More B.S. I've soldered diodes back to back not to get a transistor but to get a bridge rectifier. The diodes were not destroyed. The bridge rectifier worked.
Left and right junctions, since you seem to have problems.
Posted on 05/08/2003 10:11:06 AM PDT by Nebullis
You continue an unbroken streak of responding only to the Peripheral parts of any argument.
I started a specific line of argument in #1446, and you ingnore the argument in favor of responding to the one-sentence lead in fluff.
Let me continue. Wolfram suggests that variations in mutation is highly constrained, which leads to the possibility that the calculations of astronomical odds against favorable mutations is bogus.
One could posit all kinds of religious and pseudo religious "causes" for this -- anything from God designing the physical constants to produce evolution, to "multiverse" scenerios in which every possible thing happens in infinite parallel universes.
In either scenerio, evolution happens, but Wolfram's hypothesis would explain why the probabilities favor evolution.
Look up the patent. And look up the logical fallacy.
If a spice output is good enough for the patent office, it is good enough for an argument on FR.
The evolved circuit is clearly more complicated but also contains redundant parts, such as the purple transistor, that contribute nothing to its functioning
So?
The mentioned part is clearly unterminated.
So what? So are stabalizing capacitors.
Solder 2 diodes back-to-back and see if you get a transistor.
This is a fundamental fact of circuit theory, taught to freshmen EE's the world over. That's exactly what you get when you "solder" two diodes together on the backplane of a piece of flat silicon.
And you continue to produce things that I did not write. I merely said they were provocative. I took no side in the actual statements.
I will expostulate further: When you are trying to make an argument that only humans can design, it is unpursuasive to offer as evidence that because humans designed a particular circuit, it is therefore the only candidate to have been designed. I'll go on at greater detail if you still cannot see why this is a post hoc, ergo propter hoc argument.
That is B.S. and you know it. It is taught as a concept, as I pointed out, and exactly the reason you put "solder" in quotes.
I put "solder" in quotes, because all you can do with a solder gun is destroy both diodes, as you no doubt know. It is taught as a concept, because it is a concept, as are all other things taught to beginning EE's in circuit theory classes.
This is an absurd argument, based on you being as willfully ignorant, and/or pointlessly didactic as you can manage. Find a beginning college level EE theory book and look for yourself. This is a piece of commonplace knowledge to EE's.
Gee, how about generating interest so that people will go look at the thread?
More B.S. I've soldered diodes back to back not to get a transistor but to get a bridge rectifier. The diodes were not destroyed. The bridge rectifier worked.
Left and right junctions, since you seem to have problems.
It should tell you it's behavior is only as accurate as the code that was compiled for it.
The fact that scientists were involved and setting up the scenario in which to conduct the experiment kind of puts a dent in the idea that this provides any support for 'unguided' evolution.
Where did you find that strawman? The discussion has been over the performance of a circuit patented by humans and a virtual one that came about as a result of a genetic algorithm.
Are they the same circuit?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
