Comments on: Dembski’s Impossible Assumptions

By: Dave Thomas

Dave Thomas — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:41:23 +0000

I've a post on a related topic - the alleged need for "target specifications" in genetic algorithms - over on the Panda's Thumb. "Target? TARGET? We donâ��t need no stinkinâ�� Target!" Cheers, Dave Thomas

By: Steve Verdon

Steve Verdon — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:39:05 +0000

I'm not sure YAJ, but I don't see a big difference with what I've written. Your,

Wouldnâ??t it be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory would have a range of acceptable solutions (i.e. the creature doesnâ??t die) for the protein.

Sounds somewhat similar to my concept of a neighborhood in which we find something that allows the organism to survive (and hence breed, and pass on the genes necessary for survival, while those who don't die off). Obviously, as the environment evolves as well, the neighborhood would change as well. What previously worked (as you note) might no longer work, hence extinction or a major die off.

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 16:26:13 +0000

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that evolutionary theory would have a range of acceptable solutions (i.e. the creature doesn't die) for the protein. Then based on environmental events, we find one subset of the range to be more likely to successfully pass on their solution. Repeated winnowing (what worked will for the ice age doesn't work as well when the glaciers retreat) would further reduce the solution sets available. Further, random changes (either mutations or differences in the 'normal' range such as people's hair color) that still met the first goal (i.e. they don't kill the organism before it can reproduce) would allow for the solution set to be broadened again after any environmental events pass (again, think ice age). So the issue for evolutionary theory wouldn't be any targeted goal, but rather the winnowing and expansion that would support the solution/solutions produced. I think you are letting him set the equation terms and you are just quibbling over the values used for the terms.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 11 Jul 2006 14:12:17 +0000

Dishonest is right. It's a similar pattern to the b.s. about how, if you dump clock parts into a paper bag & shake, you'll never get a clock. Well, *duh*.

By: http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com

http://www.elephantsordonkeys.com — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Original Article syndicated via RSS from Outside The Beltway | OTB Posted in Right | Comments Off