Originally posted by FreakyKBHUmmm... we've got AIDS, cancers, SARS, tsunamis, earthquakes, thinning of the ozone layer and a host of other diseases and natural disasters. The last time I checked, we've reached an approximate 6.5 billion, and our population is still increasing. Doesn't seem like we are dying anytime soon...
Just as in any closed system, yes.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt has everything to do with what you want, you start off accepting that
It's nothing to do with what I "want". It's simply to do with what there is evidence for and what there isn't any evidence for. Stop trying to muddy the water.
life can and does spring forward without any intervention divine or
otherwise, and you go about making points that support it, which is
what I said everyone does, including you. You think I error when I
look at things from my perspective with the assumptions I make, yet
when you do the same thing, it doesn’t count or some thing? I'm not
trying to muddy the water, I'm trying to get the dirt out of your eyes,
you start with assumptions and move on proving what you believe,
deny it you are only fooling yourself.
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZYep, good design gets good results. Did you have a point here?
You design the algorithm to give higher scores to circuits that will perform the job better.
In nature the algorithm is the ability to survive and produce offspring. The job? To survive and produce offspring. See how that works?
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZWe can only go by what you say, the mind reading stuff I'll leave to
Freaky, you're either an idiot a bullcrap artist. I can't decide.
You know exactly what I mean and yet you percist in attempting to claim that any mention of design in the application of Evolutionary techniques to design problems implies a Designer in reality.
other people. You design something to get better results, and it
gets better results, that is good design nothing more nothing less.
I'll ask this again, did you have a point saying that?
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinI told you that I'm a creationist, I believe that God created all the
Can you quit saying variation only occurs within species, we can see speciation happening right now. Just stick with your undefined 'kinds'. I'll be quite happy then since a 'kind' is undefined it could be all of biological life. Then I'd agree with you.
I asked a while ago where this barrier to variation occurs and I haven't had an answer yet. Must less a logical / testable justification.
--- Penguin.
creatures to mate and give birth after their own kinds. That was
an accepted belief for some time, it is the evolutionist that came up
with the idea that life does not behave that way. Since nothing has
been shown me that proves that is not the case, I'm not the one with
something to prove here. Life gives birth to its own kinds that is
scriptural, and when we see changes within kinds (you can use
species I don't care), we always start with the kind and end with the
same kind. There may be a shade of difference like a larger dog or
a smaller one, but they are still dogs.
I'd like to see proof that the changes do occur to that degree over
time. Seeing a fully developed creatures fossils only proves that
there was a something that was fossilized, not that it was some other
completely different creature’s ancestor. Claims that one came from
another is simply someone attempting to connect the dots which is
pure and simply speculative not concrete proof.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayIf you want a particular result you need to carefully tailor the algorithm that determines suitability of the circuit. If you don't care about the end result (as Evolution doesn't) then you'll get something no matter what sampling techniques are used.
Yep, good design gets good results. Did you have a point here?
Kelly
Originally posted by XanthosNZAnd again your point? You want a certain end result you get set it up
If you want a particular result you need to carefully tailor the algorithm that determines suitability of the circuit. If you don't care about the end result (as Evolution doesn't) then you'll get something no matter what sampling techniques are used.
to aquire it. You assume evolution doesn't have one and therefore we
get what we got, it is an assumption on your part. You want a grand
operating system you carefully code it, and the life is much more
complex than Windows or Unix, yet you think life just happened. Go
figure?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy would Evolution have an aim in mind? Actually it can't have one by definition.
And again your point? You want a certain end result you get set it up
to aquire it. You assume evolution doesn't have one and therefore we
get what we got, it is an assumption on your part. You want a grand
operating system you carefully code it, and the life is much more
complex than Windows or Unix, yet you think life just happened. Go
figure?
Kelly
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by XanthosNZAnd if that something portrays incredible design and complexity, it just shows that random sampling techniques were used?
If you want a particular result you need to carefully tailor the algorithm that determines suitability of the circuit. If you don't care about the end result (as Evolution doesn't) then you'll get something no matter what sampling techniques are used.