DarwinMisquotedOnWikipedia

http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_frm/thread/9dcb8542a766e33b/aafde145140fc70f#aafde145140fc70f

asdf
next post to post:

Darwin's pragmatics with his stories about the strongest surviving was constrained by his background knowledge. He couldn't do mathematics knew nothing about finite state grammar control loops, Liapunov, Laplace, Fourier. You are trying to generalize Darwin's pragmatics with his stories to via what you have just posted.

Evolutionists are like children who go ga-ga at their first visit to the Zoo seeing the impressive polar bear, they have the most simplistic way of looking at this bear. That bear is implementing Fourier transformation inside it's neural network. An evolutionists sees a frog - "it got naturlared" and no matter frog you show them it's the same Darwinian story it competed, outcompeted the other frogs, got naturaled and here we have a frog! No mention of its center of gravity and how its brain compensates for the bandwith constraints as the nerve signal travels a finite time to actuate the muscles with just enough force to jump over the rock but not off the cliff.

The patriot missile system fires a missile to shoot down another missile. The control algorithms are Irreducibly Interdependently Complex - just ask Scordova. By analogy the eagle intercepts a bird and dive bombs from a hight catching it in mid air. The eagle actuates via some PID control loop its muscles to intercept the bird at a certain angle and speed. The control loop for this is Irreducibly Interdependently Complex. Or if you wish the algorithms, muscles and nerve signals are *Interdependent*. It's the *Interdependent* part and Behe's intent with it that matters. Don't get stuck on the definitions, try and understand the intent behind the definitions which allows us to modify Behe's original definition and thus generalizing his pragmatics.

ninja turtles
post: 62

post 31
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/philip-skell-revisited/