On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Mark Peterson wrote:

> This is getting way off topic but I have to comment.
>
> Take the simplest flash-an-LED PIC code you can come up with.  If just one
> bit in just one simple ASCII character byte is flipped, the program will
> not run.  We as on-lookers to the error would say "Of course it will not
> work.  All of the code, characters, bytes, and bits must be just right for
> the program, device, and circuit to work.  Someone must correct it.  It
> will not fix itself."  Yet, a single retina cell and in its functional
> relationship to the rest of the optical and nervous system, is many, many
> times more complicated and interdependent than the most complex devices and
> systems created by human beings.

1. Ashby has proven it is possible to build such a system.
2. Imagine you use 1000 wires with 10x10x10 OR gates to detect whether
there is ONE input, instead of a single one. That system would not mind if
some of wires or some of gates drops out. This is a simplified way how
human (and other biological) beings does work. Using this analogy, you
will understand what happens if the last gate (the nervus opticus) is cut,
contrary to a small locus on the retina.

Of course, this model is very simple but it can be refined (i. e. if one
assumes all inputs are connected to the brain [maybe a huge PIC], and all
lines have weighting variables which dinamically change themselves. I
think the word "believable" is not right here. Could somebody "believe"
before that some pieces of U-235, when put simply together, can kill more
ten thousands of people?

Regards,
Imre


>
> Its unbelievable that analytical thinking people continue to believe and
> state confidently that the cells of the human eye and the neural system of
> the brain essentially willed themselves to change how they function based
> on their recognition of a far removed apparent need of the body to more
> clearly resolve predators in the horizontal plain, and then spent a few
> million years making the cellular changes required to accomplish the goal.
> Why are they so afraid to concede to the blatant evidence in their face
> that evolution is a farce?
>
> I'm sorry to drag this out, but the ignorance and denial that is so
> prevalent in the pseudo science of evolution is really getting old.
>
>