A Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory
SJAB1958
an intelligent agency.
Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
things, especially at the cellular level.
Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
an intelligent agency.
Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
used, nor do we know it's identity.
Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
have been caused by an intelligent agency.
rappoccio
> Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
> an intelligent agency.
Faulty assumption. It is shown that complex structures can arise via
evolution in a replicating system where the replicator is imperfect.
The rest doesn't matter at all.
>
> Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
> things, especially at the cellular level.
>
> Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
> an intelligent agency.
>
> Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
> used, nor do we know it's identity.
>
> Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
> have been caused by an intelligent agency.
This isn't a prediction. It's a consequence of the same faulty
assumption.
Score: Creationists 0, Evolution 1.8 billion
snex
circular logic.
WuzYoungOnceToo2
> an intelligent agency.
Not only is that a completely baseless assumption...anyone even
remotely familiar with government would know that "intelligent agency"
is a contradiction in terms.
SJAB1958
Good reaction, but I am not a creationist, I was attempting to
summarise what I have found out about intelligent design.
Would you agree I came pretty close?
SJAB1958
Good reaction, I was attempting to summarise what I have found out
SJAB1958
Good reaction, I was attempting to summarise what I have found out
eerok
Here's a shorter summary:
"We are right, and so we can do no wrong."
--
"The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality."
- George Bernard Shaw
shipmodeler1
Part II: What the theory of intelligent design IS:
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which argues that best
explanation for some natural phenomena is intelligence, especially
when the phenomenon has certain informational properties which in our
observation-based experience are caused by intelligence.
shipmodeler1
P.S. *Please* don't ask me to defend this -- it's basically an appeal
to false analogy (we know people make machines, so if we see something
in a cell that looks sorta like a machine, it must have been designed
- QED), and the details on the page look like the sort of mis-applied
"science" that a third-grader would come up with.
Kermit
I was wondering what "informational properties" are, so I followed
your link. The only other place on the page that uses that term seems
to describe the whole process"
"(1) Observation: Observe intelligent agents to understand the types
of informational patterns they produce when they design objects.
(2) Hypothesis: Use those observations to make predictions about what
will be found if a natural object was designed.
(3) Experiment: Test natural objects to see if they have the
informational properties which would be predicted to exist if an
object had been intelligently designed.
(4) Conclusion: If experimental tests and the empirical data confirm
the predictions, then infer intelligence as the best cause those
properties in the natural object."
So I'd say yeah, the OP pretty much is spot on.
BTW, the web page claims he's an employee of DI, so I guess this would
be pretty authoritative, yes?
Kermit
SJAB1958
Only one problem Casey Luskin is merely regurgitating what he has been
told by the Type 1 IDiots that employ him, therefore that makes him a
Type 2 IDiot.
Thor
The underlying premise is that the (Christian) god
can do or undo anything at any time.
Ye Old One
There is no such thing as ID theory.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
No. :)
--
Bob.
Timberwoof
Well, actually, this seems to have summed up ID "theory" rather well.
The fact that each of the points is flawed and that the whole system is
circular logic is the point.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
Level 1 Linux technical support: Read The Fscking Manual!
Level 2 Linux technical support: Write The Fscking Code Yourself!
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
Or, to put it more succinctly, "An unknown thing did an unknown thing
at an unknown time using unknown methods".
And there you have it --- the, uh, "scientific theory of intelligent
design".
Earth'shattering, isn't it. (yawn)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Author:
"Deception by Design: The Intelligent Design Movement in America"
http://www.redandblackpublishers.com/deceptionbydesign.html
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net>:
I dunno; *I* think he did. For definitions of "theory"
sufficiently removed from either science or reality (if
there's a difference, which I doubt), that is.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
SJAB1958
Suppporters of intelligent design, choose not to identify the designer
in order to avoid ID being classified as religious creationism in a
lab coat.
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
SJAB1958
> On 17 Apr 2007 11:15:55 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> enriched
Of this I am very much aware, I was merely attempting to summarise the
state of that so-called theory on the basis of what I have been able
to dig up on it.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action
> of an intelligent agency.
