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

Human intervention was involved, but only in providing natural selection. The creatures that oscillated best were allowed to pass their genes on. You might cry "But that means we were aiming for oscillation, and nature would do no such thing" but that is misleading. If the "creatures" were put into an environment where more effecient oscillation led to increased lifespan and prosperity, we would see the same pattern. The fact that the researchers arbitrarily chose oscillation quality as the deciding factor means nothing: the same pattern could arise in nature, unguided, in a situation where such traits are beneficial.

"2. They were aiming for a oscillator, aiming is not part of evolution"

They simply chose one trait to single out as beneficial.

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

Oh for goodness sakes, Aaron. The computer modeled processes that describe the way natural selection works. Your statement is like saying that predicting where a ball will fall when I throw it, using a computer program, that it's a guided process. That's ridiculous.

• I scoff, you scoff, we all scoff together. - emperor__alikar - September 11, 2002 - 23:25 UTC