On Wed, 19 Jul 2006 22:52:40 +0100, in alt.atheism , "Tabula Rasa"
<

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f281e0f992b18bd989b50@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <e9hg99$32h$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

Not necessarily. That shows you don't know much about software
development. The fact that you feel it necessary to point out that
people write software is both unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue
of
evolution.

[snip]

If there were no direct caual relationship between the intelligent creator
of an evolution simulator and the evolution simulator itself, the analogy
might be appropriate.

The issue is not the causal relationship between the "creator" and the
simulator, the issue is how that relationship affects the *results*.
Roughly speaking you are doing a subject shift analogous to shifting
from evolution to abiogenesis. The simulation shows that a system
that has certain kinds of initial states and processes will produce
certain kinds of results. Not surprisingly a human being did the
experiment, but to make a real point you have to show that "made by
human" is a meaningful aspect of that initial state.

[snip]

How silly. The tide does not simulate the actions of machines - its
action
may be broadly analogous to the action - it does not simulate it.

If you objection is to the extrapolation from simulation to the world,
then make that argument. That has nothing at all to do with your
objection to the "intelligent" cause. There are legitimate objections
to various extrapolations from simulations, but you have to make
specific claims, not a hand wave about simulations.

There is nothing circular about suggesting that because software that
emulates nature is designed there exists the possibility that the original
that is emulated was correspondingly designed. If you reread the thread
you
will see that I have stated specifically that it proves nothing about the
origin of the original - it merely suggests a possibility. I suggest you
read a little more carefully in future.

That only works because you refer to the cause as "intelligent agent"
rather than "human". That ignores the very real question of what role
"intelligence" would play. You slip that in as an implied assumption,
but it is a critical point, one to be defended or abandoned. You could
have said "DNA using self-reproducing agent" and there would be no
apparent objection to the analogy. You chose "intelligent" and want
that to imply something, make the actual argument and defend it.

I am not saying anything of the sort. I am talking about an essential
characteristic of the writer of the simulation; not the label that
identifies him. It does not matter what he is called, it does matter that
he is intelligent - you have provided yet another confused and
inappropriate
analogy! Do you have a non intelligent rock (call it what you like, the
name
is irrelevant) that writes evolution simulators?

Why does it matter that it was intelligent? You make the claim, defend
it. It is not obvious. This is why I keep asking you to defend the
claim that the history of the cause is significant beyond the aspects
of the initial state.

As proven, the analogy is inappropriate and confused. Extending the
analogy
is of no benefit whatsoever. One tip - if you find yourself in a hole -
stop digging. It would not matter a jot if the writer of the software had
a
mother, a test tube or whatever. It does matter that the writer of the
software is intelligent, - intelligence is an essential prerequisite
rather
than an irrelevance.

So you say so defend the claim.

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f281e0f992b18bd989b50@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <e9hg99$32h$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

Not necessarily. That shows you don't know much about software
development. The fact that you feel it necessary to point out that
people write software is both unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue
of
evolution.

We are discussing simulations of evolution.

Actually, we are discussing evolutionary theory. It just so happens that
simulations were produced which confirm the evolutionary theory.

Reread the subject line - it is quite specific.

It does not say
'evolutionary theory'

- it says 'evolution demonstrated via software'.

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f249d447c764881989b3c@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <e9ebad$9om$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f2351d46e588b91989b2f@news.readfreenews.net...

In article <e9bs8s$rfb$1@nntp.aioe.org>,

I am asserting only that it has been proven that intelligent creative
forces
can create things that simulate evolution.

More than that has been shown. We've also shown that the evolutionary
theory, upon which the simulation was based, can produce novel forms.
Since natural phenomena don't require intelligent forces to motivate
them, this means that a creator is not required for them. Furthermore,
the creator of the simulation was not the "creator" of the end results
of
the simulation. The simulator itself produced the optimal answer. The
program only told the computer how to generally proceed. Because there
was randomness built into the algorithm, the person writing the program
could not even anticipate the result before hand, much less be credited
as the "creator" of the "design" in question.

Had the creator of the simulation created it differently the results
would
have been different.

Not necessarily. That shows you don't know much about software
development. The fact that you feel it necessary to point out that
people write software is both unnecessary and irrelevant to the issue of
evolution.

We are discussing simulations of evolution. You seem to think it irrelevant
that there is an intelligent designer of the simulation. Please show your
simulation that had no intelligent designer.

Had the creator of the simulation not created the
simulation the results would not exist.

Irrelevant, since nature exists and this was what was being modelled.
Furthermore, if the simulation creators understanding of evolutionary
principles derived from nature had been wrong, then the results would not
have yielded what was expected. As it was, these consistent results
validate evolutionary theory.

They also validate 'intelligent design' in that the software that performs
the simulation was intelligently designed.

The creator does not have to know
what the result will be - just that there will be some sort of result at
the
end of the process. The simulator does not exist regardless of the
creator
but because of it - the influence of the creator cannot be ignored.

It is ignored for the purposes of understanding what the results mean.
The purpose of the simulation was not to prove that humans write computer
programs, your puerile "observation" of the obvious notwithstanding. The
purpose of the simulation, which it achieved, was to validate
evolutionary mechanism. The simulator was implemented by humans in the
same way that everying human scientists ever do will be implemented by
us. That is not the relevant variable in this experiment and you know
it. At this point you're just babbling because you're too much of a fool
and a coward to admit your obvious mistakes.

Yes it's obvious that the simulation had a human writer - so obvious that
you ignore that fact. Have you a simulation that had no human writer to
prove that the writer can so easily be dismissed?

I have not suggested anything
about life on earth or its origination.

Sure ya didn't, coward.

Presumably you can supply quotes that prove your assertion (note the
accompanying ad hominem).

As with all of your mistaken assertions of ad hominem, name calling
itself is not ad hominem. It must be intended to influence the argument.
This is just idle consideration of your claim. Are you honestly telling
us that you haven't tried to imply a position about life on earth or its
origination?

I suspect that if you did not want to influence peoples perception of me you
would not have written the ad hominem. You are clearly not aware that name
calling does nothing other than demonstrate an abusive nature on the writers
part. I am discussing evolution simulators - not life on earth or its
origination.

I suspect not...

You're wrong as usual. I can supply instances in which you tip your hand
on your beliefs about so-called "intelligent design" being necessary.
But the fact that I can do it does not compel me to actually waste time
yet and give you specifics, since it's likely you won't pay attention
anyway.

The above must be a contender for the longest 'no' in history.

LOL!

I am asserting only that it has been proven that intelligent creative forces
can create things that simulate evolution. I have not suggested anything
about life on earth or its origination.