Stop right there. That premise is false. Look at the counterexample
of sand dunes, both in the Sahara desert, and in the south polar
region of Mars.
SJAB1958
wrote:
I wasnt actually claiming this to be true, what I have presented is a
summary of all that intelligent design actually is rather than what
its supporters claim it to be.
Thus I had hoped to show not only those that reject ID, but - perhaps
foolishly - also those that support ID how foolish and unscientific
that so-called theory is.
Ye Old One
You are way to generous to him :)
--
Bob.
CreateThis
wrote:
Scientific theories are falsiable. Intelligent Design is not.
Intelligent Design is a political movement of the wacko religious
right to discredit evolution/science and inject religious
fundamentalism into our public schools and our government.
If you're trying to pretend that ID is science, you're part of the
scam.
CT
CreateThis
wrote:
>On 17 Apr 2007 14:38:55 -0700, shipmodeler1 <rog...@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Here's the best definition of ID I've been able to find:
>>
>>Part II: What the theory of intelligent design IS:
>>Intelligent design is a scientific theory which argues that best
>>explanation for some natural phenomena is intelligence, especially
>>when the phenomenon has certain informational properties which in our
>>observation-based experience are caused by intelligence.
>>
>>source: http://www.caseyluskin.com/id.htm
>
>Scientific theories are falsiable. Intelligent Design is not.
^
fi
Thor
As soon as you declare that there is an omnipotent being
nothing more need be said; you cannot say anything more,
you cannot say anything that is True because at any time
it could be made False by that being.
Biblically, mankind was said to give up their god
in preference for the ability to distinguish good and evil
and Truth and Falsehood and so they were cast out of Eden.
But Christians did not have a corner on the paradox market.
There are many historical references to mankind being
amused by duality paradoxes in the hassidic Kabbalah,
in China in the writings of Lao Tsu, Buddha from India,
in the Middle East by whirling dervishes and many others,
and to some extent even the classical Greeks, etc. etc. etc.
Science emerged when philosophers became empiricists.
They started understanding what evidence really was
(and at the same time our judicial systems improved).
In that period of Enlightenment of the 18th century
Henry Cavendish revealed that he could effectively
"Weigh the Earth" and then Science really took off.
Everyone jumped on the bandwagon and the world
exploded with explorers like Charles Darwin gathering
evidence from all corners of the globe.
Later, modern philosophers, computer scientists,
mathematicians, and physicists attacked the problem
of expanding the very limits of measurement and
defineability itself. Hence the likes of Mandelbrot,
Godel, Einstein, Heisenberg, Shannon and many others
contributed scientific equations, principles, theories, and laws
that pushed science to the point where paradoxes and dualities
were becoming rather boring in comparison to what we can
do with them when we ignore them.
This lay interpretation of course sent many theologians
into ecstacy for it seemed to confirm their belief that
ignorance was indeed ultimately a state of bliss.
It gave rise to extreme Creationists who began assaulting
science on the misguided belief that science had
painted itself into a corner and was now prone to attack.
A more accurate interpretation might be that science
has now minimized the role of dualities in a much larger
multidimensional and nonlinear picture of the universe.
The forbidden fruits of this knowledge for the common man
and woman will be unsettling. We are all once again
being cast out of the Eden stripped naked of our old
beliefs into a brave new world.
"Don't Panic!"
SJAB1958
Well CT all I tried to do with the OP was to show the state of the so-
called theory of intelligent design as it truly is rather than as its
CreateThis
I was replying to shipmodeler1's post. Is that also you?
CT
SJAB1958
>
> - Show quoted text -
nope i am just little old sjab1958
Bob Casanova
Maybe. But it *is* a good summary of the main precepts of
the ID "theory" (which, of course, it isn't), which was all
it was apparently intended to be.
Earle Jones
SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
> an intelligent agency.
*
Stop here. The assumption is nothing more than an assertion, given
without any shred of evidence or even of intelligent observation.
Forget the rest.
earle
*
Mark VandeWettering
On 2007-04-17, SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
> an intelligent agency.
This is "begging the question".
> Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
> things, especially at the cellular level.
>
> Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
> an intelligent agency.
Your explanation is identifical to your assumption.
> Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
> used, nor do we know it's identity.
Saying what you don't know about design is hardly helpful, especially
when what you don't know is essentially everything.
> Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
> have been caused by an intelligent agency.
Your prediction is identical to your assumption.
Mark
SJAB1958
> In article <1176833755.199627.289...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
> SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
> > an intelligent agency.
>
> *
> Stop here. The assumption is nothing more than an assertion, given
> without any shred of evidence or even of intelligent observation.
>
> Forget the rest.
>
> earle
> *
have gathered about the so-called theory of intelligent design?
This is the actual state of the so-called theory of intelligent design
and not what its supporters claim its state to be.
I am presenting this to show how flimsy it actually is as a 'mere
theory' let alone how inadequate it would be if it were truly a
scientific theory.
>
> > Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
> > things, especially at the cellular level.
>
> > Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
> > an intelligent agency.
>
> > Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
> > used, nor do we know it's identity.
>
> > Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
> > have been caused by an intelligent agency.
> - Hide quoted text -
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by SJAB1958 <bal...@hotmail.com>:
>On 20 Apr, 05:56, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> In article <1176833755.199627.289...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
>> > an intelligent agency.
>>
>> *
>> Stop here. The assumption is nothing more than an assertion, given
>> without any shred of evidence or even of intelligent observation.
>>
>> Forget the rest.
>>
>> earle
>> *
>Do I have to keep pointing out that this is a summary based on what I
>have gathered about the so-called theory of intelligent design?
Apparently so; everyone seems to assume, despite your
statements in the original post and since, that this is a
theory that you're advancing rather than an attempt to sum
up the bankrupt ID "theory".
>This is the actual state of the so-called theory of intelligent design
>and not what its supporters claim its state to be.
ISTM that you covered the bankrupt ID "theory" pretty well.
>I am presenting this to show how flimsy it actually is as a 'mere
>theory' let alone how inadequate it would be if it were truly a
>scientific theory.
That's been obvious to anyone who actually read what you
posted.
>> > Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
>> > things, especially at the cellular level.
>>
>> > Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
>> > an intelligent agency.
>>
>> > Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
>> > used, nor do we know it's identity.
>>
>> > Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
>> > have been caused by an intelligent agency.
>
>> - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
Timberwoof
Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
> A Complete Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory.
Well, that's funny, but it's a cheap shot. Someone who does not actually
know anything about it would not get the right idea.
The other year I happened to catch a lecture on C-Span2 by one of the
leading proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory". I had never heard of
this before, so I was interested. Ah, a scientific theory that detects
intelligent design and attempts to explain the process by which this
occurred. That would be useful.
But as I listened to the guy, I began to have my doubts. He never
properly defined "design" or how he could detect it. All the examples he
gave were merely of chemical minutiae that hadn't yet been explained ...
and then the guy he was debating with destroyed three of them by
explaining them.
Maybe I should write intelligent Design for Dummies, a textbook on the
scientific method.
Bobby Bryant
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> writes:
> In article <proto-4B0382....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
>> A Complete Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory.
>
> Well, that's funny, but it's a cheap shot. Someone who does not
> actually know anything about it would not get the right idea.
>
> The other year I happened to catch a lecture on C-Span2 by one of
> the leading proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory". I had never
> heard of this before, so I was interested. Ah, a scientific theory
> that detects intelligent design and attempts to explain the process
> by which this occurred. That would be useful.
>
> But as I listened to the guy, I began to have my doubts. He never
> properly defined "design" or how he could detect it.
The leaders are big on explaining how to detect it, but they too
avoid telling us what they're detecting.
A close read reveals that they're actually detecting "evolution couldn't
do it" rather than design, and then applying a logical fallacy to get
the design detection. (Of course, they aren't _really_ even detecting
"evolution couldn't do it". Behe detects "my strawman misrepresentation
of evolution couldn't do it". Dembski merely detects "random assembly
would only do it with extremely low probability".)
