Fallacy of the Phylogenetic Signal? Part 2

[T_aquaticus]

@EricMH

some obviously do, e.g. i import libraries all the time writing code

Computer codes can be completely different from one another. You could invent a new computer code right now. From TalkOrigins:

As a close analogy, consider computer programs. Netscape works essentially the same on a Macintosh, an IBM, or a Unix machine, but the binary code for each program is quite different. Computer programs that perform the same functions can be written in most any computer language—Basic, Fortran, C, C++, Java, Pascal, etc. and identical programs can be compiled into binary code many different ways. Furthermore, even using the same computer language, there are many different ways to write any specific computer program, even using the same algorithms and subroutines. In the end, there is no reason to suspect that similar computer programs are written with similar code, based solely on the function of the program. This is the reason why software companies keep their source code secret, but they don’t care that competitors can use their programs—it is essentially impossible to deduce the program code from the function and operation of the software. The same conclusion applies to biological organisms, for very similar reasons.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

sometimes lots of different ways, sometimes there is an obviously better way

e.g. always prefer quicksort to random sample sort

[Chris_Falter]

@EricMH

designer doesn’t have to work this way, but it is certainly consistent with what we know about intelligent design

As a computer science Ph.D., you have quite likely heard of evolutionary algorithms.

Best,
Chris

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Chris_Falter

you have quite likely heard of evolutionary algorithms.

Yes, in fact my MSc was advised by Gary Lamont, one of the world experts in multi-objective evolutionary algorithms.

[Chris_Falter]

Then you are able to think of evolution as a form of intelligent design.

I.e., as computer scientists, we can imagine the designer working via evolution just as readily as we can imagine the designer working via a non-evolutionary, component-based design.

Peace,
Chris

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Exactly.  

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

@Chris_Falter

Then you are able to think of evolution as a form of intelligent design.

I.e., as computer scientists, we can imagine the designer working via evolution just as readily as we can imagine the designer working via a non-evolutionary, component-based design.

Sure, but that is orthogonal to what we are talking about here, i.e. why would we expect a dag if intelligent designer is at work?

Evolutionary algorithms are very narrow in application, and do not generate anything like what we see in biology.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Chris_Falter

Then you are able to think of evolution as a form of intelligent design.

I.e., as computer scientists, we can imagine the designer working via evolution just as readily as we can imagine the designer working via a non-evolutionary, component-based design.

Peace,
Chris

That’s a completely false analogy. Not even wrong.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@Dale

Exactly.

I rescind that. I do because I believe in undetectable providential interventions which we are not accounting for and for which there is no accounting.

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

I do agree with @Chris_Falter that evolutionary algorithms are a very accurate analogy and way to think about the capabilities of evolution. They are very effective at demonstrating the shortcomings of dysteleological evolution, and why intelligent intervention is necessary to produce the world we empirically observe.

In fact, this would be an interesting thread to look at examples of evolutionary algorithms, what characteristics they have, and how those characteristics compare to the biological data and whether they are a good fit.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

See what you’ve done Chris? Conjured up magic. ID is analogous to claims of healing that are statistically invisible. God intervenes and denies it. As in YEC. Standard anti-intellectual story telling. No grown ups allowed.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

No providential miracles allowed either.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

No providential miracles allowed either.

Do you mean a random series of events around which you weave a superfluous story of personal divine intervention? Or something else?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Ha! Just because you do not allow him to in your prejudice does not mean that he doesn’t.

@Dale

Someone (who will remain untagged ) dismisses such events and calls them cognitive bias (or magic), not realizing that God’s ‘technology’ is beyond our grasp.

(And don’t waste any of your precious straw by calling Stearns a homophobe.)

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

Ha! Just because you do not allow him to in your prejudice does not mean that he doesn’t.

@Dale

Someone (who will remain untagged ) dismisses such events and calls them cognitive bias (or magic), not realizing that God’s ‘technology’ is beyond our grasp.

(And don’t waste any of your precious straw by calling Stearns a homophobe.)

I’ve no need to repeat myself.

What is God’s technology? That utterly self denying, non-evidentiary, invisible, undetectable, unnecessary yet essential thing He does? With perfect maskirovka? Obliterated intervention that only those with ears to see can feel?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

You need to address the issue in the other conversation, because there is evidence given there. But you might not waste our time. Most people who read the Stearns sequence would get a clue.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

You need to address the issue in the other conversation, because there is evidence given there. But you might not waste our time. Most people who read the Stearns sequence would get a clue.

You waste your own time. Stearns learned through suffering, which is good. Most don’t have that luxury. He repented of his homophobia. He made a step up the long arc.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

You are totally missing the point (intentionally diverting?), and are maybe afraid to reply in the other conversation? It has nothing to do with homophobia, but it is about God’s recognizable providential M.O. (the ‘M’ is not for maskirovka – nice word, btw).

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

You are totally missing the point (intentionally diverting?), and are maybe afraid to reply in the other conversation? It has nothing to do with homophobia, but it is about God’s recognizable providential M.O. (the ‘M’ is not for maskirovka – nice word, btw).

My apologies. Fog of war, and my mind. No intentional diverting and no fear. I’ll reply there. Having been ‘there’. And Stearns’ humanity does not detract from his credibility for me.

[EricMH (Eric Holloway)]

GET BACK ON TOPIC NOW!!!

a complete sentence for the validator