Originally Posted by Bex
Quote
You have not even decided to grace us with your definition of transitional forms. You obviously won't accept the transitional forms that paleontologists have categorized as such.


Placing fossils in a catagory of "evolution" does not = evidence that such a scenario ever took place. Similarities between creatures does not indicate that one evolved from the other.
The comment was not directed at you but you seem to be saying that there is no way to determine what a transitional creature would look like. If this is so, then how can you be so positive that the transitional forms put forth by paleontologists are not transitional forms? What do you use to determine the creature is not a transitional between x and y?

Quote
Quote
Yet, NASA uses evolutionary methods for antenna design. Maybe chance and error are more capable than you think.

Believe what you want. Just don't expect science to buy it without some evidence.


I clicked the link, but the page will not load. At what point in the design of the antenna did they stop to give the rest up to process/chance/error? I'd imagine anybody employing such methods with passenger airline Jets would not be employed for long wink But I'd be interested in how using evolution methods produced the final product...
It didn't work for me this time either. Try the second link and look in section 4 where they describe the process that was used.
Basically, a set of constraints is defined (the parameters for a successful design). The initial structure is put in place and then the program inputs random changes to the design and tests them against the parameters. Any design that shows some success against the parameters gets to be used in the next random change (gets to "reproduce"). Designs that don't show success is discarded.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke