On Sep 6, 11:05=A0pm, Gary Bohn <gary.b...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "adman" <g...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
innews:1EEwk.25140$XT1.1195@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > Joseki359 wrote:
> >> On Sep 6, 9:19 am, Budikka666 <budik...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >>> Proving, in the old fa****oned sense, meant testing - as in
> >>> "the proof of the pudding is in the eating" and in the term
> >>> "proving ground". In the modern sense it means to show
> >>> something to be true beyond any reasonable doubt.
>
> >>> Evolution has been proven in both these senses.
>
> >>> In the February 2005 Edition of Discover magazine, Carl
> >>> Zimmer has an
> >>> article:http://discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/coverabout
a
> >>> computer program called "Avida"
> >>> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avida)
which simulates
> >>> evolution. =A0Unfortunately the online article is restricted
> >>> to subscribers to the magazine so you can read only the
> >>> introduction.
>
> >> So you are posting information that is incomplete.
>
> >>> Zimmer says that many creationists have got their hands on a
> >>> copy of Avida (it's freely available
> >>> online:http://sourceforge.net/projects/avida)
with the
> >>> intention of "disproving" evolution. =A0Every one of them has
> >>> failed.
>
> >> well if you design a bird and try to make it swim like a
> >> goldfish, it will fail as well.
>
> >>> The article is titled: "Testing Darwin" and it's an
> >>> in-your-face- rebuttal of all creationists who ignorantly
> >>> claim that evolution has not been tested and verified.
>
> >>> The article is broken into and introduction and 6 questions:
> >>> 1. What good is half an eye?
> >>> 2. Why does a forest have more than one kind of plant?
> >>> 3. Why be nice?
> >>> 4. Why ***?
> >>> 5. What does life on other planets look like?
> >>> 6. What will life on earth look like in the future?
>
> >>> I'm looking at the second of these here.
>
> >>> 2. Why does a forest have more than one kind of plant?
> >>> The original Avida evolution demonstrations typically ended
> >>> up with a single dominant virtual organism. =A0This usually
> >>> doesn't happen in the real world, so the researchers tackled
> >>> this. =A0In true scientific fa****on, they came up with a
> >>> testable hypothesis, and then tried to prove or disprove it.
>
> >>> They theorized that the single organism result was because,
> >>> in nature, there is competition for energy, whereas in
> >>> Avida, the "organisms'
> >>> were given an unlimited supply of "food" (numbers).
>
> >>> They put the virtual organisms on a diet. =A0They limited the
> >>> numbers (upon which the organisms "fed") entering the
> >>> system, but they also broke them up into small groups of
> >>> numbers, each of which could only be used for a particular
> >>> mathematical operation. =A0In other words, they created
> >>> niches.
>
> >>> They replicated this experiment and set each up with
> >>> slightly different parameters. =A0They found that, just as in
> >>> nature, where the energy supply was very limited, only one
> >>> type of organism typically survived. =A0The same result that
> >>> occurred when energy was unlimited. But in the middle
> >>> ground, which is more typical in nature, they found that
> >>> many "species" or virtual organism evolved, just like in the
> >>> real world.
>
> >>> They tried the "equals" experiment again.
> >>> (see #1 in this series:http://tinyurl.com/65rbgt)
>
> >>> Whereas in the initial experiment, only 23 of the 50 trials
> >>> solved the puzzle via evolution, in the "limited energy
> >>> world", all fifty trials resulted in a solution to the
> >>> problem. =A0Just as the Theory of Evolution suggests,
> >>> organisms will evolve a way to survive when under selection
> >>> pressure (otherwise they become extinct).
>
> >>> The really interesting thing - other than that - was that in
> >>> this series of trials, the organisms evolved in only
> >>> one-fifth of the time they took in the first trials.
>
> >>> Once again, evolution was proven, and proven.
>
> >>> Budikka
>
> >> Just one question. what was the parameter for designing the
> >> organism? or did they just popped out of nowhere.
>
> > it poped out of no where...
>
> > ROFL!!!
>
> Sorry, but the only people claiming that organisms just pop out
> of nowhere are the creationists.
>
>
Don't know if you saw the original post, but it was stated that a
computer program
made digital organism to reflect evolution.
Computer programing 101 states a program is designed to do what the
programmer wants it to do. Therefore I find hard to understand how a
program however sophisticated it may be to accomplish this task.
So there is intelligence behind the designing of the digital organism,
their not just floating random bits in an electronic vat..
I can make a program and call it God 2.0 ad have simulate creation.
Would that be proof of a divine creator? No!
Neither are designed digital organisms is evidence of evolution. If
you have to make a program to emulate evolution, it need to be pointed
out, that scientists are not sure Evolution as the origin of man is a
fact and they recognized they have a faulty basis for such an
assumption.
|
