It’s a quicky:
1. In Conway’s life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
2. There is the Glider-Producing Switch Engine http://conwaylife.com/wiki/Glider-producing_switch_engine
3. It is coded by 123 “On Cells” but requires a space of 67×60 in a specific configuration.
4. That’s 4,020 bits, > UPB.
5. It contains well matched parts : 4bli,3blo,2bee,1boat,1loaf,1ship,1glider http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
6. It occurs naturally out of randomly configured dust : http://wwwhomes.uni-bielefeld.de/achim/moving.html
7. It can evolve from a much smaller entity (“time bomb” – 17 active cells): http://conwaylife.appspot.com/pattern/timebomb
Thoughts?
A guy creates a program which has as its parameters the instructions and constraints to make patterns.
It makes patterns.
You are impressed (not surprising).
Evolution must be true.
Skeptics will believe anything.
It’s Phoodoo!
Before we engage Phoodoo, how much do you know about Conway’s life? I’m looking forward to your standard level of honesty and then you running away at the end, again.
Michael Denton could paraphrase Phoodoo’s script by saying:
A designer creates a program which has as its parameters the instructions and constraints to make patterns.
It makes patterns.
Phoodoo is a program designed by his parameters to make patterns. He makes patterns..
Richardthughes,
His program is about making patterns by requiring the computer program can make patterns, and you want to know what I know about Conway’s life?
Like was he faithful to his wife? Did he resent his father?
How much do you know about David Berlinski’s life? About Simon Conway Morris’s life? About Richard Dawkin’s life?
Do you resent your father?
Skeptics are so amusing.
“Conway’s Life” ,sometimes “Conway’s game of life”, is the name of the program. You’ve shown your knowledge through its absence. Go back to coloring between the lines at the children’s table.
Richardthughes,
I already answered you fool, its a program which does nothing but make patterns, because the program is designed to make programs.
You are so easily awed.
It was actually created to explore simple forms of von Neumann replication. Don’t let not knowing anything stop you from flapping your lips, Phoodoo, you never do.
And we’re still waiting for your apology on “Liz was so disgusted she abandoned this website” (Paraphrase), or for you to apply the same ‘reasoning’ to Uncommon Descent.
Richardthughes,
The English language is still waiting for your apology for hijacking the meaning of the word skeptic.
You can’t have it both ways . Were you wrong or has Dembski fled UD through embarrassment?
Richardthughes,
Did Liz turn the website over to someone else? I wasn’t aware that she did that.
When are you going to apologize to all the speakers of the English language?
I think it is possible for Phoodoo to be wrong and Dembski be embarrassed. But I’m betting against the latter.
petrushka,
Who did Liz turn this site over to again?
I missed that big announcement.
When do you think Richard will apologize?
Since when is “turning a site” over evidence of anything phoodoo? You made the claim that blog owners not posting any more was a sign of their embarrassment of what their blogs had become. You weren’t bright enough to see the implications of your batshit idea for UD. You made a motivation up whole cloth but weren’t consistent. Typical creationist.
Now with regard to my apology to “the English language” / “English speakers”. What am I supposed to be apologizing for?
Amazing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE
Richardthughes,
No I didn’t Richard, again, you can’t seem to understand English.
Lizzie stop posting here, but she continues to debate the exact same topics on other sites that are less toxic and useless than here.
I think you are one of the reasons she left here (and your echo chamber nimrods) , it was easier to leave than to deal with reading your endlessly boring, brainwashed responses.
Can you tell me is Dembski still debating fools full of hot air like you online?
She still pays for the server and bandwidth though eh, Phoodoo. Something she doesn’t do on those other sites.
FAIL.
“I think” is Phoodooese for “here’s something I’ve made up whole cloth and can’t support”.
This is why you jump on posts straight away and get just about everything wrong – you are unencumbered by fact and reason, you just like flapping your lips with the first thing that comes into your head.
Oh no Phoodoo has rolled out question begging! Are you such a sophisticated thinker, when you beat your wife?
Admins – please guano the side chat but leave Phoodoo’s misunderstanding of “Life” for all to see.
Thanks.
designed self replication and Turing machines in life are impressive, but this made me smile the most:
Richardthughes,
So what’s your theory about why lizzie jumped ship? She didn’t want to get burned in the toxic sludge the boat was filling up with?
I don’t know why she left, Phoodoo, and if a boat is filling up with toxic sludge then jumping ship will likely put you in said toxic sludge. You might want to think a little more before you type.
She did post the comment picked up by Alan here:
TSZ was largely a reaction to the closed gates and censorship at UD. Today it remains a place where you can speak freely about most things without being dissapeared or having your comments scrawled over. I do miss Lizzie though, she always took the higher ground in the face of breathtaking stupidity and dishonesty. She is fine, I wished her a happy Birthday a few days back.
The interesting question is why she doesn’t post at ID sites like UD and ENV.
All programs that run on computers are designed, so by phoodoo’s reasoning it is impossible to make a program that simulates something undesigned, since by definition the program must be designed. So if the program is designed (and all programs are, they can’t not be), everything it makes is designed too.
So it’s impossible to simulate evolution according to ID proponents. So if you make a program that simulates something, like evolution, tough shit, it’s a program so whatever it makes is designed. QED
Take that, evolutionists!
So phoodoo, how would a program work to simulate evolution, in order for you to be satisfied it produces things that aren’t designed? How would mutation work, how would you implement natural selection?
Rumraket,
Simple,
Just make a computer with bad programming, that makes a bunch of mistakes. See how long it takes to make anything useful. Maybe one day it can bake a cake.