> All the examples he gave were merely of chemical minutiae that
> hadn't yet been explained ...
I.e., it's a somebody-did-something of the gaps argument.
> and then the guy he was debating with destroyed three of them by
> explaining them.
And if experience is any guide, he'll keep using them in his future
speeches.
> Maybe I should write intelligent Design for Dummies, a textbook on
> the scientific method.
That wouldn't be about intelligent design. An honest IDfD would
either be blank (per Walter's "cheap shot"), or else would be a
careful deconstruction of the logical fallacies and misrepresentations
of fact and theory that constitute the sum total of ID 'theory'.
--
Bobby Bryant
Reno, Nevada
Remove your hat to reply by e-mail.
bul...@bellsouth.net
> On 17 Apr 2007 13:16:22 -0700, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> enriched
I think he did. After all, his first line shows where IDiots base
their claim. They *assume* that if it's complex, it has to be
"designed" Of course it's a faulty assumption, and rests on an a-
priori assumption that there is an ID agent to begin with.
Boikat
Walter Bushell
<timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net>,
Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote:
> In article <proto-4B0382....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> > A Complete Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory.
>
> Well, that's funny, but it's a cheap shot. Someone who does not actually
> know anything about it would not get the right idea.
Hey, if you can't take cheap shots at Intelligent Design "Theory" what
*can* you take cheap shots at? Besides its not really a cheap shot, it
looks to me as if you just said the same thing in more wordsl
The Corrector
news:timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
> In article <proto-4B0382....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
> Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>> A Complete Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory.
<nul set>
> Well, that's funny, but it's a cheap shot.
> Someone who does not actually know anything about it,
> would not get the right idea.
> The other year I happened to catch a lecture on C-Span2
> by one of the leading proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory".
Name source, reference url .... ?
Example
____________________________________________________________
A new genetic comparison of species provides one more reason
to be suspicious about the capability of undirected evolutionary
processes to account for life's history.
http://www.reasons.org/
> I had never heard of this before, so I was interested.
> Ah, a scientific theory that detects intelligent design
Design is the creation of certain types of complex structures.
Man made artifacts are one example.
Scientists, studying molecular biology, have discovered
cellular structures that if scaled up, would immediately be
identified as designed objects.
> and attempts to explain the process by which this
> occurred. That would be useful.
The process of design implies an intelligent agent.
> But as I listened to the guy, I began to have my doubts.
> He never properly defined "design" or how he could detect it.
Design is
"a structure created by an intelligent agent".
Design is detected all the time, you do it
even children can see at an early age,
establishing a mathmatical definition of design
is going to be harder.
> All the examples he gave were merely of chemical minutiae
> that hadn't yet been explained ...
> and then the guy he was debating with destroyed three of them by
> explaining them.
example?
> Maybe I should write intelligent Design for Dummies,
> a textbook on the scientific method.
Good Idea.
tc
Timberwoof
The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
> news:timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
>
> > In article
> > <proto-4B0382....@032-325-625.area1.spcsdns.net>,
> > Walter Bushell <pr...@oanix.com> wrote:
>
> >> A Complete Summary Of Intelligent Design Theory.
>
> <nul set>
>
> > Well, that's funny, but it's a cheap shot. Someone who does not
> > actually know anything about it, would not get the right idea.
>
> > The other year I happened to catch a lecture on C-Span2 by one of
> > the leading proponents of "Intelligent Design Theory".
>
> Name source, reference url .... ?
C-span or Book TV. Unfortunately for you, I didn't take notes.
> Example ____________________________________________________________
> A new genetic comparison of species provides one more reason to be
> suspicious about the capability of undirected evolutionary processes
> to account for life's history. http://www.reasons.org/
Oh, I see you are lecturing me on proper bibliography or footnote form
for posting on talk.origins.
> > I had never heard of this before, so I was interested. Ah, a
> > scientific theory that detects intelligent design
>
> Design is the creation of certain types of complex structures. Man
> made artifacts are one example. Scientists, studying molecular
> biology, have discovered cellular structures that if scaled up, would
> immediately be identified as designed objects.
