301. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171947 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 3:03 am

Brain

What we see as beautiful is an evolved trait.

Well you can strike out the adjective "beautiful". Why such patterns? What selection purpose do they serve? Why does the sun flower's head have spirals that roughly follow the Fibonaci sequence? Is that selection?

Well really have to sleep.

Good night or good morning everyone, and steve too.

302. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171943 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:59 am

I am off to bed too, It is 6am my time.

303. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171941 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:56 am

Brain

To say otherwise is to say that animals fly inspite of the laws of physics.

Of course, that would be a trivial kind of constraint, But I am talking about the growth and development of forms and patterns. For example, why does a tiger have stripes? If it is just because of natural selection you can imagine other possibilities. How about the beautiful colour and patterns of shells that live in the mud? There seems to be no selection reasons for them to develop such patterns.

304. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171936 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:47 am

Goldy

Asymmetric bipedalism? ..

Have you ever observed the gaits of animals with four legs such as horses or dogs? Why do they move the way they do? There are some papers written by Ian Stewart and Martin Golubitsky which derive a model of animal gait patterns by using nothing but the mathematics of symmetry (group theory).It has some interesting prediction that the authors were not aware of until they observed that in a rodeo,

305. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171927 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:39 am

Goldy 1691,

I know. We are arguing on a philosophical point.

306. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171925 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:37 am

Yes, it is. But that does not make it false.

A tautology is always true, so of course it is not false.

No, it is specific, as I explained.

Yes, and it is circular.

In actual applications you need to have an independent idea of assessing entropy in order to make meaningful predictions.

But its definition is always the same. Fitness has no meaning without an environment or natural selection for the fit becomes a tautology, true but circular.

307. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171913 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:28 am

They do explain how it happens. They discuss matters such as how certain kinds of relatedness (due to sharing fractions of genes) should lead to certain kinds of interactions. No mention of specifics is necessary.

Ok, I did say in this particular example you choose a phenomenological theory is probably sufficient.

But evolution is not just about counting offsprings, it has to explain growth and development and change of phenotypes.

I can't see how you can get away with physics and chemistry in growth and development processes.

Self organization occurs everywhere in nature without natural selection, are you saying that somehow the laws of physics and chemistry don't apply for biological pattern formations? I would like to hear a very good argument for that.If they do apply than they must in someway constrain or enhance the effects of natural selection, depending on the context,

You are confusing "how it works" with "how it is implemented".

The key question is always how it is implemented, it is the only way a theory can be tested. You can always come up with all sorts of Bs stories about "how it works" like in the humanities and social "sciences".

308. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171901 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 2:13 am

. The capability of a genotype to reproduce. It is measured by the frequency of genes in the next generation

So the fittest survive is just a tautology? The fit are those who survive, it sounds very Hegalianly circular to me.

In actual applications you need to have an independent idea of assessing fitness in order to make meaningful predictions.

That's why natural selection is not like the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it is a "paradigm" where "fitness" has a meaning depending on the context.

It this respect it is like Newton's second "law". F =ma is circular taken as a stand alone statement ( a fact that MPhil made a big deal about) In actual applications one always has to find an independent "force law" (such as F=-kx for the harmonic oscillator) Newton's second law asserts that a force function can always be found but doesn't tell you how to find it. But of course Newton's law is much more specific even with this ambiguity, we can still derive quite a bit without any knowledge of the force function, for example, conservation of energy and momentum.

But natural selection is even more ambiguous. So technically Newton's second law is a schema while natural selection is a "paradigm", these are my terminologies, I don't know what philosophers call them, I am sure they have some big words for that,

309. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171887 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 1:24 am

This kind of discussion is almost always sufficient. You need to come up with a counter-example, such as to explain how the principle of kin selection depends on the nature of gravity.

What about the patterns on sea shell, the stripes on tigers?

I don't know specifically what these papers say about kin selection. But to say that something happen is not the same as telling you how it happens.

No. There is nothing that says it has to be implemented through chemistry and physics. You are confusing that we see it implemented that way with that being the only way it can be implemented.

No, that is not the point, The point is that it has to be implemented somehow and by merely asserting it is natural selection gives you no clue of how it is implemented.

Again this is not like the second law. You can discuss in great details how the increase of entropy can come about without reference to any mechanism, provided you can define an entropy function and write down some very general differential equations (for example).

310. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171884 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 1:18 am

And how do you define "fitness" in a non circular way without reference to any particular context?

You can do this easily with entropy.

311. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171881 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 1:12 am

It is a general principle, and does not rely on the underlying physics and chemistry.

It is a schema, a paradigm that has to be implemented through chemistry and physics, Genes obey the law of chemistry and physics, as is the growth of forms,--I suggest you read Murray's mathematical biology I and II.

Papers on kin selection don't require a discussion of the strength of the weak force, or the chemical nature of transition metals.

That is because in this particular case a phenomenological discussion is sufficient. You probably don't need to talk about statistical mechanics if you are just interested in how your car engine works, engineering thermodynamics would be sufficient, but you can't assert as a general principle that thermodynamics has nothing to do with statistical mechanics.

312. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171874 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 1:02 am

No it doesn't. We can run models which exhibit natural selection in entirely virtual worlds.

Maybe in the virtual world, but I doubt that it is the case in the real world.

313. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171873 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 1:00 am

Darwin's theories made no reference to the underlying physics of chemistry.

Darwin also didn't know genes. So what is your point?

314. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171868 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:54 am

how the second law of thermodynamics relates to the the underlying physics or chemistry. It doesn't. It is a general principle.

Natural selection has to work through chemical and physical processes where the laws of physics and chemistry apply. The second law doesn't have to be implemented through other laws of physics. As long as you can define an entropy function it holds.

P.S. How does natural selection explain the patterns on a shell whose natural habitat is under the mud, or the arrangement of the sun flower's head?

315. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171865 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:47 am

You may call Natural Selection just philosophy, but Dawkins calls it science. I'll go with Dawkins. I know this is argument from authority but what an authority!. I call it "appropriate authority".

I didn't call natural selection a philosophy, I said it is a "paradigm". I said your quote from Dawkins above about natural selection is philosophy.

I don't need to quote any authority, just my reading comprehension teacher is sufficient.

316. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171863 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:38 am

Natural selection is the the same. All it needs to deal with is reliably replicated information that occasionally experiences copying faults, with the the copying process for information being resource-limited. It does not matter what the underlying substrate is.

Not the same,

In thermodynamics entropy has a very specific, well defined meaning and the second law has a very precise mathematical form depending on the assumptions involved. You can write solid papers on the second law without reference to any particular process, it is like a mathematical theorem in some sense (for example, how to define an entropy function which increases montonically in time and serves as an attractor to a certain class of dynamical systems etc)

Natural selection is a "paradigm", it only asserts the existence of some mechanisms which together has a certain effect. But beyond which nothing much quantitative can be said without reference to a particular context. Your quote from Dawkins above is exactly that, just an affirmation of natural selection as a universal paradigm without any specifics. It is philosophy.

317. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171859 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:24 am

Then you are going to call thermodynamics philosophy.

I don't see the analogy.

EDIT A lot of active research is being done to clarify and understand the meaning of entropy and the second law. It is quantitative work. Natural selection in the disembodied way that is cited above is a lot more vague.

318. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171856 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:19 am

As Dawkins writes, natural selection is a general principle. It is likely to be the mechanism for the development of complex life of any form. It won't depend on the chemical nature of the organism. It would work just as well on, say, silicon-based life in ammonia or whatever. It would just as well if gravity was a billion times stronger.

That is philosophy, not science.

319. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171852 by Bonzai on April 29, 2008 at 12:14 am

I suggest you read The Extended Phenotype.

Yeah well I did.Are you being a bit presumptuous? I am just wondering how can you suppose to tell me what I should feel intuitively obvious and what I should not? I don't find QM obvious at all, it doesn't mean I disagree with it

t is nothing to do with them.

I suggest you read Stuart Kauffman..

320. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171839 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:00 pm

We are talking here about complexity associated with features that are very difficult to obtain by chance, such as a key which fits a lock.

I didn't say they come about by chance,

I was saying that the bald statement "biological forms are the result of natural selection acting on mutations" is not intuitively obvious to me because it doesn't convey enough details of how selection actually acts. I mean, how does selection work with or against the underlying physics and chemistry, how does statistics fit in? What can you say about the rate and tempo, what kind of complexity would one expect given a model environment and selection mechanism etc,.These are quantitative questions which require nathematical models to answer.

I think in those terms. Just by saying if the time is very long selection can produce such and such is probably good enough to communicate the main idea , but for myself it is too vague, I need to know the details to some extent to feel I have a good grapse of the idea.

321. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171816 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 9:19 pm

some mutations neither confer nor take advantage, that is, they are neutral. And these too can spread through a population

Sure.

322. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #171800 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:51 pm

TrueID

Would not every random mutation between the first and the final need to be advantageous in itself in order for natural selection to continue in that direction. How would the first mutation leading to a hand offer a beneficial advantage for natural selection to continue in that direction?

This is a fallacy.

Evolution does not have an overall direction, that would be a teleological argument. It is not like the birds develop the wings knowing somehow that millions of years later it could be used for flying. The evolutionary process consists of a long series of small "local searches", if you like, Mutations that confer advantages for the local, immediate environment are preserved, those that become liability would be eliminated. In this way the genes kind of explore through the "state space" that is available, nudged by natural selection.

Unlike the biologists here, I actually don't find the statement that complex patterns arise as a result "natural selection acting on mutations" all that intuitively obvious, To have a genuine understanding of how complexity actually comes about and how it can be measured would require some kind of complicated mathematical modeling,--mathematical models do exist,-- at least to me.

Dawkins has a program in his book "the blind watch maker" which shows a caricature of how a natural selection like process creates stick figure patterns.Though vastly simplified, but I think it would be helpful in giving you a feel of natural selection. Maybe someone here knows where to get it,--hopeful free.

I try my best to answer your question but I am no biologist, The biologists here probably would be able to explain it less clumsily,

323. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171787 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:33 pm

I mean when they read Zeus myths do you suppose they fail to demur on his character?

Actually I think Zeus is a much nicer and laid back God than Yahweh, though as a god it seems strange that he would lust after human females.

324. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171784 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:27 pm

I disagree with MaxD that Kyrie's attempt to paint an equivalence between the treatment of women in the West and in the Muslim world is "pointless". It is worse, it is out to lunch and offensive, it is an insult to the intelligence.

325. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171783 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:23 pm

ZekeCDN

I find that argument extremely unconvincing, given that Saddam was accelerating his palace-building program during the same period. Was it really "the people in the free world" who killed those children? I think not.

There was a general embargo placed on Iraq, meaning that they couldn't get drugs and disinfectants even if they had the money.

But let's say you are right, let's suppose those children wouldn't have died if Saddam didn't build his palaces. Why did our government insist on strangling the Iraqi people even knowing that Saddam was having a good time building palaces?

I think the West did bear moral culpability by playing chicken with Saddam knowing full well that the sanctions was hurting the people more than Saddam. When asked about half a million of dead Iraqi children, Madeline Albright didn't dispute the number, she simply said "it was worth it". I think that was telling about how the politicians see Iraqi lives.

326. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171714 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 5:57 pm

Geoff

Do you see a difference between a lack of respect for the flag, and a lack of respect for pictures of Mohammed?

I guess showing disrespect to the flag wouldn't get you killed? :)

Mind you, did anyone notice the difference between Dick's early posts and his more recent ones? Perhaps it's more apparent reading them all at once, as I did?

Yeah, there is a big difference. At first he was just trolling and later he seemed to have calmed down and was open to genuine discussions, even humourous at time.

327. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171537 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 2:41 pm

beelzebub

"Honour killing, Mr Gidoomal continues, is not a religious issue.
None of the world's major religions condone honour-related crimes. But those who are guilty have sometimes tried to justify their actions on religious grounds.
"Honour crime happens across the board in the Asian community," insists Mr Gidoomal. "People try to blame Muslim, Hindus or Sikhs but it tends to happen in families where there are the strongest ties and expectations. It's a very strong cultural issue.""

It is true that mainstream Islamic scholars are against honour killing, but not for the reason that Mr. Godoomal may think. Honour killing is un-Islamic because it usurps the proper authority to hand down death sentences, not because it has a more tolerant attitude towards "crimes against honour", It would be wrong for a Muslim to kill his daughter who has an affair, she should be stoned on the order of a Sharia court.

328. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171508 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 2:27 pm

The RCC has more funding than any Ivy League school and they have many scholars researching scriptures and setting up conferences to determine what the texts mean.

The process consists of adding layers of opinions upon the opinions of others so it becomes an industry unto itself. It is like having a well funded formal bs fest. Bs is still bs, even though you have to go to school to learn how to do it within their protocol.

329. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171498 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Phil Rimmer,

Sorry, didn't read the whole thing.

330. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171495 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Dick and Elli

Rabbi and Priests made up a lot of shit through out the ages. It is an industry that keep them employed.

