Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Minkowski's challenge
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 2 of 120 (352084)
09-25-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Albert Godwin
09-25-2006 11:37 AM


You know that the virus writers started using encryption in the late 80's to avoid detection. If you have a PC virus that mutates, can you force it to evolve an encrypted virus?
You appear to be challenging us to explain, or simulate, the evolution of something which we know did not evolve.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Albert Godwin, posted 09-25-2006 11:37 AM Albert Godwin has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 15 of 120 (352358)
09-26-2006 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Albert Godwin
09-26-2006 3:30 AM


You are all trying to convince me that forcing a small stupid self replicator to evolve encryption is harder than the whole evolution of men?
Well, you seem to have arguments against the evolution of encryption and none against the evolution of man; so yes, this would seem to be the case.
The problem with encryption, as far as I can see, is that it has to be achieved in a single bound. Human evolution, on the contrary, can (and, vide the fossil record, did) progress through a series of viable intermediate forms.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Albert Godwin, posted 09-26-2006 3:30 AM Albert Godwin has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024