From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Symbolic Interpretation (Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!)
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 21:27:06 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.163835.12301@acuson.com>, lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson)
writes:
> Have you ever studied machine architecture even a little bit?

   I have a bachelors degree with honors and distinction in computer science,
from the University of Kansas, that included four courses on machine
architecture.  Two were concerned with hardware and two with operating systems.
During graduate school I had a job maintaining systems for CalTech in which I
modified the hardware and software of systems for specific users.

   Throughout my graduate and professional career I have made use of bizzarre 
new data structures I invented myself for mathematical research.  At present
my research includes artificial life work which involves complex, interlinked
data structures that simulate entire ecologies.

   At present I have a paper on artificial life being refereed as a
professional scientific publication and I have a calculus teaching package
being considered for publication and use in colleges and universities.

OOPS

I mean:  Yes.
 
> By the time a program gets to the machine instruction level, there is
> no remnant of the data structures.

   Nonsense.  The data structures cause the machine language to take on the
form it has.  If you hand coded the machine language you would get a better,
faster program (ten years later).  The data structures leave GIANT footprints
ALL OVER the resulting machine language.  Drew, why don't you go learn some
computer science?  You have an entirely naive and possibly detrimental view of
the philosophy of programming.

> The same memory pattern can be
> accomplished by a tedious organization of memory blocks by an assembly
> language programmer.

   No, not unless he is God almighty or the program is incredibly simple. 
Drew, I write assembly code and I patch compiler generated assembly code.  No
human being would intentionally generate the stuff that comes out of a
compiler.  An novice might do worse, a professional better, but compilers
generate literally inhuman code.

>  The machine execution is not affected by the data
> structures.

   Nonsense again!  Using a balance binary tree data structure instead of an
insertion sort list makes an incredible difference, for example.  The "data
structure" exists at all levels of the program; you can tell because the B-tree
data structure is faster no matter if you code it in assembly or a high level
language.  The data structure is REAL.  It still affects the program AFTER
COMPILATION.  [Ref: Knuth, the art of computer programming Vol. 3, Searching
and Sorting]

> BTW, software was around for a while without the common usage of data
> structures.  So it hardly "fails to exist" in their absence.

   Nope.  You are confusing data structures in programs with data structures in
textbooks.  The _very first_ programmers used linear arrays (on tape or drum). 
Arrays are a classic data structure.  Take some history of programming too. 
PBS has a wonderful five part series...


> Perhaps you don't know what a data structure is.  It is an
> abstraction.  A way of labeling memory with a conceptual purpose.  They
> are sometimes used without any memory allocation.

   Right.  Something that improves performance 652% is not real.  A mere
abstraction.  Sure.
 
>>   In any case your original assertion that evolution is a chimera of the
mind
>>renounces almost the entire scientific revolution, including its many
tangible
>>benifits and problems, indeed including your own livelihood.  The same type
of
>>resoning that led to your computer lead to the theory of evolution.
> 
> I did not state that evolution is a chimera.  I stated that the concept
> of evolutionary origin could as easily be considered to be a convenient
> abstraction.  That is the view I hold.  It is a nifty, consistant
> concept.  So what?

   So it matches the evidence.  We've discussed this elsewhere, though.
> 
> I also doubt that all of science would fall apart if belief in
                                                       ^^^^^^
> evolutionary origin fell by the wayside.

  I agree.  We don't "believe".  We accept the proof.  If, on the other hand,
the preponderance of scientists rejected evolution given the current state of
science, science would be toast.  Evolution is completely compelling on
scientific grounds.  Rejection of evolution must impeach all of science as
the methedology is uniform.


>>   Finally, having re-read your original post more carefully, I have a bit of
>>information for you.  No-one can currently see canals on mars.  The closest
>>any observation comes is dry watercourses that look like natural features.
> 
> What about pulsars as clear evidence of extra-stellar intelligence?

   Claim was never made.  That hypothisis was advanced and rejected in favor of
the neutron star hypothisis as evidence piled up and models improved.

> Drew Lawson                      If you're not part of the solution,
> lawson@acuson.com                you're part of the precipitate

HEY DREW!  I like you pretty well.  You seem an honest and somewhat informed
debater.  Keep it up.

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU