You are referring to TLU (Threshold logic units) networks. Some experts also refer to them as neural networks because they model some of the properties of biological neurons(nerve cells) ( one author to refer to is Nils J Nilsson)
Even if the user or secondary programmer is not generating code, in the back ground the different components of the hardware communicate in machine language and machine language is binary code, ( nots = closed circuits and ones = open circuits)
TLU networks form the basic technology for many AI projects.
spontaneous generation is not part of evolution any more than the big bang is. it's a separate theory which uneducated people squish together because they have to have a single all-encompassing theory to disprove.
I find this particular argument of Behe's to be unconvincing. When I first read DBB, I was an eager Christian and ID supporter (I'm now an atheist and evolutionist), but I was suspicious that the argument was a false analogy even then. As one or more of you have already mentioned, motorcycles and organic molecules aren't comparable.
But even if they were, we would be faced with only an argument from improbability, and such arguments utterly fail. The reason (which I'm sure someone at some point has already pointed out on these boards) is twofold: retrodiction of an improbable event is tantamount to describing a 1:1 probability, and remarkably improbable non-intelligently caused events can and do occur all the time. All that is required is a sufficient number of opportunities for the event to occur.
To begin with, let’s imagine a hand of five cards dealt from a thoroughly-shuffled deck. The odds of getting any specific combination of five cards are one in 311,875,200 (~0.00000000320641). Long odds, indeed. But every single possible hand combination displays the same likelihood (or unlikelihood, as the case may be!), so to look backward at a dealt hand and proclaim "That hand had only a 1 in 311,875,200 chance of occurring naturally, therefore it must have been intelligently arranged!" is a non-sequitir, because it essentially amounts to "predicting" with a 1:1 possibility that any hand will show this result! This is why retrodiction of the improbability of past events is completely irrelevant to establishing intelligent causality: one is not actually describing a case of a 1-in-311,875,200 shot, but rather a 1-in-1 shot of an event displaying a probability of 1 in 311,875,200.
Let’s now consider the other reason that arguments from improbability fail: longitudinal opportunity for success. Let's assume that five separate chemical bonding events are required to form a certain amino acid (a simple one like glycine or alanine). We’ll label these events A, B, C, D, and E. To avoid overestimating our chances, let’s arbitrarily assign relatively small probabilities (less than 2%) to each, given only one occurrence of proximity/contact between the requisite atoms:
Now, what are the odds of this specific amino acid being formed in one attempt (i.e., given only one chance for each event to occur)? We use the following formula:
P(all events occurring) = P(A) x P(B) x P(C) x P(D) x P(E)
We get a result of 0.000000000002278584, or roughly 1 in 438.6 billion that all the necessary events will happen in one attempt.
A hopelessly long shot, no doubt. But then we wonder: what are the odds of at least one of these events occurring, if each has only one chance to do so?
We use the formula:
P(A or B or C or D or E) = 1- [P(~A) x P(~B) x P(~C) x P(~D) x P(~E)]
We get 0.035381082189274984, or 1 in 29 that at least one will occur on our first attempt* to randomly construct our amino acid! These odds are much more encouraging. And mathematically, if we give it 29 attempts, we'll certainly get the first of our necessary chemical bonds, and be one step closer to forming our amino acid. Let's imagine that D is the lucky event, and we get a stable organic molecule as a result. Now we have only four more bonds to effect:
P(A)=0.0025 P(B)=0.0137 P(C)=0.0154 P(E)=0.0024
The odds of at least one of these events occurring on our very next bonding attempt is 0.03364163713612, or roughly 1 in 29, again. So let's take our molecule again and give it 29 more chances to pick up other atoms. Done. Second bond formed. So after only 58 total attempts, we've got 2/5 of our amino acid formed.
It's not hard to see how easy it is to build complex organic chemicals, given enough time and opportunities for the necessary events to occur.
*By "attempt" I'm just referring to blind chances for the atoms to bond, floating around and bumping into each other in the primordial soup. It's not meant to convey deliberate manipulation.
Siempre que enseñes, enseña a la vez a dudar de lo que enseñas.
Ofcourse, we know that men created and designed both bikes and motorbikes. So there's your designer for you.
There could also be a designer in this same fashion, if evolution happened, because a mindful execution of complex input is always required, answering all the questions, as referenced with my Hypothesis of consciousness.
Some will disagree, but I'll go with Gould and Huxley on that. Alleged spontaneous generation is the alleged genesis of evolution or biogenesis, i.e. bio-genesis, i.e. beginning of life spontaneously/randomly.
Steven Gould of Harvard, one of the greatest evolutionists of the 20th century said:
Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, the biological, and human or cultural development. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life.
Julian Huxley said:
The concept of evolution was soon [after its appearance] extended into other than biological fields. Inorganic subjects such as the life-histories of the stars and the formation of the chemical elements on the one hand, and on the other hand subjects like linguistics, social athropology, and comparative law and religion, began to be studied from an evolutionary angle, until today we are enabled to see evolution as a universal and all pervading process. Furthermore, with the adoption of the evolutionary approach in non-biological fields, from cosmology to human affairs, we are beginning to realize that biological evolution is only one aspect to evolution in general.
This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-25-2005 06:46 PM
The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw
They just can't get rid of us eh? The design is so very obvious it seems that one day maybe they'll realize this. And pigs might fly, with mutations ofcourse. ;)
Yup, Mike, them bikes aintagona evolve engines and all that to make a motorized bike in a cajillion years without a smart mechanic and designer. No way!
Infact, it's a good point. This goes for everything aswell. There are so many questions to be answered from the chance-naturalist group. What with the fine-tuned universe etc. All the order leads us with the most logical and correct position that there is a designer, according to and agreeing with the principle of parsimony. :)