tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post877001219537238655..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Biology Teacher Jennifer Miller: Scientism in ActionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-78574313407863513252011-03-13T14:25:23.491-07:002011-03-13T14:25:23.491-07:00Hi, Oleg. You're a little late to the party h...Hi, Oleg. You're a little late to the party here, but always welcome. (I assume.)<br /><br />What Hunter doesn't understand is exhaustively documented in these hallowed pages.Pedanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12656298969231453877noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-50511122131868171042011-03-13T08:24:30.981-07:002011-03-13T08:24:30.981-07:00CH wrote: The rule of thumb for evolutionary think...CH wrote: <i>The rule of thumb for evolutionary thinking is that the evidence must reveal that a fully naturalistic origins narrative is compelling. In other words, natural law is sufficient to explain all of origins. Evolutionists do not say that the cosmos were designed but then here on earth life evolved with no design.</i> <br /><br />Cornelius, <br /><br />If I remember correctly, you have a Ph.D. in biophysics or some such from a respectable institution and even published a few papers in the mainstream scientific journals. You must have at least some idea about how science works. And if you do then you should be acutely aware that no branch of science claims to explain everything in nature. <br /><br />Evolutionary biology deals with the diversity of the living forms. It makes no claims about the origin of the Universe. You understand that, do you?oleghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11644793385433232819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14052318916113931142011-03-09T17:04:44.491-08:002011-03-09T17:04:44.491-08:00Louis Savain said...
Scott:
We must have...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> Scott:<br /><br /> We must have struck a nerve?<br /><br /> Nah. That's not it. You two morons are just wasting my time. I got more important things to do. Later.</i><br /><br />I wonder how many more "I'm leaving now, I really mean it, don't try and stop me!" posts Mr. JeebusParticles is going to make before he actually flounces. We're sitting on 4 now.<br /><br />Why he thinks his software programming job somehow qualifies him to judge that science is all wrong about evolutionary biology is anyone's guess.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-47822790136173650692011-03-09T16:48:22.696-08:002011-03-09T16:48:22.696-08:00Scott:
We must have struck a nerve?
Nah. That...Scott:<br /><br /><i>We must have struck a nerve?</i><br /><br />Nah. That's not it. You two morons are just wasting my time. I got more important things to do. Later.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48943706211665554382011-03-09T14:47:03.643-08:002011-03-09T14:47:03.643-08:00Louis: Scott and Thornton, you are two jack@sses d...Louis: Scott and Thornton, you are two jack@sses dancing to the same off-key music. See you around.<br /><br />We must have struck a nerve?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-76390978664449503682011-03-09T13:45:33.335-08:002011-03-09T13:45:33.335-08:00Scott and Thornton, you are two jack@sses dancing ...Scott and Thornton, you are two jack@sses dancing to the same off-key music. See you around.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-75806024328846999182011-03-09T13:21:41.673-08:002011-03-09T13:21:41.673-08:00Louis: I really have no idea what point you're...Louis: I really have no idea what point you're trying to make and I don't have the time to figure it out.<br /><br />Louis, I'm not making assertions. I'm making an argument and providing examples. As to the points I'm making… <br /><br />- Class inheritance can be a poor way to develop specific types of complex systems. Highly parallel and concurrent systems are just one example. We have concrete examples of industry adoption of functional systems over OOP by major players. <br /><br />- You don't need to use inheritance to prevent reinventing the wheel. You can use delegation, composting, decorating or a number of other patterns. See Design Patterns, Gamma, et. all. <br /><br />- Using inheritance as you advocated can result in a convoluted mess. <br /><br /> - You're conflated object oriented class inheritance with biological common ancestry, which is the analog of duplicating the source file for a class, renaming it and modifying. If you consider this a good example of object oriented programming, then you've revealed your ignorance of good design and development practices. <br /><br />Louis: In sum, I am saying that a hierarchy is an essential aspect of intelligent design. So, if a hierarchy is found in biological systems, it should be seen as evidence for ID. That's all I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree. I made my point.<br /><br />Again, It's the wrong kind of hierarchy nor is it essential for an intelligent designer to use this sort of hierarchy, as Thorton has already pointed out.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59890493198236386722011-03-09T12:59:48.415-08:002011-03-09T12:59:48.415-08:00Louis Savain said...
