Artificial Life Experiments Show How Complex Functions Can Evolve

NSF ^ | May 8, 2003 | Staff

[gore3000]

[This ping list is for the evolution -- not creationism -- side of evolution threads.

So much for honest discussion. The ideologues of evolution cannot discuss the facts so all others must be kept away.

[gore3000]

Can someone point me to a scientific article that attempts to explain how Sexual reproduction (as opposed to asexual) evolved and why?-carlucci-

Don't touch that dial. I can't

Then perhaps you should have let someone who does respond instead of making vague allusions (as usual) that the question has been answered numerous times. Where has it been answered? If you read it numerous times how come you do not remember the answer?

[gore3000]

I'd love to watch a discussion divided into three discreet segments:

Yes, since the 'scientists' of evolution cannot support their theory with scientific facts, then let's turn the thread over to Christianity bashing, at which they are really good at (but of course they will not admit that they are atheists).

[gore3000]

I'm not an athiest.

Please donh, you do not believe in God, a Creator, in Christianity, in Budhism, in Islam, in Judaism, or anything that comes close to a religion so please at least be honest with us.

[general_re]

The patent lawyers I've known are indeed engineers (who for one reason or another went on to law school).

Probably because of an express desire to become a patent attorney, I imagine - the easiest way to be permitted to sit for the patent bar exam is to have an undergraduate degree in a specified scientific or technical field, as I'm sure you know.

[gore3000]

Yes, so please shut up about your personal mythology on a science thread.

Insults are not science and the evolutionists are only insulting. Perhaps it is you who should stop with YOUR personal mythology, ideology and rhetoric and start discussing the facts.

[gore3000]

You need to prove that a God's little finger is actually doing something. What you posted is not relevant.

Of course it is relevant. Not only has church attendance been shown to lead to longer life as the study showed, but such things as the will to live have strong influence on longevity and overcoming illnesses as any doctor will tell you. There is something in humans which cannot be measured, quantified, or observed. It has no possible material explanation and serves to destroy your petty, simple minded materialistic/atheistic beliefs.

[gore3000]

You are the first, and hopefully only, freeper who has gone completely on my "does not know what the heck he is talking about and therefore his arguments will be discarded" list.

You claim to be a scientist and to know what you speak of while the person you attack does not. So why must you insult instead of taking apart his argument? Why don't you try again and give facts instead of insults to support your position???? Perhaps it is you who is ignorant and are try to bluff those who disagree with you into silence as most evolutionists here try to do?

[Michael121]

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory 5 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject Theory is assumed, it is conjecture. It is therefore UNPROVEN. Learn before you citisize.

[longshadow]

Okay, who turned the multi-spectral moron loose on this thread?

[Old Professer]

An interesting concept that, another 50 years to witness this unfolding of what?

Man, a reasoning, although not necessarily reasonable, creature shall abandon hope and paradise for more time to look forward to machines smarter than himself?

[Old Professer]

One should walk carefully through a room of elephants.

[Nataku X]

I never claimed to be a scientist, only a not-so-bright student interested in science (as my profile says). And that was not an insult.

I feel that I can judge who knows a smidgen of computer science, and who simply pretends to know computer science.

And there is nothing in his arguments to take apart, he basically framed the whole transistor & GA thing into a "my word against theirs, I'm telling the truth and they're lying" issue... "they" meaning sources that other freepers have posted.

And people who try to convince others that they do indeed know what they're talking about, in any subject, will get instantly discredited by me. AndrewC's great at math, but he'll never get my trust on anything related to computer science again, and he has a long way to go before he'll be trusted by me on other subjects. Simple as that.

BTW... you might want to take a look at Matthew 7:5. If you need to know why, I'm sure PH will be more than happy to re-post that infamous "non-insulting" comment you made from a pulled thread, which is unfortunately not too atypical of what you post.

[gore3000]

Theory is assumed, it is conjecture. It is therefore UNPROVEN.

Alas, an honest statement by an evolutionist! Seems to me that if evolution is conjecture, an assumption, and unproven, then there is absolutely no reason to believe in such an atheistic/materialistic ideology.

[gore3000]

I never claimed to be a scientist.

Sure sounded like it when you said to andrewc in #965:

You DO NOT know a thing about genetic algorithms, artifical intelligence, or artifical life (of which is a "speciality" of artifical intelligence).

If you are not a scientist and cannot refute his statement except by insulting him then it seems to me that you know less than he does. At least he can discuss the question with facts instead of invective.

[donh]

Please donh, you do not believe in God, a Creator, in Christianity, in Budhism, in Islam, in Judaism, or anything that comes close to a religion so please at least be honest with us.

I'll thank you not to tell me what I think.

[AndrewC]

You stated nothing about the operation of anything. All you stated was your opinion. The 17 transistor circuit does exactly what and how? All we have is a statement in a magazine that the circuit performs better than a 9 transistor circuit, both diagrammed in the article. The 9 transistor circuit is actually a modification of the patented circuit which consists of 5 transistors and 4 diodes and no resistors. It has a measured performance on display with the patent. There is no such evidence for the 17 transistor kludge. The specifications are for the circuit to be compact and work to the gigahertz range. There is no evidence that the 17 transistor circuit can achieve those specs.

[gore3000]

Yes it does, because our knowledge of it IS science.

Indeed, science is about discovering how nature works. However, since the article itself admits that:

"This project addresses a fundamental criticism of the theory of evolution, how complex functions arise from mutation and natural selection,"

Then evolution is not science and has never been science since it has for the 150 years it has been making that claim been unable to show us how nature works.

[gore3000]

And what I'll call up will have some basis in observed fact, unlike religious maunderings.

Well, so tell us then how the universe came about considering that in science it has been thoroughly shown that nothing comes from nothing. Also you might tell us how life arose in a completely material way since no scientist has been able to show how such a thing could occur.

[AndrewC]

Which proves what?

That you jump to conclusions. "It" was evidence that believing in a certain something was useful. It was not proof of anything.