RE: [asa] (computer evolution) LHC, TOE, and the limits of knowledge

From: Dehler, Bernie <>
Date: Thu Sep 25 2008 - 18:19:35 EDT

Bernie D.:I think your designs also evolve.
David Clounch : Not in the biological sense. Not even in the chemical sense. It's scientifically inaccurate to conflate the evolution of galaxies, for example, with biological evolution. Even if both are completely natural.
I think it is obvious to everyone that computer designs and galaxies don't evolve in a biological sense. Biological evolution, we all know, relates only to biology.
One could say there is an "evolution of computers." Even if a computer chip is designed with a whole new architecture, it is built upon the previous learnings of all the architects involved. I think that is also an example of Dawkin's meme idea.
Yes, there is an intelligent designer (human) in computer evolution, but the fact remains that computers have evolved, in the sense that you got to step c from having going thru step a and step b first. There definitely is creativity injected in the process, whether by 'divine spark' or just natural human thinking.
I think there is overwhelming DNA evidence that evolution happened. Evolution in the sense that higher complex things arose from lower complexity. How, exactly, did it happen? I think scientists today would say they are not exactly sure as to ALL the mechanisms. How God may have worked using evolution is still a mystery, I think. But I don't think it is a mystery that man evolved from apelike creature, rather than appearing by fiat, as YEC's and OEC's think (DNA pseudogenes are overwhelming evidence for biological evolution in my opinion).

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Sep 25 18:20:12 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Sep 25 2008 - 18:20:13 EDT