In a message dated 10/1/2000 7:41:28 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >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?
>
Thios sounds like equivocation of the word "waste".
> >Ccogan: If we grant that the evolutionary algorithm is intelligence by
> proxy,ID theorists would be right in this one case at the cost of their
> entire real position. This is because, if we grant that such a mindless
> process as the evolutionary algorithm is intelligent, then blind, mindless
> *Nature* is "intelligent" in the same sense…
>
> DNAunion: Could you provide the example on which you base your claims? What
> exactly evolved in the virtual world by the evolutionary algorithm and
> where
> can one gain access to the guts of this algorithm?
>
http://www-lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/
There is a good example of virtual silicon.
http://www.newscientist.com/ns/971115/features.html
> >Ccogan: … and thus does not need God or any other alleged non-natural
> designer to direct it to produce functionally complex living things.
>
> DNAunion: "Not needing something" is not the same as "something did not
> happen". For example, let us hypothesize that 50 years from now, both
>
True but as Behe clearly stated we cannot conclude or infer design if a
natural pathway could have existed.
"We must also consuder the role of the laws of nature. The laws of
nature can organize matter --for example, water flow can build up silt
sufficiently to dam a portion of a river, forcing it to change its
course. The most relevant laws are those of biological reproduction,
mutation and natural selection. If a biological structure can be
explained in terms of those natural laws, then we cannot conclude that
it was designed."
pp 203 Darwins Black Box
> intelligence and nature are shown to be capable of producing life from
> non-life. At that hypothetical time, if IDists and Creationists stated
>
There is no evidence of intelligence to be able to produce life from
non-life. Certainly there is no evidence of intelligence producing IC systems
in biology for instance.
> "nature is not NEEDED to produce life", would you accept that life was
> designed? I seriously doubt it. So why would you expect IDists and
>
Design cannot exclude natural selection as the designer.
> Creationists to accept now that life evolved purely naturally because
> intelligence is not "needed"? (And furthermore, I believe you still have
> not
> shown your basic premise to be true).
>
The problem is that ID'ers are trying to infer design through elimination.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 22:52:00 EDT