Originally posted by KellyJayHow is it a “circle”? -the showing of simulated evolution is not in the algorithm nor the software (the two are sometimes different! -because of the use of “pseudocode” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocode) because neither states nor implies anything about what the outcome of the process should be but rather you can only observe the outcome of the process by RUNNING the program and therefore the outcome of the program is not in any way implied in the program itself -so no “circle” there.
Yes my point, you apply your algorithm which gives the software its
instructions, and go wow look evidence for evolution. You are walking
around in circles here.
Kelly
So please explain to me in what way it is a "circle".
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonJunk in junk out is a phrase that is used to describe code, it isn't
[b]...Junk in junk out,...
Yes; but what is your argument/premise for your claim that it is “junk in” in this particular case?[/b]
anything I made up and I'd imagine every programmer here has
heard the term at one time or another.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
How is it a “circle”? -the showing of simulated evolution is not in the algorithm nor the software (the two are sometimes different! -because of the use of “pseudocode” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudocode) because neither states nor implies anything about what the outcome of the process should be but rather you can only observe the outcome of the ...[text shortened]... program itself -so no “circle” there.
So please explain to me in what way it is a "circle".
on it does what you told it to do, not always what you want. My point
is that the full design of the software, every strength and weakness
has been selected by a programmer, all the laws, all the rules, all the
numbers, all the algorithms are all put their by someone who is the
designer of that software.
So from that point on the outcome has been determined by the
software designer and the way s/he programmed their software. To
have someone tell me that they can program some software and call it
evidence for evolution is laughable in my opinion. The one event I did
watch on PBS that claimed to have done it cheated by putting in eye
sight, and even without that they setup the whole software to do what
it did by following the code it was designed with, in other words it did
just what they designed it to do nothing more nothing less.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayPlease, Kelly, you don't know much about evolution, everyone knows that (but you). Now you prove to anyone that you don't know much about programming either.
You put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
on it does what you told it to do, not always what you want. My point
is that the full design of the software, every strength and weakness
has been selected by a programmer, all the laws, all the rules, all the
numbers, all the algorithms are all put their by someone who is the
desig ...[text shortened]... with, in other words it did
just what they designed it to do nothing more nothing less.
Kelly
Stick with what you know! On the other hand, then you would not write much...
Originally posted by KellyJay… You put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
You put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
on it does what you told it to do, not always what you want. My point
is that the full design of the software, every strength and weakness
has been selected by a programmer, all the laws, all the rules, all the
numbers, all the algorithms are all put their by someone who is the
desig ...[text shortened]... with, in other words it did
just what they designed it to do nothing more nothing less.
Kelly
on it does what you TOLD it to do, . ..…
But in this case it was not “TOLD” to show evolution -it only shows that during the program run -it was “TOLD” to do other things other than show evolution but that is it.
Originally posted by KellyJayYes -including me -I am an expert programmer currently writing software to sell over the net.
Junk in junk out is a phrase that is used to describe code, it isn't
anything I made up and I'd imagine every programmer here has
heard the term at one time or another.
Kelly
Junk in junk out is not just a phrase -the “junk” part of that phrase means just that -it means wrong information. But if you put something in other than “junk” then that is good reason to believe that what you get out is also not “junk”.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAnyway the phrase is usually "Garbage in, Garbage out" So KJ didn't even get the phrase right.
Yes -including me -I am an expert programmer currently writing software to sell over the net.
Junk in junk out is not just a phrase -the “junk” part of that phrase means just that -it means wrong information. But if you put something in other than “junk” then that is good reason to believe that what you get out is also not “junk”.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayMr Jay....for all we know you are correct. This is because you are careful not to state anything.
You put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
on it does what you told it to do, not always what you want. My point
is that the full design of the software, every strength and weakness
has been selected by a programmer, all the laws, all the rules, all the
numbers, all the algorithms are all put their by someone who is the
desig ...[text shortened]... with, in other words it did
just what they designed it to do nothing more nothing less.
Kelly
Your obviously intelligent. Your opinions are well developed,but although I feel deep down inside that you are right, and every thing that we observe is just a figment of our imagination so to speak; I also feel that the path you choose, is the path of least resistance.
Your higer level of thought is outside of the system of science, It is in the realm of philosiphy, so no scientist will ever be ale to prove you wrong, why should one want to? You approach the same goals, It is just that scientist approach them with modesty, and humility.
It is far easier to be a master of ones own mind, than a master of someone else's...
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt was told, or it was written into the code what it was supposed to do,
[b]… You put in a program that which you think you should, from that point
on it does what you TOLD it to do, . ..…
But in this case it was not “TOLD” to show evolution -it only shows that during the program run -it was “TOLD” to do other things other than show evolution but that is it.[/b]
and once you execute the code it does what it was programmed to do.
It will abide by all the conditions setup within the code, if you do not
see that about any program there is little hope for us to go beyond
yes it is and no it doesn't.
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonIt will do what tell you tell it to do.
Yes -including me -I am an expert programmer currently writing software to sell over the net.
Junk in junk out is not just a phrase -the “junk” part of that phrase means just that -it means wrong information. But if you put something in other than “junk” then that is good reason to believe that what you get out is also not “junk”.
Kelly
Originally posted by joe shmo"...scientist approach them with modesty, and humility."
Mr Jay....for all we know you are correct. This is because you are careful not to state anything.
Your obviously intelligent. Your opinions are well developed,but although I feel deep down inside that you are right, and every thing that we observe is just a figment of our imagination so to speak; I also feel that the path you choose, is the path of leas ...[text shortened]... mility.
It is far easier to be a master of ones own mind, than a master of someone else's...
Pardon me if I do not buy this statement as an across the board
statement of truth. It isn't that I feel scientist are not or cannot be
modest or humble, but like theist, scientist are just people and we
people will run from the very modest and humble to the most
arrogant head cases you can run see.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI meant what I said..It is in the best interest of science to approach any idea with these qualites, no-one ever boast to know the ultimate answer, just bits and pieces....religious belief entirley skips that process....
"...scientist approach them with modesty, and humility."
Pardon me if I do not buy this statement as an across the board
statement of truth. It isn't that I feel scientist are not or cannot be
modest or humble, but like theist, scientist are just people and we
people will run from the very modest and humble to the most
arrogant head cases you can run see.
Kelly