Irrational religious fundamentalist monkey wrestling over bones with different stories…Part Deaux!
More at their website: Michigan State University Devolab.
Avida was featured as the cover story of the Feb. 2005 issue of Discover magazine.
Avaida allegedly demonstrates evolutionary processes that would take “miyons or biyons” (to quote the late Carl Sagan) or years to occur “naturally”. (Note: for this musing I am assuming Avida was intelligently designed by highly skilled programmers)… as a result Avida does EXACTLY was it programmed to do… demonstrate evolution as its “creators” assume it occured… geez are we back to that circular thing again? As a result Avida only “proves” evolution to those already convinced!
In the February 2005, article mentioned above, it is stated that “creationists” have tried to “break” the Avida model without success… which of course you can’t do because it does what it is intelligently designed to do… (again… prove evolution to those already convinced). The aforementioned “creationists” make the mistake of playing in the Avida “ballpark”.
Truthfully, Avida loses from the gitgo… cause it is intelligently designed to do what it does! I’m assumin’ again that in order for Avida to create “random evolutionary processes” SOMEBODY (playing God?) has to “push the button” to get it all started. Hmmmm… unless Avida just happened to appear one day, on somebody’s computer???????
Your objection to the experiment seems to be founded upon an irrational basis. The purpose of the software was to model events within a preexisting environment by way of simulation. It was not an attempt to model the emergence of environments. As such, the "design" of the software has no bearing on the ultimate results unless you can show that the software does not accurately model reality. You have not done this, however, and in fact you have offered absolutely no evidence that you have any understanding of the simulation software at all. Instead of criticizing the software for being designed in such a way that it does not accurately model the small subset of reality that it is attempting to simulate (which, if true, would be a legitimate argument against the program), you attack the software merely because it is "designed".
The burden of proof, is NOT on me... there is NO WAY to model "reality" of millions of years... you only can model your assumptions, (were just back to circular again, where most evolutionary thinking is and has always been... and always will be)!
Evolutionists always demand we play in their "ballpark"... which I refuse to do!
Actually, when you make the positive assertion that the software model is invalid, the burden of proof is indeed upon you to show that it is invalid. Thus far, you have not done this.
there is NO WAY to model "reality" of millions of years...
Then explain why this is impossible. You seem to be misaking your empty assertions for evidence. That you claim that processes spanning millions of years cannot be modeled is not actually evidence that such models cannot exist.
you only can model your assumptions,
Then show that the assumptions are unfounded. You haven't even shown that you know what the assumptions are in the first place.
(were just back to circular again, where most evolutionary thinking is and has always been... and always will be)!
Your claim of "circularity" is wholly unfounded. What, exactly, makes the reasoning "circular"?
You've not even shown that you understand the fundamental basis for the experiment. You're not exactly in a credible position for claiming that the research relies upon circular reasoning.
I'm aware of RNB's objection. I'm pointing out that it's invalid. The researchers were not looking to model the formation of the system that the software simulated. If they were, then RNB would have a valid point. They were attempting to model activity within a given system. That was the purpose of the simulation; the means by which the system originated is irrelevant if the systems behave analagously.
Dimensio appears to miss this simple point... but I don't think he does, he just uses the opportunity to call everybody on ID side of things "irrational", or other words that dodge the hard questions.
I'm dodging nothing. I have not ignored the source of RNB's objection, I have flat-out stated that his objection is not relevant, as he has not demonstrated that the actual study of the research -- which was not the "design" of systems, but rathe was the behaviour within systems -- was invalid or predicated upon false premises.
Like RNB, you have offered absolutely no reason to believe that the behaviour (NOT the origin of the simulated system is not appropriately analagous to a real-world system. You have offered no legitimate criticism of the study. RNB's objection is solely that the simulated system was "designed" by humans. That's not relevant, however, because the research was not an attempt to study the means by which the system came to exist in the first place.
Really, this is not a difficult concept. I can't understand why neither you nor RNB fail to grasp this, unless you have no actual rational rebuttal to the research and so you're attacking a completely irrelevant aspect.
So are you saying that extant populations of organisms came about through a process analagous to computer programming, and that the universe operates upon an interface analagous to binary systems? If not, then RNB's analogy is completely invalid.
Yes, the simulated system was desgined. It was designed to simulate an environment. It was not designed to simulate the origin of environments. As such, that the simulation was "intelligently designed" has no bearing upon the simulation within.
To call that an invalid argument is surely invalid.
RNB has invoked a false analogy, and I'm calling him on it. His objection to the simulation study is invalid, and no amount of ranting about how the simulation was "designed" won't change it. If there is evidence that the simulation does not accurately model reality, then present it, but claiming that a simulation being designed is evidence that the environment being simulated is also designed in wholly irrational and illogical unless you are suggesting that the means by which the environment was "designed" is completely analagous to the means by which the simulation was designed.
Completely bogus!!!! The program must prove it DOES model reality, not the other way around! Dimensio is 180 outta phase!!!
Yet he confidently spouts this ignorance!
Have you studied the research and determined that no justification that the simulation accurately models reality was made by the researchers, or are you jumping to conclusions?
Your argument relies upon an assumption (that no justification of the simulation has been made) that you have yet to justify.