Thorton, kiss my @ss, ja...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> Thorton, kiss my @ss, jack@ss.</i><br /><br />No thanks, I might accidentally hit your head you keep lodged up there.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72363876201446465162011-03-09T12:54:53.651-08:002011-03-09T12:54:53.651-08:00Thorton, kiss my @ss, jack@ss.Thorton, kiss my @ss, jack@ss.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-36244973603264792522011-03-09T12:46:27.250-08:002011-03-09T12:46:27.250-08:00Louis Savain said...
In sum, I am saying that...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> In sum, I am saying that a hierarchy is an essential aspect of intelligent design.</i><br /><br />Unfortunately for you, that point is demonstrably wrong.<br /><br /><i>So, if a hierarchy is found in biological systems, it should be seen as evidence for ID.</i><br /><br />Logic FAIL. The premise is false, so the conclusion is wrong.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28956230328368193892011-03-09T11:28:48.709-08:002011-03-09T11:28:48.709-08:00Scott,
I really have no idea what point you'r...Scott,<br /><br />I really have no idea what point you're trying to make and I don't have the time to figure it out. I simply argued that intelligently designed objects inherit features from previously designed objects. Why? Because it is an extremely efficient approach that saves the designer the need to reinvent the wheel at every step. In software engineering, this is called object oriented programming. Inheritance, if depicted on a diagram, creates a tree-like structure. This is trivial.<br /><br />Why do you want to complicate a simple idea with unnecessary details? It seems to me that you are just showing off your programming knowledge. I've been in this business way too long to be impressed.<br /><br />In sum, I am saying that a hierarchy is an essential aspect of intelligent design. So, if a hierarchy is found in biological systems, it should be seen as evidence for ID. That's all I'm saying. I don't care if you disagree. I made my point.<br /><br />PS. This is my last post here. Goodbye.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-48553308321518240742011-03-09T08:45:41.367-08:002011-03-09T08:45:41.367-08:00Louis: Moving right along, it is generally conside...Louis: Moving right along, it is generally considered a bad idea in OOP design to modify a superclass unless it is for debugging purposes. The best way to add functionality in a design is through the creation of new subclasses.<br /><br />So, when Apple ports it's Objective-C framework from PPC to Intel to ARM, it should create a specific subclass for each architecture NSPPCObject, NSX86Object, NSARMObject? Apple shouldn't optimize methods in existing superclasses, but create distinct subclasses? <br /><br />If we followed you're logic we'd get multiple subclasses for each optimization: NSArray, NSFasterArray, NSReallyFastArray, NSSuperFastArray, NSMegaFastArray, NSUltraFastArray, etc. Want to take advantage of this optimization? Then you need to go through your entire application and switch from NSReallyFastArray to NSUltraFast array. Don't forget that for each one of these optimizations you'd also have platform versions as well as they inherit from their platform specific subclass. So you'd have NSPPCFasterArray for PPC, NSX86FasterArray on Intel and NSARMFasterArray for the iPhone and iPad. <br /><br />Is this really the "best" way to build complex systems? <br /><br />Louis: Of course, this does not mean that this is a law set in stone. If an important functionality was overlooked during the construction of a super class and if the best way to correct it is by modifying the class, by all means, go for it.<br /><br />When Apple switched to backed NSViews using CoreAnimation layers in version 10.5, they didn't provide an entirely new NSLayerBackedView hierarchy to developers - they added several new methods and properties for accessing layers to the existing NSView class hiearchy. They also added a number of methods NSView to perform animations, rather than creating a new NSAnimatableView hierarchy. <br /><br />This was not important functionary they "missed' the first time, but a significant upgrade to the entire underlying view system to support lightweight layer backed drawing. <br /><br />Apparently, you know better than Apple, and many other framework developers, that do the same thing. <br /><br />Furthermore, software and biological inheritance is radically different. If I create a subclass of UIButton to change how it looks, rather than what it does when I tap it, it only implements the part of the overall button functionality that has changed. If I do not link to the library that contains the UIButton superclass, my code will not build. If the library is not present at runtime, the button cannot be instantiated. <br /><br />This is not the case with biological inheritance. The DNA of human beings and great apes contain all of the functionality, not just the delta. Biological subclasses do not stop functioning if their "superclass" (common ancestor) has gone extinct. As such, this is similar to making a copy of the the source code of the superclass, renaming it as a new class and modifying it, rather than the software class hierarchy you're referring to. <br /><br />Again, you're trying to compare apples to oranges.