Originally posted by PsychoPawn

I see. Then my particular birth is the instance of the abstract method Birth ?

As I said, there isn't an instance of a method, only an instance of an object.

Isn't thee an abstract class or something which cannot be instantiated but you can have a hierarchy of entitites which inherit the attributes of that entity ?

An abstra ...[text shortened]... breaks down a bit. There are a number of ways you might design a software mock-up.

well evolving from your system of "Human" being inherited from mammals, who inherited form animals and so on, one could design the human class like this:

-attributes showing the mental and physical properties
-method called Human MakeChild(Human male) (only if the human object calling it is a female) that would return a human with a combination of above attributes betweeen the calling human object and the male human object.
-put a method called "Learn()" in the human class so that you acquire new knowledge. put the knowledge in a database or some sorts
-several methods with the purpose of doing something, based on learned actions stored in the above database
-additions to this class go here.


i have to solve some HTML now, no idea how to do it, so inventing "enter adjective here" classes seems like more fun that to stare at about 500 lines of html tags. "enter adjective here" means i haven't decided if this a stupid idea or has some entertaining values.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
well evolving from your system of "Human" being inherited from mammals, who inherited form animals and so on, one could design the human class like this:

-attributes showing the mental and physical properties
-method called Human MakeChild(Human male) (only if the human object calling it is a female) that would return a human with a combination of above ...[text shortened]... ve here" means i haven't decided if this a stupid idea or has some entertaining values.

did i kill it? is this thread really dead? please let it be so. pretty please.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
common don't be such a party crasher, let him discuss a subject he doesn't understand (oop) in correlation with a subject he has little and unreliable information about while trying to disprove another subject he doesn't understand(evolution)

he might learn a few things. and we would have done our christian duty of helping him out. i am sorry, i would ha ...[text shortened]... blasphemy that is evolution.

PS: btw did you know that OOP is POO in certain languages?😀

…...let him discuss a subject he doesn't understand (oop) in CORRELATION with a subject he has little and unreliable information about while trying to disprove another subject he doesn't understand (evolution)
..…(my emphasis)

I agree. Although I have to say here that it is a pity that this “CORRELATION” he has made between the two things is totally arbitrary, contrived and artificial - there is no really meaningful “CORRELATION” between the two things and OOP makes a pointless analogy to evolution.
If you can make OOP analogous to evolution then why not make, say, the internet analogous to evolution?
Or, say, space exploration analogous to evolution?
-I see no obvious connection between the internet/space exploration and evolution (other than merely there are changes with time) but, then again, I see no obvious connection between OOP and evolution.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
-I see no obvious connection between the internet/space exploration and evolution (other than merely there are changes with time) but, then again, I see no obvious connection between OOP and evolution.

It is not an analogy but an application. OOP is a way of modeling real world requirements and would work quite well if it was being used to model nature in a computer program that simulates life in a fairly basic way. I am sure that if one was simulating evolution, one would use OOP too.
But the implication that jaywill wanted to draw - which was that if OOP works well for modeling life then maybe life is some intelligent designers OOP, simply does not follow. I am sure he would not so readily make the same conclusion if OOP was being used for modeling sand dunes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
It is not an analogy but an application. OOP is a way of modeling real world requirements and would work quite well if it was being used to model nature in a computer program that simulates life in a fairly basic way. I am sure that if one was simulating evolution, one would use OOP too.
But the implication that jaywill wanted to draw - which was that if ...[text shortened]... he would not so readily make the same conclusion if OOP was being used for modeling sand dunes.

…...I am sure that if one was simulating evolution, one would use OOP too.
..…

But one should not confuse “OOP” with “computer simulation” -one may normally be used in the other but they are still totally different things -for a start, one is a process while the other is not.

…But the implication that jaywill wanted to draw - which was that if OOP works well for modelling life then maybe life is some intelligent designers OOP, simply does not follow. I am sure he would not so readily make the same conclusion if OOP was being used for modelling sand dunes.
. ...…

Good point -if you made the analogy of what determines the structure of a sand dune with OOP (albeit a dubious analogy) then that would imply that, just like with the design of a OOP, the “design” of a dune (which is basically its shape + any layered structures within it -this is using a non-standard meaning of the word “design“ because this analogy demands it just like in the analogy of OOP for evolution) was “designed” by intelligence rather than just “designed” (a non-standard meaning here) by natural physical processes.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am a full time computer programmer, and all programming these days is object oriented (OK 99.99% of it anyway).

I think that if you want to understand the Theory of Evolution, you are far better off reading a book on the subject than trying to draw analogies with other subjects that you are clearly not that well versed in either. Or ask us the releva ...[text shortened]... re always plenty of people in this forum more than willing to explain the concepts of evolution.

I think JW is more interested in finding ways of REFUTING evolution not understanding it, just like KJ and the others in the ID camp. In other words, if it doesn't follow the biblical fairy tale, kill it.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think JW is more interested in finding ways of REFUTING evolution not understanding it, just like KJ and the others in the ID camp. In other words, if it doesn't follow the biblical fairy tale, kill it.

Sorry for leaving the discussion I started. But I recently got rid of all my computer programming books and programs. That included books on OOP.

This year, 2008, I decided to get out of programming after decades of it. Call it a career switch and a reluctance to dig it all up again.

I know that sounds lame to some of you, cause it sounded like fun at first. But I realized ... left is left.

To borrow a phrase from John Lennon "You'll just have to carry on without me"