I've got news for you: other scientists, using Beowulf clusters of
computers to run "evolutionary algorithms," have generated designs for
things which could also be identified as "designed" objects, but are
known not to be. They were randomly assembled from available
components; the specifications from the ones that worked the best of
each generation were selected (by an algorithm that evaluated fitness
for purpose), slightly randomized, and tested again. Some of the designs
include omnidirectional radio antennas and oscillator circuits.
> > and attempts to explain the process by which this occurred. That
> > would be useful.
>
> The process of design implies an intelligent agent.
No, it does not. The process of mutation, reproduction, and selection
has been demonstrated to create designs.
> > But as I listened to the guy, I began to have my doubts. He never
> > properly defined "design" or how he could detect it.
>
> Design is "a structure created by an intelligent agent".
No, it's not.
> Design is detected all the time, you do it even children can see at
> an early age,
Human brains are good at detecting patterns. Interestingly, as easy as
you think it is ...
> establishing a mathmatical definition of design is
> going to be harder.
Here's a band-aid for your foot.
> > All the examples he gave were merely of chemical minutiae that
> > hadn't yet been explained ... and then the guy he was debating with
> > destroyed three of them by explaining them.
>
> example?
Flagella.
> > Maybe I should write intelligent Design for Dummies, a textbook on
> > the scientific method.
>
> Good Idea.
I found a book at Borders the other day, "The Politically Incorrect
Guide to Intelligent Design and Darwinism." It is a propaganda tract
that misrepresents evolution and pretends to present scientific evidence
for ID.
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t
> Here's the best definition of ID I've been able to find:
> Part II: What the theory of intelligent design IS:
> Intelligent design is a scientific theory
Wrong, there's no such theory, just a handwave to pretend.
> which argues
Scientific theories don't argue. They simply present a model that
predicts future observations based on some presumed underlying
mechanism. It's the *advocates* of one theory or another which
argue for that theory and against alterative theories that cover
the same or overlapping class of observations.
> that best explanation for some natural phenomena is intelligence,
Intelligence where?? In the mind of the naive beholder? In the
presumed mind of the natural objects presumed to be exhibiting the
phenomena? In the presumed mind of some presumed manipulator of the
natural objects, like a puppeteer? In the presumed mind of some
presumed designer of the natural objects? In the presumed mind of
whatever worker actually implemented the presumed design by
fabricating the object not exactly as the design had specified?
Until this ambiguity is resolved, it remains far from being a theory.
> especially when the phenomenon has certain informational
> properties
Precisely *what* informational properties? What *is* an
"informational properties" in the first place? How does one observe
"informational properties" of a phenomenon"? How does one quantify
such observations, in what units? For example, how many quatloos of
"informational properties" are in the "Northern Lights" at this
moment?
> which in our observation-based experience are caused by
> intelligence.
That's flat out wrong. The *only* observation-based experience
whereby certain phenomena are surely caused by intelligence are
when a human being, or any of a few other species of animals
(several apes, elephants, horses, dogs, cats, several cetacians,
several mollusks, several birds, etc.) demonstrate the ability to
solve novel problems that could not possibly have been mere "smart"
programming due to instinct due to natural selection based on many
similar past experiences of ancestors, nor to simple imprinting
whereby an animal has the instinct to copy things it sees other
animals do, or learn things humans train it to do. For example,
when food was placed in a sealed jar, and an octopus figured out
how to twist the lid to unscrew it to open it to get the food.
Extrapolating even to other animals, claiming they *all* are
intelligent, is absurd. Extrapolating to some alleged behaviour of
some unseen unknown agent who allegedly designed life is even more
absurd.
The Corrector
news:timberwoof.spam-9B...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
> In article <Xns991E33BD5B...@69.28.173.184>,
> The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
>> news:timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
>> Example ____________________________________________________________
>> A new genetic comparison of species provides one more reason to be
>> suspicious about the capability of undirected evolutionary processes
>> to account for life's history. http://www.reasons.org/
> Oh, I see you are lecturing me on proper bibliography or footnote form
> for posting on talk.origins.
