I have no ax to grind or loyalty to any scientist or theory. I just use what works to accomplish tasks that I am assigned.
The theory of evolution has helped me today and has a practical application.
Frankly, I could not care less if Gould if a fake or not. I just want results when applying concepts in the real world.
Once again, if you have a better idea that can be applied, I will be the very first to applaud you.
Unfortunatly, telling me that God waved a magic wand and made things happen does not help me one bit in solving my software problems. Explain how God did it, and you have my absolute attention!
I have a better idea. Why don't you use the theory of evolution to improve your software? [See your words below.]
Believe me, this problem has been extremely frustrating to solve, and I have attemped every method that I know of.
If your ideas have a practical application, I will be the very first to applaud your wisdom. Please help, I am open to all suggestions on how to make this software work faster.
I have no ax to grind or loyalty to any scientist or theory. I just use what works to accomplish tasks that I am assigned.
The theory of evolution has helped me today and has a practical application.
Once again, if you have a better idea that can be applied, I will be the very first to applaud you.
Here's an experiment that will test your idea by providing an evolutionary simulation that should, if you are correct, improve the functionality of your software. It employs an evolutionary mechanism.
I got the idea from your statement, "Oh, and I obviously messed up with the step numbering when I was typing the algorithm, but the error should be apparent."
1. Insert that error into the actual code of your alogrithm.
2. Note result.
3. Repeat with different typographical errors, as often as necessary.
4. Get back to me.
Cordially,
hmm. . . .
But haven't you considered that random mutation is not any explanation of anything. It is to explain the change in species by attributing that change to chance. But chance when considered carefully is no explanation. It gives no cause, it is to say that we do not know the cause.
But the very word science comes from the Latin scio, meaning to know. And scientific study is aimed at knowledge. Except in evolution, I cannot think of any science in which the main hypothesis to be proven is that we cannot know, that it is mere chance.
The far more interesting and respectable investigation is that into the causes of such presumed evolutionary changes. The entire enterprise of attempting to prove evolution is at best interesting, even Darwin's work may be somewhat interesting. In and of itself, the study is quite ridiculous . . . .
. . . unless evolution is merely religion.
I find evolution ridiculous, the notion that we come from apes appalling, and the entire "theory" unscientific.
The real question for hypothetical "changes" is why? What is the cause? Is it merely material? -- or in our awareness of the world, have we been blinded to other causes, teleological and formal which have been ignored by science, not because disproven, but because science generally only focuses on the material and immediately visible and apprehensible.