>>Ccogan: The evolutionary algorithm is *hugely* wasteful in design terms,
> precisely because it doesn't know what it's doing. And it doesn't know
> because it's not intelligent.
*******************
> > DNAunion: Waste itself is not a sign of lack of intelligence. Industries
> intentionally create huge amounts of waste everyday - are they not
> controlled by intelligent beings?
*****************
> >Ccogan: Thios sounds like equivocation of the word "waste".
******************
> DNAunion Okay, if you don't like "waste" meaning something along the lines
> of "surplus of something generally useful" (which is a common anti-ID
> argument - for example, "what about all the species that have gone
extinct,
> or all those viable plant spores that don't participate in fertilization
and
> just go to waste?"), then we can deal with "waste" meaning something along
> the lines of "surplus variants that serve no useful function".
>
> What about computer programmers, which are surely intelligently-designed
> there is much "waste" in their "evolution". Programmers first code (we
won't
> get into the conceptualization steps that proceed the first line of code
> being written) then attempt to compile their program. Any but the most
> trivial programs written from scratch will have compile-time errors that
must
> be corrected, thus the programmer has to modify his/her code, then
resubmit
> it to the compiler. This can take several iterations before a clean
compile
> is achieved, resulting in waste (code statements that are useless and
> eliminated). After a clean compile, the program is run and any runtime
> errors (such as invalid paths or files that don't exist) must also be
> handled, which usually entails more modifications to the original code,
> resulting in more waste (elimination of, or modification to, code that
served
> no useful function as originally written). Then, once a clean compile is
> obtained and no runtime errors are encountered, the system output must be
> validated since logic errors in the code would generate results, even if
> those results were invalid. Again, since most non-trivial programs
written
> from scratch are bound to have logic errors (which are sometimes the
hardest
> errors to track down and fix), then some more modifications must be made
to
> the original source code - you guessed itmore waste. And even once all of
> these steps of debugging are followed and all is okay, then still more
> modifications are typically needed as a complete program/system is not
> written at once - a prototype might have be generated that gives the end
user
> an idea of what the final system may look like, but it is useless until
> actually "fleshed out". In addition, individual modules have to interact
> with each other (passing and accepting the correct number and type of
> arguments and parameters), which can cause more modifications to be made
(yet
> more instances of code that did not perform its function as originally
> written - i.e., waste). Not until the full final product is in place is
the
> source code complete, and up until that point, a "whole buncha" wasted
code
> would have been created (and subsequently eliminated of modified).
>
> In fact, on top of all of this, more wasted code can found within the
final
> source code in the form of internal documentationcode that the computer
> completely ignores (it is useless and can be discarded without affecting
the
> system).
*************
>Chris: You are just repeating what I said, in effect. Humans produce so
much waste
in the production of computer programs precisely *because* we are *not*
intelligent enough to write the final version in one go. Are you claiming
that your designer is no smarter than the average human *programmer*?
**************
DNAunion: There you go: now you are getting the general idea!
Most anti-ID people at this site (Susan is one example) conflate ID with
Creationism - doing so is wrong. Versions of Directed Panspermia fit into ID
and do not invoke any supernatural beings or supernatural processes. A
civilization of ETIs just 100 years more advanced than ourselves would likely
be able to create life from non-life, and spacecraft to seed other planets
(we ourselves are planning to transport bacteria and algae to Mars during our
proposed tera forming of the red planet, and in fact, we already have
transported bacteria to the moon, left them for over a year, and then
retrieved them!).
In addition, unlike Creationism, ID is not anti-evolution. "Pure" ID accepts
evolution, just not its claimed unlimited creative powers (for example, the
ability to create life from non-life).
*************
>Ccogan: (Actually, given the smallness of the steps of improvement, and the
fact that often millions or billions of variations are produced all during
the same generation, we'd have to suggest that the designer was not even as
smart as the average human programmer -- or else had so *little* knowledge
about what it was doing that it could only proceed by blind trial and error
-- but, of course, that's exactly what we naturalistic evolutionists claim
Nature does.)
DNAunion: So? IDists, including Behe, do not deny that evolution occurs.
Behe's book is subtitled "The Biochemical CHALLENGE to Evolution", not "The
Biochemical REFUTATION of Evolution". In addition, Behe states he finds the
argument for commone descent convincing and accepts that Darwinian evolution
accounts for much biological change.
It is a straw man to present ID and evolution as being mutually exclusive.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Oct 03 2000 - 13:49:08 EDT