Not lecturing,
the footnote is in front of the argument to
emphasize your post had no supporting references.
In other words, how do you know you're not lying...
What is the extent of your knowledge?
Please explain the concept of a bootstrap loader,
and why biological systems would or would not need one.
I am designing an evolutionary system to run in a
RACE (Reconfigurable Array of Computation Engines)
and could use help with the entity state machine table
replication code.
any ideas?
Timberwoof
The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
> news:timberwoof.spam-9B...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
>
> > In article <Xns991E33BD5B...@69.28.173.184>,
> > The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>
> >> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
> >> news:timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
>
> >> Example ____________________________________________________________
> >> A new genetic comparison of species provides one more reason to be
> >> suspicious about the capability of undirected evolutionary processes
> >> to account for life's history. http://www.reasons.org/
>
> > Oh, I see you are lecturing me on proper bibliography or footnote form
> > for posting on talk.origins.
>
> Not lecturing,
>
> the footnote is in front of the argument to
> emphasize your post had no supporting references.
>
> In other words, how do you know you're not lying...
I know that I am not lying. However, you have set up a nice, tight
standard for citing any statement about ID. Since it is your standard,
I'm sure you will hold to it.
> What is the extent of your knowledge?
WTF are you?
> Please explain the concept of a bootstrap loader,
Code in static memory located at the CPU's power-on read address which
loads the operating system from a known location and then executes it.
(DEC PDP-8 Handbook, PDP-11 Handbook, Osborne One reference manual, ...)
Please explain to me why Von Neumann Machine concepts have bearing on
biological systems.
> and why biological systems would or would not need one.
Because they are not Von Neumann machines.
> I am designing an evolutionary system to run in a
> RACE (Reconfigurable Array of Computation Engines)
> and could use help with the entity state machine table
> replication code.
>
> any ideas?
Yes, I have some.
The Corrector
news:timberwoof.spam-F9...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
> In article <Xns991EF240318...@69.28.173.184>,
> The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
>> news:timberwoof.spam-9B...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net:
>>> In article <Xns991E33BD5B...@69.28.173.184>,
>>> The Corrector <sp...@spam.org> wrote:
>>>> Timberwoof <timberw...@inferNOnoSPAMsoft.com> wrote in
>>>> news:timberwoof.spam-DC...@nnrp-virt.nntp.sonic.net
>>>> Example
>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>> A new genetic comparison of species provides one more reason to be
>>>> suspicious about the capability of undirected evolutionary
>>>> processes to account for life's history. http://www.reasons.org/
>>> Oh, I see you are lecturing me on proper bibliography or footnote
>>> form for posting on talk.origins.
>> Not lecturing,
>> the footnote is in front of the argument to
>> emphasize your post had no supporting references.
>> In other words, how do you know you're not lying...
> I know that I am not lying.
yes...
> However, you have set up a nice, tight
> standard for citing any statement about ID. Since it is your standard,
> I'm sure you will hold to it.
>> What is the extent of your knowledge?
WTF are you?
one who knows
>> Please explain the concept of a bootstrap loader,
> Code in static memory located at the CPU's power-on read address which
> loads the operating system from a known location and then executes it.
> (DEC PDP-8 Handbook, PDP-11 Handbook, Osborne One reference manual,
Logic machines with out instructions do nothing.
A computer can be bootstrapped by by a person throwing switches,
ROM connected to the machine, or designed into the state tables.
All methods provide the machine with a list
of instructions to get the process started.
> Please explain to me why Von Neumann Machine concepts
> have bearing on biological systems.
All logical systems, including biological follow the laws
of information, after all the nucleus of the cell is
nothing more than a DNA computer.
>> and why biological systems would or would not need one.
> Because they are not Von Neumann machines.
All computational processes are subject to the same laws
even biological ones.
>> I am designing an evolutionary system to run in a
>> RACE (Reconfigurable Array of Computer Emulators)
>> and could use help with the entity state machine table
>> replication code.
>> any ideas?
> Yes, I have some.
