Speaking of GA's ...

Brett Phillips moggy at lisp.com.au
Tue Sep 10 05:30:53 EST 1996


In article <50vsv8$q8q at griffin.itc.gu.edu.au>, s843382 at its.gu.edu.au 
says...
>
>go to 
>    http://alife.santafe.edu/
>  And get a real understanding of what you are talking about before you 
>stick your other foot in your mouth.
>
>moggy at lisp.com.au (Brett Phillips) writes:
>
>[The usuall introductory drivell...]
>
>>I am not sure that I fit into this group of people, but I often listen 
in 
>>on the arguements.  I am not ashamed to say that I believe in Creation, 
>>why should I be?  Is it wrong to have faith in something unprovable?  If 
I 
>>thought that evolution was a viable explaination to mine/our existence, 
>>then I would question my faith.  So far my [unbiased] studies have 
>>revealed insufficient evidence to shake the foundations on which I base 
my 
>>faith.  
>
>>Evolution certainly has some valid science and very logical points, and 
I 
>>don't deny that evolution evolution could take place.  Though I 
personally 
>>believe that in our case, it didn't.
>
>>What I am really posting is my opinion, and no-one elses, concerning 
GA's. 
>>I have a few points to express, they are:
>
>>1) The findings of GA's imply that the development which is being 
measured 
>>over so many generations is independent of development of other 
structures 
>>which are necessary for function.  (ie. the eye may have evolved, but it 
>>would be useless unless the organism has the neural processes and/or the 
>>mental processes to translate and utilise the information perceived by 
>>the eye)
>
>They do not. They imply that if a structure is neccessary for function it 
>will develop, if it can at all, with a certainty of 1
>
>>2) The changes observed from the simulation are dependent on the 
original 
>>data input which clearly is a consequent to human design of the 
>>sequences/regions to be worked on and also the program(s) which are used 
>>for the simulation.  (hmmm..get it?)  These are therefore NOT random.
>
>They are not. They depend only on the test function which measures the 
>fitness. This is an implimentation of the principle of natural selection. 
>No other information needs to be suplied.
>
>>3) Lastly, there is a translation error in such sumulations involving 
>>computer hardware/software.  This can take the form of electronic error 
in 
>>single bits which are coding for a particular digit.  Over many loops in 
>>this performance, intrinsic error can be magnified considerably.  Was 
the 
>>simulation repeated using different PCs?
>
>If this were the case the computer would not function at all. You 
>obviously don't have any idea of how computers work.
>
>>I hold no grudges against anyone for any belief they hold, but it is 
>>offending the way that Steve McGrew labels people a 'Creationist' as if 
it 
>>were a dirty word. Why can't you accept someone for who they are not 
what 
>>they believe?
>
>It is my belief that Creationist is a dirty word as it equates to 
>deliberatly ignorant.


Great arguement Daniel, you have totally convinced me.  Not to follow your 
view, but to prove your dogmatism.  You really do believe that yours is 
the only answer don't you?  It ruins a good oportunity to have a decent 
debate.




More information about the Microbio mailing list