Most of the Kosher law were invented by Medival Rabbis.

331. Girl, 17, killed in Iraq for loving a British soldier

Comment #171488 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 2:17 pm

I don't know if this is a typical honour killing case though, Iraq is under occupation.Depending on religion and tribes, the British might be seen as the enemy. Imagine a French woman who had an affair with a German soldier during WWII.

332. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171443 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 1:46 pm

This is apparently pretty common for those who are repressed homosexuals.

Ahhhh.. I don't know about that.

333. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171425 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I don't think epeeist looks like Stalin even though he has a mustache.

Am I missing something here?

334. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171416 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 1:31 pm

The glamorization you speak of is not what sparked my interests in science, at least. This is of course purely speculation. My comments can probably be duly ignored.

I am only saying that this is the kind of crap they sell to the public, I am not suggesting many people actually fall for it to the extent of actually getting a science degree.However it does create a wrong impression to the general public about what science is and its role in society.

335. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171383 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Anna

I would venture to say that perhaps you are speaking from an anecdotal point of view. Simply because you did not learn to properly balance school/work and your personal life doesn't mean that plenty of others haven't been successful at it. Forgive me if you think I am being cruel. I would think that you would have been grateful for the opportunities you had rather than the injustices that you suffered.

I think Karda does have a point about false advertising.

In the U.S. the situation is probably somewhat different, but in Canada many highly trained scientists are underemployed or have to seek employment elsewhere, usually the U.S.

Now I understand your point that people should go into science because of the desire to know and discover and so on, and this is probably the reason for those who stay on to go to graduate school.

But this is not how the government and the media "sell" science to the public. It is all about glamorous jobs and future economical prosperity.It is all about crass utilitarianism.

Aside from being a very philistine reason to do science, the sales pitch is simply misleading.

Our great country probably needs more cab drivers and telemarketers than scientists based on employment stats. The government is short sighted and has no incentive to invest in science. We can buy everything from the U.S. and sell them resources, so why bother investing in our own R&D? Our private sectors are American branch plants and again there is no incentive to do R&D here.

The people in charge of the education "industry"(I mean high school) are themselves ignoramuses when it comes to science and math. All they care about are window dressing and pr and that mentality is reflected in their priorities.

One of the thing that I had a problem with is the promotion of "role models". So women should see other women scientists, ditto visible minorities.This is a mixture of identity politics and celebrity worship, the dual obsession of North American culture, Science should not be about personality.

When I was in school, my scientific heros were people like Riemann, Einstein and Newton', none of them were "like me" ethnically and that fact didn't even occur to me. I was impressed because of their ideas, not because of their personalities.

But even if I accept the premise that kids need someone "like" themselves to look up to, the role models they actually promote are very poor choices IMO. For example, who do they use as a role model for woman scientist? For many years it has been some Canadian astronaut, I figure it is sexy to promote an astronaut but space exploration is the work of a whole team. The astronaut is probably the least important person in the whole undertaking, They could have put a chimp up there. I was talking to some high school teacher, I told her there are some truly remarkable woman scientists, for example, Emmy Noether. She asked "Emmy who? "

336. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171237 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:39 am

Karda

This is what we call damnation by faint praise.

No, it is not that. I just think people are wasting their time with Dick and try to draw their attentions to something more interesting, that's all.

337. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171234 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:37 am

I said above, if you engineer things all day, it would be easy to look at other things and deduce that they were also somehow engineered by someone

True. But a good engineer should also notice that if there is a designer, he got to be a very lousy engineer for obvious "defects" in our physiology that many have pointed out. We should also have retractable wheels instead of feet.

338. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171221 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:25 am

Annabanana

If there is any such trend, I would attribute it to their lack of knowledge in the life sciences. For example, I work with a brilliant electrical engineer, but he has demonstrated to me in several conversations that he hasn't the slightest clue about biology. Incidentally, if I remember correctly, there was a poll somewhere that suggested that biologists have a higher incidence of atheism than any other scientific field...

I work in mathematical physics, I must protest the suggestion that biology is somehow the most scientific discipline. :)

My take is that engineers are taught to tinker and solve problems but not so much in conceptual thinking. Coupled with this is the tremendous workload, when other university students are partying, having a social life they are slaving away in the lab working 26 hours a day. The frustration,--especially sexual frustration,-- eventually builds up. The looney (lonely) geek either becomes an alcoholic or a Jesus freak, in either case all hell break loose.