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-25679411676989824262011-03-09T08:33:08.929-08:002011-03-09T08:33:08.929-08:00Louis: I disagree, of course. You seem to be grasp...Louis: I disagree, of course. You seem to be grasping at straws trying to prove to yourself that the use of a class hierarchy is not the best approach to complex system design but you are only fooling yourself. I don't buy it for a minute and I am not the only one.<br /><br />No, I'm NOT grasping at straws. I'm noting that the "best" approach varies depending on exactly what sort of complex system you're trying to design. Class inheritance can be a very powerful pattern in architecting applications. but it's one of many patterns. Of course, everything looks like a nail if all you have in your belt is a hammer. <br /><br />Have you ever tried to develop highly parallel applications, such as massively threaded server applications using OOP and threads or even procedural languages? <br /><br />Erlang is a functional language designed by Sony Ericson specifically to develop complexly telephony applications. Erlang apps can automatically take advantage of multiple CPU cores or even RPC / Distributed computing. You can even hot-swap server logic in mission critical production servers. <br /><br />Apparently, Google, Amazon and Facebook are fooling themselves as they chose Erlang (a functional language) over a class hierarchy. Of course, you know better, right?<br /><br />Louis: Any message passing or data encapsulation that occurs in a class is automatically inherited by a subclass. <br /><br />Or, like Erlang, you could just bake highly concurrent interprocess message passing into the language, rather than implement it into a root Object base class. Again it depends on the problem you're trying to solve. <br /><br />Louis: Why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is use inheritance to reuse an existing class that has already been designed, tested and debugged?<br /><br />Have you read the seminal Design Patterns book by the Gang of Four (Gamma, Helm, Johnson, Vlissides)? You don't need to subclass an object to use it. Nor is it subclassing always desirable. <br /><br />For example, I'm currently developing a universal iPad/iPhone application using Apple's iOS frameworks which are developed in Objective-C. A common patten is to create delegate objects which implement a protocol rather than create subclasses. <br /><br />Rather than individual subclass of UIButton for each control on the screen, you use the target - action pattern. Rather than subclass UITable view, you create a class that implements UITableViewDelgate and UITableViewDataSource protocols. Rather than create multiple CALayer subclasses to perform custom drawing, you can create a single delegate class that implements drawLayer:inContext: and issue different drawing commands for each layer passed to the method. You can also swap the delegate at runtime, which you cannot do using subclasses. <br /><br />If you have five hundred layers that draw slightly different content, do you want to create five hundred subclasses? Of course not. <br /><br />Sometimes you can't subclass an existing object because the implementation doesn't support serialization or the particular class of object cannot be varied because it's being vended to you by code you cannot control. Or you might need to inherit from another superclass to support a particular persistence frameworks. In these cases you can use composition, decoration or even Objective-C categories, rather than inheritance. <br /><br />Louis: This is the reason that various software organizations have created large class libraries that can be reused by other designers. It makes absolute sense that a designer of biological organisms would use the same approach. Deny at your own detriment. <br /><br />Again, please see above. Not only do you not need to subclass objects to use these libraries, but it's often very undesirable. I don't want to create five UIButton subclasses just so each button can respond differently when tapped. Are you sure you're develop software for a living?Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-92045896892150686212011-03-08T22:13:37.303-08:002011-03-08T22:13:37.303-08:00Scott:
OOP also consists of the encapsulation of ...Scott:<br /><br /><i>OOP also consists of the encapsulation of data, message passing, the ability to model software based on real-world objects, etc. which does not rely on class inheritance. In other words, your claim that inheritance is the "the best design methodology for complex systems" is inaccurate.</i><br /><br />I disagree, of course. You seem to be grasping at straws trying to prove to yourself that the use of a class hierarchy is not the best approach to complex system design but you are only fooling yourself. I don't buy it for a minute and I am not the only one.<br /><br />Any message passing or data encapsulation that occurs in a class is automatically inherited by a subclass. Why reinvent the wheel when all you need to do is use inheritance to reuse an existing class that has already been designed, tested and debugged? This is the primary advantage of using a class hierarchy to design multiple generations of similar products. This is the reason that various software organizations have created large class libraries that can be reused by other designers. It makes absolute sense that a designer of biological organisms would use the same approach. Deny at your own detriment. <br /><br />Moving right along, it is generally considered a bad idea in OOP design to modify a superclass unless it is for debugging purposes. The best way to add functionality in a design is through the creation of new subclasses.