post where you act like people are supposed to act on a thread, which is discuss the subject, my statement is absolutely true. Now I know the truth hurts, but nevertheless my statement is the truth and not an insult.

Patrick answered this charge yesterday, in post # 1830 of this thread, in which he referred you to his posts # 1045, 1120, 1123 and 1127, all of which are substantive discussions of the topic, and none of which are either insults or placemarkers. Yet you repeat your slanderous attack on Patrick today. So who is the "thug," you or Patrick?

[whattajoke]

Prions are indeed mysterious. In fact, you can go "bigger" and ask about viruses too, since the jury is still somewhat out on them as well.

See, I won't answer a question I, nor anyone, nor science, has a definitive answer on... yet.

But, just like people back in the day may have asked, "is the world flat," you will have a definitive answer to your question some day. Whether or not you choose to accept that answer, will speak volumes of your integrity.

At any rate, is it acceptable to deflect questions with more questions?

By the way, are you upset Gore has co-opted your trademark red font every so often now?

[AndrewC]

Prions are indeed mysterious. In fact, you can go "bigger" and ask about viruses too, since the jury is still somewhat out on them as well.

No need to go "bigger" to the virus since you already asked the question.

At any rate, is it acceptable to deflect questions with more questions?

No, the question remains for the intended person to answer. Is your question of that type?

By the way, are you upset Gore has co-opted your trademark red font every so often now?

No, I don't own black or white either.

[Lurking Libertarian]

But what can one expect from a person who thinks that nuclear fission is a "chemical reaction," that "a circle is not an ellipse," that "1720" is a really big number, that the planets whiz around in "wildly elliptical" orbits, and that infrared radiation causes sunburn?

Don't forget that "there are no plant phyla."

[jwalsh07]

The present one, as I have already shown, conveniently fails to punish for useless and non-working functions which should normally be destroyed in real life by 'natural selection'.

Spare the rod, spoil the evolution?

[PatrickHenry]

Yet you repeat your slanderous attack on Patrick today.

It's okay. No one cares. No one even reads his stuff, except for the amusement value of finding bloopers.

[donh]

No, I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Computer programs cannot approximate reality.

Well, then, little bubblehead, my attempt to save you from appearing the total idiot has failed. Any simulation program, and there are hundreds of them, is designed explicitly as an approximation of reality.

If evolution is science, how come evolutionists cannot prove their theory from real life?

If astronomy is a science, how come astronomers cannot prove their their theories from real life?

[balrog666]

Curiouser and curiouser said Alice.

[donh]

This allows the programmer to use the code to promote whatever agenda they wish to promote.

In exactly the same manner that the experimental processes of science allows scientists to promote whatever agendas they wish. The tendency toward accuracy in science arises from human moral constraints manifested in journalistic rigor and self-critical analysis, not from the nature of scientific experiments.

The present one, as I have already shown, conveniently fails to punish for useless and non-working functions which should normally be destroyed in real life by 'natural selection'.

Since you keep saying this, I decided to go back and figure out why. I can't see it. Only keeping the winners (which is what they did) and punishing the losers are just two sides of the same coin. It still means the losers have no issue in the next generation, and the winners do.

It is therefore just more evolutionist garbaaaage.

It is therefore just another Gore3000-pseudo-factoid exploding abiogenically from the Gore3000 void.

[donh]

No one even reads his stuff

I read it religeously--it's the best entertainment in town. It appears that I read his stuff a great deal more carefully than he reads his stuff, in fact.

Fess up, y'all can't wait to see what new theory of science he will evolve next. Yer just to shy to admit it.

[PatrickHenry]

Fess up, y'all can't wait to see what new theory of science he will evolve next. Yer just to shy to admit it.

Well, I confess I'm stunned to learn that the whole field of computer aided design is bogus, that computer testing aircraft designs is bogus, ditto for lots of other industrial applications. A google search on CAD will amaze you. Well, it won't. But it might amaze some people around here.

[longshadow]

Don't forget that "there are no plant phyla."

He makes so many bloopers, and there is so little time to catalog them all..... I fear no matter how assiduously I work at keeping an up-to-date list of his scientific blunders, he will always be a step or two ahead of me.

[f.Christian]

whistles -- bells -- sirens ...

black hole thread collapse alert (( captainless cockpit going down -- crash )) ---

universe (( evosuction )) melt down too !