I am not being entirely serious, this is of course just a caricature in case a very well rounded engineer like sent2null wants to take me to task.

339. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171205 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 11:14 am

Karda #5277

Interesting post.

You do have an interesting and imaginative perspective even if your arguments are not entirely convincing,

I don't have time to give a detail response right now, I will think about it and get back to you later.

In the mean time I want to hear others' take on it, IMO you are much more deserving of a thoughtful response than Dick.

340. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171176 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:52 am

Annabanana

That isn't very comforting. Although, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I always wonder about engineers, There seem to be a disproportional number of religious fanatics in the engineering profession. Many "Creation scientists" have engineering degrees. Many Muslim terrorists are also engineers.

341. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171165 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:44 am

Why are people responding to an incredibly obvious troll when there's an interesting conversation to be had on the voice inside Kardashovel's head

I agree. DON'T FEED THE TROLL

342. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171154 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:40 am

He was also flagged because of the disgusting picture of his face that he posted in 5201.

343. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171128 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:23 am

Karda,

You said the Bible, in spite of its flaws is enough to "get the job done". Can you elaborate what the job is and how the Bible fits into the picture.

If you have answered that before you can refer me to an earlier post, I haven't been keeping up with all the posts.

344. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171112 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:15 am

The Troll button is where it was. What are you guys talking about??

345. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171107 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 10:12 am

I have flagged "Dick Dawkins" for offensive posts.

Please do the same.

346. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #171061 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 9:31 am

Karda,

Sorry to butt in, but I don't find any mention of time travel in the Bible, nor do I find any suggestion that God is our descendant who comes back from the future to fix things,--if I understand you correctly, it has been a while by internet time.

I think you are just reading whatever you want in the Bible. This is no different from most believers even though you may be taking a bit more creative license.

347. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #171049 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 9:14 am

Mitchell

It may be a minority opinion, I actually like your poem better than Cartomancer's,

Maybe that is because I experience existential angst much more often than romantic feelings so I can relate to your poem more than Carto's. :)

To be honest it is a lot more easy for me to get passionate about ideas than with people, I can fall in love with ideas easily, but with people it is hard.

I think human interaction is a bit like listening to the radio in a stormy night. The reception is in general poor. Once is a while the channel clears up. In a fleeting moment you get a 90% reception and you exclaim "wow!"

But soon the channel shuts down and the white noise reigns again. You try to fix it by adjusting the dial, shaking the radio, putting it closer to the window.. all in vain. After a while you are fed up and decide it is better to change channel or simply switch off the radio and go to bed.

I don't know, it seems to me that people don't fall in love so easily. Maybe they are just lonely, or they are just in love with whatever they create in their minds. It is like you think you are listening to amazing music when you are stoned even if the radio is full of static or actually turned off.

I have never experienced the kind of strong infatuation that Carto expressed in his poem.It is alien to me,To be honest that kind of passion about another human being would scare the shit out of me. I am like a vulcan, though a crazy one.

Another good thing about your piece is that I don't need to reach for the dictionary.:)

348. Orangutan attempts to hunt fish with spear

Comment #171021 by Bonzai on April 28, 2008 at 8:44 am

Nice pic

Although the method required too much skill for him to master, he was later able to improvise by using the pole to catch fish already trapped in the locals' fishing lines.

So he is really stealing rather than "fishing". Naughty monkey.

349. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170567 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 8:37 pm

Mphil

It's not a theory of chance. The mutations are random, yes - but natural selection is not.

Actually to really have a feel for how this work, some computer demonstrations/similations would be nice. There is a program in Dawkins' book the blind watch maker that generates complicated stick figures based on a natural selection type process. Does anyone know where to find it?

I am sure Adam would be interested, I would too.

350. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170531 by Bonzai on April 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm

phasmagigas

adam, and of course that because it didnt, only actual mutations and odd events like meteors and trampling on ants are the chance events. natural selection is the non chance component as such, you can show this yourself by mowing your lawn, weeds below blade height or that have flowers held below blade height are selected for, they keep growing or spread seeds, its so very, very simple, in fact its terrifyingly simple!

To add to that, nature has many ways to achieve the same task, So the Rubik Cube analogy used by creationist is not valid, There is only one right way to assemble a Rubik Cube, which correspond to a small probability if all configurations are equally likely, But organic structures that perform a certain function can be put together in many different ways,evolution is more robust than creating a "fragile" configuration such as a Rubik cube, which wouldn't be right if one piece is in the wrong place.