Originally posted by FreakyKBHThe determining of which are the best performers in each generation is normally done by algorithm. In the filter example you would have the algorithm rate bandwidth, central value, impedence, phase shift and quality factor.
"...they created a logic gate circuit over 200 generations by [b]just hybridizing the better performers in each generation."
"...just be able to choose between a good one and a bad one."
Ten points if you can figure out what is wrong with those two assertions.[/b]
So for example a single resistor would have an infinite bandwidth, zero phase shift, no quality factor and an impedence of R. It would score much less than a simple band pass filter which has a finite bandwidth, some phase shift, a not very good quality factor and an impedence of X (calculated from component values). So we would "breed" the better filters together to find the generation.
The algorithm choosing the best performers in each generation is the same as mates choosing the best partners or the better performers being more likely to survive to breeding age in animals.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFreaky, the selector is neither unseen nor undetectable.
Sure: instead of "goddunnit," we have the "unseen, undetectable selector dunnit." Makes perfect sense.
The selector is simply the ability to survive and produce offspring - hardly undetectable.
If you can produce offspring, then you're selected for by the very nature of producing those offspring. Or, if I apply the negative case, if you don't produce offspring then you've been selected against.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt isn't the best I have, it is what it is, you believe it, in your way of
Is that really the best you have? Actually, it's not just "what I believe" - it explains huge amounts of real world data without resorting to "goddunnit".
thinking it explains... That is the bottom line, you have something
you want to accept as true, so you go with it, and because you do
not think God has any sway it simply fills you with what you want. You
simply get what you were looking for, a reason to dismiss God.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZYea, good design does that uh!?
No actually evolutionary ideas are used all the time to solve problems in all sorts of fields. I remember one where they created a logic gate circuit over 200 generations by just hybridizing the better performers in each generation.
I think a very good application would be filter circuits. They can be a pain to design but with an evolutionary process y ...[text shortened]... ave to actually understand the circuit, just be able to choose between a good one and a bad one.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, I go with it because it explains all the evidence without reliance on the FSM, Muffy or any other mythical construct you choose.
It isn't the best I have, it is what it is, you believe it, in your way of
thinking it explains... That is the bottom line, you have something
you want to accept as true, so you go with it, and because you do
not think God has any sway it simply fills you with what you want. You
simply get what you were looking for, a reason to dismiss God.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't accept evolution as fact in order to dismiss God. In fact I don't think it does dismiss God. I dismiss God for other reasons. I accepted evolution as fact before I became an atheist and my father who was an Anglican priest also accepted it as fact.
You simply get what you were looking for, a reason to dismiss God.
Kelly
Do you declare it false in order to validate your belief in God? Do you required it not only to not have happened but also to be impossible?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerYou could say that science is the door to atheism. Many people are believe in the supernatural because they are unable to understand their observations in natural terms. Science often shows that what was previously thought to be supernatural is actually natural.
Evolution is the door to atheism.
Science has never found any evidence for God including no evidence for the actions of God. This fact does weaken some peoples faith as they feel the need for hard evidence.
Scientific findings often conflict directly with many claims of various religions this leads scientists to at a minimum adjust their beliefs.
A study of science leads to the practice of logical thought which can often lead to the realization that a large percentage of religious beliefs are illogical.
[edit] many creationists single out evolution because they realize that although their beliefs conflict directly with almost all scientific disciplines, to admit that would open them to excessive ridicule so they try to restrict their attacks to disciplines which they think have no direct observational evidence (a false claim though).
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWith regards to origins, all scientists have 'religious' presuppositions, which will determine how they interpret the evidence which is before them.
You could say that science is the door to atheism. Many people are believe in the supernatural because they are unable to understand their observations in natural terms. Science often shows that what was previously thought to be supernatural is actually natural.
Science has never found any evidence for God including no evidence for the actions of God. Th ...[text shortened]... ks to disciplines which they think have no direct observational evidence (a false claim though).
Originally posted by scottishinnzI know, and that is my point, you don't know, you want there to be
No, I go with it because it explains all the evidence without reliance on the FSM, Muffy or any other mythical construct you choose.
nothing required, so you that is the process and chain of events that
you cling to. As far as there being a direction being given, you want
to say none is required, yet people build things that run around all
the time that are not as complex as life, books are written with not
nearly as much information in them as DNA all the time, you simply
have something you desire to be true, so that is what you want to
be true, it does not matter if it is or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadI don't declare evolution false, I don't give it the credit others do for
I don't accept evolution as fact in order to dismiss God. In fact I don't think it does dismiss God. I dismiss God for other reasons. I accepted evolution as fact before I became an atheist and my father who was an Anglican priest also accepted it as fact.
Do you declare it false in order to validate your belief in God? Do you required it not only to not have happened but also to be impossible?
the vast amount of living creatures we see today. I believe it started
after creation and within kinds/species there have been changes, but
they have stayed within kinds/species we just get variations of same,
so evolution did not take a simple cell and through generations and
time evolve into a whale in one direction and a blade of grass in
another.
Kelly