Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
79 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), nwr, Pollux, ringo, Theodoric (7 members, 72 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,346 Year: 4,458/6,534 Month: 672/900 Week: 196/182 Day: 29/47 Hour: 1/0

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   My Book On Evolution
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5076
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 64 of 69 (887201)
07-22-2021 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by PaulK
07-22-2021 5:36 PM


Re: Invention is Darwinian!
But only because evolution is true and creationism is false. God wouldn’t have to iterate - God could do a clean-sheet design for every “kind”. If God chose to iterate he’d know exactly what changes he intended to make and perfectly prepare for them. If God chose not to do that, God could refactor to remove all problems. We do not do those things as often as we might wish to because it is impractical for us, even when we’re talking about software.

All of which raises yet another problem for creationists. So why does it look for all the world that evolution did happen? If all the various "kinds" are indeed not related to each other, then why the appearance of their being related? For example, protein comparisons between species. A lot of the amino acids in proteins are just filler where any other amino acid in that locus would work just as well, yet in species that would appear to be more closely related to each other their corresponding proteins are also more similar.

Even professional creationists realize that. Either Gish or Henry Morris had admitted that it looks like evolution did happen right before trying to explain that away. (sorry, I encountered that decades ago and do not have a citation)

I encountered Pascal at University ...

My university trained us on an IBM S/370, so after the introductory FORTRAN course followed by a semester of assembly we went straight into PL/I. Then a couple years before I left (graduated in 1979, but remained on active duty until 1982) we got Pascal.

That's kind of a funny story. Basically, someone took a tape up to a university in Canada, downloaded a copy of their Pascal compiler, smuggled it into the US, and installed it on our school computer. The compiler had been developed by the Tokyo Institute of Technology (TIT) and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission (AAEC). And because our computer used EBCDIC instead of ASCII, our arrays of characters had to be broken up into three arrays. I immediately dropped PL/I for Pascal since Pascal was so much easier even though it was far less powerful (eg, file I/O was extremely limited).

When I entered the civilian job market, everybody was getting ready for the Ada Mandate by working in Pascal (compiler validation was a really big issue and there was still no validated compiler for Ada) and I was pretty much one of those rare birds who had actual Pascal experience. But then the DoD switched from Ada to COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf).

In one job I worked in Turbo Pascal and 8048 assembly (too dumb of a microprocessor to warrant a compiler like for the 8051), so I got a lot of MS-DOS systems programming experience. I learned some C and C++ (the first language I actually got excited about) along with some Java and later C#. Then starting in 1995 I was working exclusively in C for embedded programming with some C++ on the side for utility programs. I retired in 2018 and have done practically no programming since then.

I did most of my early C programming with Turbo C -- I had bought it when it first came out and I was between jobs. I immediately fell in love with *printf. In Turbo Pascal you had to write half a screen of individual statements in order to create a formatted string with embedded values, but in C all you needed was a single function call that didn't even have to be the only thing on that line. On the down side, I never could cotton to iostreams in C++ because it felt like a huge step backwards to Turbo Pascal. In almost every C++ program I have written (except for school assignments that required iostreams) I have stuck with *printf functions.

One of the compiler options in Turbo C was "K&R". When Kernigan and Ritchie wrote their first book on C, that was all there was so it became the Bible. It was only later that ANSI came out with a standard for C, which is what their second edition was for. A lot of free source code online, especially for astronomy, is in the pre-ANSI "K&R" syntax. K&R was where if you don't specify a data type then it assumes int, a "feature" which has confounded so many students (I used to participate on the DevShed forums, now defunct, and had to explain that so many times).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2021 5:36 PM PaulK has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022