Training Trees Game

[Subduction Zone]

LOL! Of course it's not being used in a "colloquial manner". It's a paper produced by Penn State University which specifically and repeatedly establishes the programming aspect of DNA.

Maybe you should contact Penn State and straighten them out on their "colloquial manner".

And once again it is using that term in a colloquial manner. I am sorry if you do not understand that. There is nothing at all to indicate that they think that it is a written program like you seem to think that it is. You need to do a whole heck of a lot better than that. As I told you how the "program" writes itself is well understood. I offered you some papers on that but it seems that evidence once again scared you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

NOVA has put together a little game - click Play Game, and then Mission 1 Training Trees.

Not much game there, but the interface is kinda slick when you get used to it, and I think some people could learn something. If you tune out when the phrase "nested hierarchy" is mentioned, I invite you to look into this game.

I thought that this should be linked again. The game is quite educational. Are there any creationists that are not afraid of education?

 

[Willtor]

while (response = read()) {
  echo quote(response) + "Just more mountains of nothing.";
}

justlookinla, please don't be this script. Read some of our responses and think about them. We're not here trying to trick you.

 

[Loudmouth]

Simply saying that DNA isn't programming isn't offering anything. As usual, your responses are mountains of nothing.

DNA falls into phylogenies that match the phylogenies based on morphology. This is evidence that DNA evolved.

When we do the same thing for human computer programs, we don't observe anything close to the same thing. Even programs that are nearly identical on the outside can have very different programs underneath. For example, Google Chrome on the PC and Apple look almost identical, yet they have very different language underneath. In fact, you can use multiple different languages and compilers to produce identical programs. Therefore, there is zero expectation that physical similarities would be mirrored by programmed similarities in designed life. There is also no expectation of a nested hierarchy.

The evidence is on the side of evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

LOL! Of course it's not being used in a "colloquial manner". It's a paper produced by Penn State University which specifically and repeatedly establishes the programming aspect of DNA.

Maybe you should contact Penn State and straighten them out on their "colloquial manner".

Why don't you do some work for once and contact them yourself on the matter?

 

[justlookinla]

Why don't you do some work for once and contact them yourself on the matter?

Don't have to. I've posted the link.

 

[Split Rock]

NOVA has put together a little game - click Play Game, and then Mission 1 Training Trees.

Not much game there, but the interface is kinda slick when you get used to it, and I think some people could learn something. If you tune out when the phrase "nested hierarchy" is mentioned, I invite you to look into this game.

Played with this yesterday and its a lot of fun. It can even teach us a few things!

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't have to. I've posted the link.

But you also make claims that go beyond what it actually says, and you have to back them up. Plus, it would mean you would have to acknowledge that you were wrong if they clarified it for you, because I highly doubt you would believe me if I did the same and you couldn't see the email for yourself.