Replies

Yup, it requires human intelligence in setting up the simulation. -me

Readers are invited to go back and reread post #1526 to see just how dishonestly Gore3000 has sidestepped the point being made.

Nope, it is not I who is being dishonest, but evolutionists. The simulation was set up by humans. As I showed (and no one wishes to address) the simulation did not punish unneeded and useless functions which natural selection certainly does. So on those terms alone the simulation is totally bogus as any sort of evidence for evolution.

Further, and again something which I mentioned many posts ago and the evolutionists continue to ignore. If evolution is science, with all the scientific experiments going on in real life, in biology, how come they cannot give proof for their theory from real life and must resort to simulations which we all know can be manipulated any which way one wishes. For example, in almost all game simulations which I have seen, there are actions which are unduly rewarded and not sufficiently punished. In such a way any simulation is able to prove whatever one wants to 'prove'.

"Among the perspectives expressed by Donahue, who hosted a nationally syndicated talk show for 27 years: No child in public schools should be forced to pledge allegiance to the flag; ... Charles Darwin, father of the evolution theory --- is one of the great geniuses of modern time; the war on drugs is eroding civil liberties and hurting minorities."

gore3000: "If evolution is science, with all the scientific experiments going on in real life, in biology, how come they cannot give proof for their theory from real life and must resort to simulations which we all know can be manipulated any which way one wishes. For example, in almost all game simulations which I have seen, there are actions which are unduly rewarded and not sufficiently punished. In such a way any simulation is able to prove whatever one wants to 'prove'. "

You seem to continue having trouble understanding what claim the theory of evolution makes, even after it was explained (ie http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/907983/posts?page=1543#1543).

Once again: evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. The "proof" of this very meager theory is self evident. Don't you have any traits similar to your parents? How can you deny that evolution? It's like denying that gravity exists!

As I showed (and no one wishes to address) the simulation did not punish unneeded and useless functions which natural selection certainly does.

The simulation did punish unneeded and useless functions by having these useless functions consume limited resources. The simulated organism dies if it runs out of resources. If you had read the paper, you would have known this.