<br /><br />Of course, this does not mean that this is a law set in stone. If an important functionality was overlooked during the construction of a super class and if the best way to correct it is by modifying the class, by all means, go for it. Consider that any intelligent being or group of intelligent beings sufficiently advanced to engineer complex life on earth would also have the ability to use simulations to try out different things before a final design is released. Still, I suppose that many mistakes were made (I'm not one of those unthinking Christians who believe that the designers were omnipotent and omniscient since that would preclude the need to design anything) during the millions of years that it took to create life on earth and the designers may have been forced to cause entire "defective" or unwanted lineages to become extinct on many occasions. Indeed, there is ample evidence in the fossil records for multiple mass extinction events in the past. Something for us IDers to think about.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-84119354222307561462011-03-08T21:28:26.967-08:002011-03-08T21:28:26.967-08:00Louis: It takes an intelligent designer to figure ...Louis: It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.<br /><br />You seem to be conflating a number of terms and ideas. <br /><br />First, it's not clear which complex system in biology you're referring to or how it maps to software development practices. <br /><br />A OOP class hierarchy refers to a particular set of classes that inherit functionality from one or more superclasses. One of the ways this is beneficial is that you can can add or modify functionality at any point in a class hierarchy which are then inherited in all subclasses - this includes retroactive changes to subclasses that exist in the present, not just the future. Optimize a method in a superclass and that optimization increases the performance of all existing subclasses who continue to call that method. You can even reassign an object's superclass with a class from another branch or even a completely new class as long as is supports the same interface. This is common with model objects that which difference storage mechanism to persist data. <br /><br />In Ruby you can actually modify or reassign a class's superclass while the application is running to change the behavior of a subclass at runtime. In language that lack this support you can use the composite pattern to provide similar functionality. <br /><br />However, in the case of the biological complexity we observe there is no corresponding advantage. <br /><br />For example present day hominids and great apes would not inherit changes a designer made to their common ancestor. This prevents a designer from rapidly making changes to the hierarchy. Nor could a designer "reassign" the common ancestor of hominids and great apes to some other branch in the tree or a completely new ancestor. Even if we could do either of these things, we have no common ancestors to change or reassign as they have gone extinct. <br /><br />As such, there seems to be a significant disconnect between a tree of biological ancestors and an OOP class hierarchy. <br /><br />Even if such a direct mapping was possible, there are a number of OOP design patters that may be better suited depending on the problem you're trying to solve as class hierarchies can result in tightly-coupled systems which can be difficult to maintain and extend. The decorator pattern is just one such example. Furthermore, functional and procedural languages can be better suited for different domains and environments in regards to efficiency, expression, reduced overhead, etc. <br /><br />OOP also consists of the encapsulation of data, message passing, the ability to model software based on real-world objects, etc. which does not rely on class inheritance. In other words, your claim that inheritance is the "the best design methodology for complex systems" is inaccurate.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-51551090318988758572011-03-08T21:00:56.367-08:002011-03-08T21:00:56.367-08:00Fine by me, but it pretty much kills any last chan...<i>Fine by me, but it pretty much kills any last chance of getting your Bible-particle nonsense looked at.</i><br /><br />What part of "I don't give a rat's @ss" don't you understand?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68829265159287014642011-03-08T20:55:30.092-08:002011-03-08T20:55:30.092-08:00Louis Savain said...
The scientific community...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> The scientific community doesn't give a rat's @ss...<br /><br /> I don't give a rat's @ss about what the scientific community gives a rat's @ss about, either. How about that?</i><br /><br />Fine by me, but it pretty much kills any last chance of getting your Bible-particle nonsense looked at. Not that the woo had much of a chance anyway. You can always submit it to AIG or ICR. They'll publish any anti-science garbage on their site if it mentions The Bible or Jeebus.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49522246059514857472011-03-08T20:45:46.503-08:002011-03-08T20:45:46.503-08:00The scientific community doesn't give a rat...<i>The scientific community doesn't give a rat's @ss...</i><br /><br />I don't give a rat's @ss about what the scientific community gives a rat's @ss about, either. How about that?Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-49297753658377186142011-03-08T20:37:58.978-08:002011-03-08T20:37:58.978-08:00Louis Savain said...