Speaking of which, when are Lenskis bacteria going to actually do something? I think we might be running out of time if a few trillion of these still can’t do anything. Heck for that matter, why has the Earth been around a few billion years and life has only started once. Is it really that hard? Just not enough time?
Phoodoo, are you familiar with the term virtual machine?
petrushka,
I think that you are referring to the space where Richard’s brain is supposed to be? Like an imaginary set of switching that are supposed to be doing something, but nobody can figure out what?
Seems like you want to be banned. Instead you’ll just be ignored.
Explain what part of it is a simulation of mutation and which part is a simulation of natural selection.
For example, how do you simulate whether something is “useful”? Useful at doing what? There needs to be some sort of selection criterion. In living organisms selection is ultimately for reproductive success. So how do we make a program that simulates this without smuggling in design? Try to imagine how without these silly “make it make mistakes, see if it bakes useful cakes” nonsense. I’m genuinely curious to see if you can imagine an actual evolution simulator that doens’t break your own rules.
Evolution deals with how living organisms change over time when they replicate. So since the simulation isn’t about the origin of life, but about evolution, there has to be a living organism put into the simulation, otherwise we’d be trying to simulate the origin of life. Right?
So we start with a simulation with a living organism right? You with me?
I don’t see the relevance of this to the thread. Start a new one if you wish to discuss this subject and I’d be happy to answer you there, I’d like to discuss the possibility of an accurate simulation of evolution with you here without us going down too many digressions.
He’s just on “full blurt offensive” given his embarrassing start to the thread, full of opinion without knowing what “life” was. Pay him no heed.
Without discussing phoodoo’s motives or honesty, The only effect of his posts is to stir things up. He merely invites us to display anger.
Pity is what I feel. Any life wasted is a shame, phoodoo’s or anyone.
With all the IDists predicting the imminent demise of Darwinism — ten years at the most — I wonder how they will feel at the end of their lives, realizing that it was all wasted.
Here’s a thing I posted at Sandwalk. It’s from the dominant creationist publication of 1969. After 45 years, the only amendment made by the ID crowd is that mutations cannot add function. the pdf is worth a look.
Reading over that, I see two howlers besides the claim that DNA reproduces itself without error.
One is the claim that DNA is different in heart and liver cells. I suspect that creationists did not want to call attention to the fact that at one stage in life, humans are single-celled organisms.
The other howler is the suggestion that the various species of butterflies and moths are the result of recombination.
Rumraket:
phoodoo:
I had my fingers crossed, hoping for the Dodgen Response. Phoodoo didn’t disappoint.
So phoodoo, you’re saying that the way to achieve an accurate simulation of evolution and mutation is by producing a simulation that is inaccurate due to programming errors. Makes perfect sense. If you want A, aim for not-A.
Phoodoo does not understand the concept of a virtual machine.
Rumraket,
I think you are lost because of the rhetoric that evolutionist use in their everyday speech. “Living” simply is replicating. So as long as the computer is replicating something, anything, it is living.
So just let the computer replicate nonsense. Eventually that nonsense must be so good that the other nonsense stops replicating. See how long it takes for that nonsense to become clever, to become creative, to use tools. Because this is what you claim evolution did. It took nonsense and make it useful. A bunch of sand became creative, because creative sand replicates better than non-creative sand. That is all you get to work with.
So its totally relevant to ask in this thread, why did sand only replicate and get creative once. Why doesn’t it start lots of times?
You have no answer for this, so that is why your side likes to avoid it. By saying a computer simulation is “ALMOST” doing it, see. Your side is so easily impressed.
I will ignore the “sand” nonsense and ask a few simple questions.
1. Are you certain the chemistry of OOL is not still at work?
2. What do you supposed would happen to any precursor molecules?
3. What would Darwin say? Seriously. What DID Darwin say?
Citation please.
Jesus only wanted it to start once, obviously!
“1. Are you certain the chemistry of OOL is not still at work?”
petrushka,
That sounds like another one of the typical rationalizations we often hear from evolutionists. You have zero evidence that there is or has ever been any new starting of life, yet don’t let them stop you from just pretending there could be.
But more still, you can’t just mask over this problem by saying, well, we don’t consider the OOL life issues, that’s separate. Forget about life to bacteria, an already arduous and impossible process, what next? Why isn’t the bacteria going anywhere? Why aren’t there new vertebrates, new marine life. Why does everything always only go back to ONE line of ancestry?
Makes no sense at all. But, you are a skeptic, so nevermind, you won’t be skeptical.
It’s easy to be impressed when clever people are doing impressive work.
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/roadmap/
You and your ilk may now resume arguing about things you don’t understand while the adults work.
OMagain,
Darwin too apparently. Amazing how they share so much in common.
Darwin’s name will ring out as long as humanity exists for, I’m quite sure.
Burns, right?
OMagain,
That reassures your pet theory? That people are looking into it?
I guess you have nothing to worry about then. No need to use your own head, someday they will help you.
Darwin existed. So no, not so much in common really.
You seem to be alive. Does that count?
Please cite an example from the history of science in which the best explanation turned out to be goddidit.
It’s not mine. It belongs to humanity. That obviously excludes people like you who have fooled themselves into believing they know all the answers.
More work is done and published on OOL in a month then in the entire history of ID.
People like you with no appreciation of how relatively recent much of our knowledge see the lack of definitive answers as a problem. It’s not. The problem is your lack of context.
Saying “I don’t know” is infinitely preferable to “I repeat what someone else wrote thousands of years ago and will stop there and learn no more”
Help me? I think you are projecting again.
Do you actually have any thoughts on the OP? Or are you just here to try and convert people to ignorance?
Do you think life exists elsewhere in the universe other then our planet?
If not, why not?
Out of interest, what’s your “pet theory”?