How would you handle inheritance for the tables defining
1. machines having vision inputs,
2. machines for intermediate states,
3. machines whos outputs control direction and speed,
4. connections between machines?
(2 parents)
tc
Ron O
> On 17 Apr, 20:42, snex <s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 17, 1:15 pm, SJAB1958 <balf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Assumption - Complex structures can only come about by the action of
> > > an intelligent agency.
Actually the most important assumption for the creationist ID scam was
that they needed a new scam due to the failure of scientific
creationism, to further their political goals, and they assumed that
there would be enough creationist rubes that they could manipulate to
get the job done with ID.
>
> > > Observation - There are many complex structures to be found in living
> > > things, especially at the cellular level.
The assumption was correct, there were enough creationist rubes that
wanted to buy into the ID creationist scam, but the ID creationist
scam artists figured out that they couldn't make a go of the ID scam
and had to go with an alternative scam that they started calling
"teach the controversy."
>
> > > Explanation -These natural complex structures must have been caused by
> > > an intelligent agency.
The ID scam artist had no problem lying to the public and getting them
to accept the dishonest ID scam, but they couldn't lie to themselves
and expect to not suffer utter defeat in the legal system. In
relatively short order for creationist competency levels (the
Discovery Institute was founded in 1995 and by 1999 they were already
pushing an ID replacement scam that didn't even mention that ID had
ever existed) the ID scam artist realized that they were just blowing
smoke and that they would be found out to be liars and scam artists if
ID ever went to court, so they came up with the "teach the
controversy" replacement scam. Their problem was that they had to
keep hawking the dishonest ID scam to make their new scam look legit.
If ID/creationism wasn't part of the "controversy" that they could
teach, what could they possibly want to teach? It was a catch 22 that
they would live to regret.
>
> > > Mechanism - We don't know what methods or processes this intelligence
> > > used, nor do we know it's identity.
They successfully ran the bait and switch scam on the Ohio rubes where
the creationist rubes had bought the ID scam, but they found out that
they had been lied to about the ID scam, and they ended up taking the
replacement scam from the same guys that they knew had lied to them
about ID. A simple bait and switch scam where the rubes didn't even
demand a rain check on the ID scam. The ID scam artists did run into
a problem in Dover where the creationist rubes that had bought the ID
scam wouldn't cooperate with the bait and switch scam, and ID had its
day in court and the ID scam artists were found out to be the liars
and scam artists that they obviously had been for years.
>
> > > Predictions - If any complex structure is observed in nature it must
> > > have been caused by an intelligent agency.
Since the Ohio rubes went with the dishonest replacement scam, knowing
that it was dishonest. They even blew the scam by taking the scam
material directly from the guys that they knew had lied to them about
ID and by trying to sneak creationist web links into the "teach the
controversy" lesson plan. They had to drop the ID/creationist junk,
but everyone, including the dishonest creationist rubes that wanted to
continue, knew that it was just a scam. So the prediction is that new
creationist scams will keep popping up. Since the initial screw up
with the "teach the controversy" scam they are now hawking the ID
replacement scam as "critical analysis." Since there are still
creationist rubes that haven't gotten the memo and are still
advocating teaching ID, the future looks bright for anyone that wants
to hawk the creationist replacement scams no matter how dishonest or
incompetent the perps are.
A further prediction is that ID will be around for quite some time
even though the practitioners have been verified to be such dishonest
scam artists. This prediction can be made because scientific
creationist outfits that had their day in court over 20 years ago are
still around hawking their creationist books and videos. Junk so bad
that the ID creationist scam artists that replaced them used to spend
most of their time denying that they were scientific creationists even
though some of them were scientific creationists. Now the same guys
that ran the ID scam and knew that ID was so bogus that they needed a
new scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed, are
hawking the next creationist scam to a willing creationist public.
Anyone that has a different view of the assumptions and the history of
the ID creationist scam should put it forward.
>
> > circular logic.
The least thing wrong with the ID creationist scam.
>
> Good reaction, I was attempting to summarise what I have found out
> about intelligent design.
>
> Would you agree I came pretty close?
Not, really.
Ron Okimoto