Replies

So your point is, that the picture is wrong? I would agree, but I know of no one attributing anything to that particular picture in these discussions. However, Scientific American has untruth about this following program(previously posted on this site) and actually uses it in argument


THE COMPUTER PROGRAM IN APPENDIX E IN "UPON THE SHOULDERS OF GIANTS" BY 
RICHARD HARDISON

10 REM 1984 R. HARDISON
11 PRINT "RANDOMIZING ALPHABET"
12 PRINT "WRITE HAMLET, KEEPING"
13 PRINT "SUCCESSES."
14 PRINT :; REM N-COUNTER: # OF TRIALS
15 REM T=COUNTER:REUSE "TO BE"
16 PRINT "SUBROUTINE TO
17 PRINT "RANDOMIZE AND SELECT"
18 PRINT "LETTER"
30 N = 0
40 FOR G = 1 TO 10
50 T = 0
60 GOTO 80
70 X = INT (26 * RND (1)) + 1: RETURN
80 GOSUB 70
90 N = N + 1
100 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 120
110 GOTO 60
120 N = N + 1
130 GOSUB 70
140 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN PRINT : IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 160
150 GOTO 120
160 N = N + 1
170 GOSUB 70
180 IF X = 2 THEN PRINT "B": IF X = 2 THEN GOTO 200
190 GOTO 160
200 N = N + 1
210 GOSUB 70
220 IF X = 5 THEN PRINT "E": IF X = 5 THEN PRINT : IF X = 5 THEN GOTO 240
230 GOTO 200
240 T = T + 1
250 IF T = 2 THEN GOTO 460
260 N = N + 1
270 GOSUB 70
280 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 300
290 GOTO 260
300 N = N + 1
310 GOSUB 70
320 IF X = 18 THEN PRINT "R": IF X = 18 THEN GOTO 340
330 GOTO 300
340 N = N + 1
350 GOSUB 70
360 IF X = 14 THEN PRINT "N": IF X = 14 THEN GOTO 380
370 GOTO 340
380 N = N + 1
390 GOSUB 70
400 IF X = 15 THEN PRINT "O": IF X = 15 THEN GOTO 420
410 GOTO 380
420 N = N + 1
430 GOSUB 70
440 IF X = 20 THEN PRINT "T": IF X = 20 THEN PRINT : IF X = 20 THEN GOTO 60
450 GOTO 420
460 PRINT "N=";N;" KEYS PRESSED TO WRITE 'TO BE OR NOT TO BE'"
470 PRINT "FOR";G;" RUN(S) OF PROGRAM"
480 PRINT
490 NEXT G
500 END
510 REM  IF THE PROGRAM WERE
511 REM  WRITTEN TO INCLUDE
512 REM  PUNCTUATION MARKS ETC.
513 REM  THE PROGRAM WOULD
514 REM  TAKE LONGER, BUT WOULD
515 REM  STILL NOT BE PROHIBI-
516 REM  TIVE
517 PRINT
518 PRINT  "WITH 3000 RUNS, THE MEAN"
519 PRINT  "# of trials=333"
520 PRINT  "THE MEAN TIME REQUIRED"
521 PRINT  "WAS .14 MINUTES TO PRINT"
522 PRINT  "TOBEORNOTTOBE"
-------------------------------
From this analysis of Darwin, Hamlet, Dawkins, Hardison, coincidence, and 
selective evolution, we may conclude that whether the reality of evolution is 
to be believed or not to be believed, methinks it is like a weasel of truth 
nonetheless.

Michael Shermer

From this analysis of Darwin, Hamlet, Dawkins, Hardison, coincidence, and selective evolution...

It is unbelievable how ridiculous it is for evolutionists to use this program as proof of anything. First of all supposedly evolution is looking for something new, not for something that already exists, so how could it match an unknown. Secondly, if natural selection is picking the correct matches, how can it pick something that does not function yet? Sort of shows the desperation of evolutionists in the face of the problems presented to it by the discovery of DNA.

Er, pardon the interruption - but I wanted to make a quick observation on your post #668.

My "BASIC" is a bit rusty, but I recall that the randomizing function [RND(n)] - which this program uses in line 70 - has to have a seed number, the n in RND(n). In this case, the programmer set the seed to a constant of 1.

I recall the seeding was a problem to my project because it means that the RND function can never generate a truly random number.