Thorton: You'll for...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> Thorton: You'll forgive me if I don't believe your magic 'trust me, I see it' card.<br /><br /> Believe me, I don't give a rat's @ss what you believe in.</i><br /><br />The scientific community doesn't give a rat's @ss what anti-science woo you swallow either. But it is quite funny to see you software guys try to play at science.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46364354976869678222011-03-08T20:05:26.596-08:002011-03-08T20:05:26.596-08:00Thorton:
You'll forgive me if I don't bel...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>You'll forgive me if I don't believe your magic 'trust me, I see it' card.</i><br /><br />Believe me, I don't give a rat's @ss what you believe in.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-20980689068562464122011-03-08T20:01:57.214-08:002011-03-08T20:01:57.214-08:00Louis Savain said...
Thornton: How about you ...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> Thornton: How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?<br /><br />Even though an aircraft is an exceedingly simple system compared to living organisms, I can tell you that manufacturers do indeed reuse previous designs in their new aircrafts. In fact, they do it all the time. A Boeing 747 has a lot in common with a DC-10.</i><br /><br />Reusing the occasional part is not the same as a complete designed nested hierarchy. Weak evasion noted.<br /><br /><i>Just because you can't see the hierarchy does not mean it's not there.</i><br /><br />You claimed "the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure." But you can't show it to us. Just like the invisible evidence for intelligent design in nature you can't show. <br /><br />You'll forgive me if I don't believe your magic 'trust me, I see it' card.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24744487626222117382011-03-08T19:41:34.174-08:002011-03-08T19:41:34.174-08:00Thornton:
How about you show us the nested hierar...Thornton:<br /><br /><i>How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?</i><br /><br />Even though an aircraft is an exceedingly simple system compared to living organisms, I can tell you that manufacturers do indeed reuse previous designs in their new aircrafts. In fact, they do it all the time. A Boeing 747 has a lot in common with a DC-10. Just because you can't see the hierarchy does not mean it's not there.<br /><br />BTW, are you a real scientist or are you playing one on this forum? Never mind. It does not matter. It's all the same.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-44760955362082926742011-03-08T19:33:33.841-08:002011-03-08T19:33:33.841-08:00Scott:
When you say the "existence of a hier...Scott:<br /><br /><i>When you say the "existence of a hierarchy", are you referring to the nested hierarchy we observe across species? if so, where does a designer actually fit into this process, if at all?</i><br /><br />I am referring to both a nested hierarchy and a hierarchy in which members may borrow features from other members in a branch of the tree that diverged millions of years ago. I disagree that biological organisms only show a nested hierarchy. My understanding is that the echo location systems in whales and bats are almost identical even though the two species got separated long before echo location appeared in either branch of the tree.<br /><br />This could be an example of multiple inheritance, a design technique that can only be achieved through intelligent design. I would not be surprised to find out that bats and whales used nearly identical echo location genes. This would kill the nested hierarchy prediction of Darwinian evolution and falsify it for all to see, if it hasn't already.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39546595810376966922011-03-08T19:23:42.861-08:002011-03-08T19:23:42.861-08:00Louis Savain said...
Thorton:
While desi...<i>Louis Savain said...<br /><br /> Thorton:<br /><br /> While designers may create nested hierarchies, they certainly are under no requirement to do so.<br /><br /> Certainly. This is why ID stand for intelligent design, you mental midget. It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.</i><br /><br />The best design methodology for complex systems <b>*doesn't*</b> always call for a tree-like hierarchical structure. In fact it rarely does.<br /><br />How about you show us the nested hierarchy for the parts in a jet aircraft?<br /><br />wings<br />control surfaces / ailerons<br />tail<br />fuselage<br />engine<br />fuel system<br />landing gear<br />avionics<br />cockpit<br />control yoke<br />throttle<br /><br />to name just a few<br /><br /><br />You're not very bright, are you?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-87676040889919571882011-03-08T19:09:27.423-08:002011-03-08T19:09:27.423-08:00Thorton:
While designers may create nested hierar...Thorton:<br /><br /><i>While designers may create nested hierarchies, they certainly are under no requirement to do so.</i><br /><br />Certainly. This is why ID stand for <b>intelligent</b> design, you mental midget. It takes an intelligent designer to figure out that the best design methodology for complex systems calls for a tree-like hierarchical structure.Rebel Sciencehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11762287159937757216noreply@blogger.com