Re: Stephen Wolfram vs. Charles Darwin on natural selection

On Nov 30, 5:37=A0am, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Let's skip all the theoretical stuff about computability of Kolmogorov
complexity of strings and get to the meat: =A0the notion that there does
exist a "description" of an organism. =A0The fact of the matter is that
we have absolutely no way to write one nor to verify that any claimed
description indeed describes one organism uniquely. =A0We can often
enough verify that the description fails (for example: "dkomo is a
feathered annelid with eighteen legs") =A0but not that it is unique.

Right - but Richard Dawkins made no claim of uniqueness.
If you look at his specification, what it says is:

``It is important to specify that both books describe their
respective animals 'down to the same level of detail'.
Obviously, if we describe the millipede down to cellular
detail, but stick to gross anatomical features in the case
of the lobster, the millipede would come out ahead.

- http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
- http://books.google.com/books?id=3DDwD4bjQozgYC&pg=3DPA100&lpg=3DPA100
--
__________
|im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim@xxxxxxxxxxx Remove lock to
reply.

.