Based on your reasoning, the theory of gravity also apply to things that doesn't have mass, like those objects in my program. That is nonsense.
Lam, you disappoint me. Your analogy is flawed, surely you must realise you are mixing levels here. Those objects in your programme didn’t have real mass, but they had something more appropriate for a
simulation of gravity, namely a
simulated mass. That’s why the programme could tell you how those objects would interact if they were real world objects with real mass. Just as real gravity doesn’t have an effect on the simulated objects in your programme, the simulation of gravity doesn’t have an effect on the real objects on your desk. Like I said, you are mixing levels.
Going back to your program, it is not carrying out evolution. It is only demonstrating how evolution occur using certain concepts and mechanisms of evolution. In other words, computer simulations do not count.
Well, there is an important difference between gravity and evolution. On the one hand, gravity cannot be
implemented on a computer, because you cannot put real mass into a programme. The best you can do is a
simulation. Evolution, on the other hand, basically deals with information, which makes it perfectly possible to
implement it on a computer, because you
can put real information into a programme.
I start with a set of itineraries of poor quality, in that each and every one of them will send the travelling salesman all over the place, making him travel longer than necessary. They are of poor quality because they are randomly generated. Then I let my programme do it’s thing on those itineraries and I end up with a population of them in which each is much more efficient than any one in the original set. Real poor quality information has evolved into real high quality information. So my programme is not merely a
simulation of an evolution, it is actually carrying one out.
Besides your computer, which I have shown that you can't use a computer simulation to "prove" certain parts of the theories to be wrong []
I’m sorry, but I think you haven’t even come close to showing this.
[] can you think of anything nonliving that also exhibit the same characteristics described by the theory of evolution?
Yes. Memes.
By the way, I am sure I thought of at least 5 other reasons why your logic is flawed when I was brushing my teeth. For the life of me, I can't think of them now. Too much philosophical discussion on animal rights/interests makes you lose your ideas.
Either that, or brushing your teeth is dangerous for the brain.
"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." - Desdamona.
™ Version 4.2
