On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote:
I explained in a post above why evolution does not select weels. An
autonomous living being must be topologically connected, and weels are not.
Explaining why Evolution is incompetent does not make it one bit less
incompetent.
On 06 Oct 2012, at 04:55, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:59:11PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those
On 06 Oct 2012, at 06:04, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct
On 05 Oct 2012, at 11:04, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even
come up
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com mailto:agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over 3
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had
over
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
Brent
Dennett's pandemonium theory would seem
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to consciousness?
THAT would be a Darwinian theory of consciousness.
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:59:11PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/5/2012 6:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 06:32:21PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
Do we have any reason to believe ideas reproduce with variation and
then those that reproduce most successfully rise to
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 2:04 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Dear john:
2012/10/4 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 4:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 1:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 10/5/2012 9:04 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 10:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/5/2012 8:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 8:32 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:
Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid tinkerer, it had over 3
billion years to work on the problem but it couldn't even come up with a
macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
First of all, 360 degrees rotation is present in
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
Actually, one could argue
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:01:14AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
Intel. It is debatable whether anything _really_ complex
On 10/4/2012 7:31 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:02:59PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/4/2012 6:52 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
Both are examples of evolutionary design than revolutionary design, as
it were. Another example is the design of x86_64 processors by
Intel. It
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:48:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas?
Sure, the ratio of the number of new designs built that didn't work
compared to those that did. It's a difference of process. It
doesn't have
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution can only add even
more tangled bells and whistles to DOS.
John K Clark
Actually,
On 10/4/2012 8:54 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 07:48:01PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
If it is crucially different, then that difference ought to be
measurable. Got any ideas?
Sure, the ratio of the number of new designs built that didn't work
compared to those that did.
On 10/4/2012 9:24 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
Yes, so a human can jump directly from the tangled mess of DOS to a
clean
streamlined operating system like LINUX, but Evolution
On 01 Oct 2012, at 10:39, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/9/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 30 Sep 2012, at 15:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because
the invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even
your
2012/9/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Whoever said that does not know what he says:
There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational
design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic.
Subject: Re: Evolution outshines reason by far
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Whoever said that does not know what he says:
There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational
design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary
On 10/1/2012 2:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Conservatives are those who find themselves on top and call it 'natural'.
What a waste of power to be in the top and wanting to do leave things as they are... In
contrast, the progressives supposedly consider themselves in the bottom, but
On 01 Oct 2012, at 18:36, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/1/2012 2:47 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Conservatives are those who find themselves on top and call it
'natural'.
What a waste of power to be in the top and wanting to do leave
things as they are... In contrast, the progressives supposedly
On 10/1/2012 3:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
You've only demonstrated your own prejudice against reason.
no comment
Evolution produces many designs that are suboptimal, because natural
selection only
requires that a design be 'good-enough'
suboptimal for what? optimal has a
On 10/1/2012 3:39 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
An interesting perspective on evolution vs. engineering:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI
From an engineer who uses evolution to design computers.
Notable points:
He is unable to understand how some of the outputs of this evolutionary process
On 30 Sep 2012, at 15:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
And if you think that weels are superior, NS invented it, because
the invertor of the weel was a product of natural selection. Even
your feeling of superiority of the weel and the very feeling of
superiority of reason is a product of
On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Whoever said that does not know what he says:
There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design, rational
designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow and stupid
On 9/30/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Whoever said that does not know what he says:
There are great differences between evolutionary designs and
rational design, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother
Hi John,
Thank you for you wise remarks. ;-) I hope we can weed out the errors
On 9/30/2012 5:10 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Stephen (Brent, Alberto, plus plus plus)
with a discussion so long that my arthritic fingers stopped scrolling
down - on EVOLUTION - back and forth.
I resent the
On 9/30/2012 1:26 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 2:51 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 9/30/2012 6:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Whoever said that does not know what he says:
There are great differences between evolutionary designs and rational design,
rational designs are, well, rational,
35 matches
Mail list logo
