You miss the point of these programs, what they are simulating is the universe. ie a set of rules and the ability for participants to acrue modifications. Given enough replications an optimal solution is reached.godslanguage wrote:So far, evolutionists have done a bunch of misleading simulations through computer programs, which have been proven to be a predictive, pre-programmed environment where the conclusion will lead to the obvious of the one who programmed it.
That is what the universe is, a set of fixed rules. If the universe were chaotic and the rules changed all the time, there would be no evolution.
It's like sports, the rules remain constant so improvement is possible.
So what is misleading is pointing to the pre-programmed aspect. After all an environment must exist first, just as the universe exists. Other than that there is no intelligent input regarding the modifications.
And no additional intelligent input regarding the selective process, which is part of the initional setup, ie the laws of the environment.
You can't confuse the intelligence which emerges from a rule based algorithm with an actual developer creating the outcome. The process being simulated is only driven by random changes and rules based selection.godslanguage wrote:They overlook nearly all the intelligence, in fact some seem to have trouble swallowing this word “intelligence” as though it doesn't belong in science or more generally, it doesn't belong in the dictionary. It looks like many seem to be on complete opposite sides of the triangle here.
Again the outcome is based on selective forces. All this requires is a method of modification, and a method of selection. Intelligent input is not required. You are injecting additonal terms because you seem to be unable to de-couple them, but they are not required for optimization to occur.godslanguage wrote:Myselft, I'm having trouble defining this word evolution depending on the context and form its used, especially when its used to refer to how the space shuttle came about? The term Evolution (as defined by modern Darwinists) to me, is a lazy way of saying a long process of change instead of a long process of intelligent input to produce a very specific, complex and purposeful structure (the output).
Where did I state that genes are not code?godslanguage wrote:Bgood, I am sure you probably had no problem before in saying DNA is a code, but now when I compare computer code embedded in software, you say… no its not a code anymore (perhaps this implies too much of the IDT theory for you?).
I only was pointing out that genetic code is not comparable to computer code directly. If computer code were like genetic code, it would not encode specific programs. It would encode instruction for combining not, or, xor, xnor, and gates, and storage units, into the various components. Then in turn these componenets would be built in a way that they would attract other components and complete a working computer. As you can see computer code does not work in this manor.
Neither can you recombine computer code to produce an entire population of unique individuals which are all compatible with each other and can further recombine to produce never before seen combinations of traits.
Good for him...godslanguage wrote:Richard Dawkins for some very odd reason (since you don't agree with him on this) believes that DNA resembles computer code and it can be defined as a type of digitally encoded computer language. What have you of this?..what is the point of going circular about this?
The point is that genetic code is far more flexible because it has undergone more rigourous testing than any software ever developed.godslanguage wrote:You believe this code generated from the unguided, its a biological code, but nevertheless its still a code, that abides by a set of conditions of input variables and output variables. The input variables can be energy and the output can be a motion, what is the problem you are seeing here that I don't seem to understand?
It was an interesting article. It should not surprise you that the organization of components is comparable. They are both physical systems and subject to the same constraints enforced by the natural laws of the universe. However DNA goes one step further as it encodes the blueprints for the components, in the computer world this is analogous to engineering specs used to build a computer from it's components.godslanguage wrote:Another thread I showed an example to how not, or, xor, xnor, and gates, and how 1-bit storage units based on latches, d-latches (made out of flip-flops built from gates) ALU's (arithmetic logic units) etc...the basis of computer engineering for circuitry applications, the basis for building CPU processors, memory storage (NVRAM, RAM, ROM, FLASH) and the basis for mostly all of modern switching technologies, all its foundation of the transistor (NPN,PNP types). What do you think about this implementation of the biological to the technological, why is there such similarities in function and structure in DNA/RNA (the transcriptional logic) to the function of these simple silicone semi-conductor based transistors that take the simple function of reacting (opening or closing) according to the polarity of the electrical current (electrons) flowing through it, more technically, flowing accross conjunction point of the transisitor. You do see the reasons for why and how there to be explicit similarities right, which should be compared too, you do see benefits in this right, apart from transcribing it to the IDT's???
No it is a molecular machine.godslanguage wrote:The minute ID is introduced, it is a molecular machine. The minute Darwinists start defining it, its a blob of goo that looks like a machine????
You have a point here.godslanguage wrote:Well, the "systems" themseleves aren't all that differant, you are looking at the software still from the view point of the entire system itself (entire operating system).
Depending on if you are referring to combining code through genetic engineering or simply reproduction, obviously, through natural reproduction, you cannot combine genes of a horse with a cockroache and expect to get a horseroache. Essentially, that is the same way it works with computer code, windows 95 and 98 aren't all that differant, the language involved programming for the system architecture itself including the kernel of the OS's has not changed. C programming for example, which came after assembly language was the programming language of choice for building OS's, software and now implemenations of it or extended versions of it such as C++, Java are more widely used, nevertheless the syntax has changed a bit, but writing the code itself has not really changed at all. A for loop is still a for loop, a pointer is still a pointer, an if statement is still an if statement etc... The point is, that all it takes is some sort of compiler that an OS can then use to execute the code. So the answer is, yes, it is possible to recombine the code with Windows 95 with 98, given that ---> You have something else (other code) that makes this possible and flexible enough that would allow you to do such a thing. The purpose of this example I'm assuming is that you can read and write and essentially have a fully functional operating system, based on both versions. Since DNA is designed to be recombined with other DNA within the same species, and since Windows 95 code and 98 code was not designed for this task but it could be, the logic here of DNA code and computer code being incomparable is inconsistent, because DNA contains the code to have the ability to be combined, essentially when there is this type of advanced code, in my belief, it is part of the act of purpose. (sort of like that assembly line example I stated to you previously)