Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Umm... If That Complex Whats Simple?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Aaron Viviano on September 8, 2002 16:43:23 UTC

I understand your all happy and all about this, so am I (after all this is very interesting), but...

1. It was a guided process A.K.A. not evolution.

2. They were aiming for a oscillator, aiming is not part of evolution, and they got a radio an interesting thing.

3. "automated design process, that uses an evolutionary computer program"

AKA the computer matches one mate to another to get a better child. So much for random selection.

4. "Layzell and Bird were using the software to control the connections between 10 transistors plugged into a circuit board that was fitted with programmable switches. The switches made it possible to connect the transistors differently. Treating each switch as analogous to a gene allowed new circuits to evolve."

Okay again it was a guided process the switches had no control they were controlled by the computer.

Nope sorry I have no problem defeating this as an "example" of evolution. So where is the rebutal?

-Aaron

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins