I wasn't quoting a journalist, but the actual scientists who worked on the project. The software was fed a problem for which science had no answer (specifically, a formula for cellular metabolism). It gave them one, which, worked. Biologists still don't have an explanation to go with the formula.

http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

I couldn't find a more recent article, but at the end it mentions that this AI came up with a formula for cellular metabolism. It is my understanding that this formula has been tested to be valid, but no human scientists understands what the formula means yet.

Unless you also compare the jungle to, say, the Sahara.

I have no idea what this is even supposed to mean, but if they oppose the creation of four dimensional three headed goats with frog legs, it would be just as relevant. Well, I suppose someone might actually be working on a design for the goats.

It's true that it is internally self-consistent. That doesn't mean it comes anywhere close to matching the way the real world actually works. As many people have pointed out, it is similar to Marxism in this regard.

So you admit that you are arguing over semantics.
Most of us don't care which concept or method is used. We only care what the end result is. And the end result is they paid, and now their traffic gets there faster than the people who didn't pay.

It will be interesting to see the Republican controlled congress debate military funding for a problem they deny the existence of.

Bad analogy. An individual organism can exhibit social behavior, but it cannot evolve.

Evolution/adaptation does not occur within a single organism. If you include that in the definition, then a parent and child combined might be "life", but each of them separately would never qualify. That doesn't really make sense.

You could say the same thing about the data stored on an erased hard disk. The data isn't gone, it's just in an indeterminate state.

That's not how logic works.

Unless magically the number of specific unspecified jobs is larger than the number of jobs, I really don't think he is.

There are cognitive differences between any two men you might select too. To what grouping will you attribute those?

There are also many cognitive tasks where the range of difference within a gender is greater than the range of difference between genders. Given that, in what way is it useful to attribute difference to gender (or other grouping, for that matter)?

Because "white" isn't an ethnicity, it's the lack of one. You are probably confused because you think color = race.

Hahaha, it's funny that you think there is a correlation between "Insightful" and "factually true" on Slashdot. Or for conservatives in general, who these days seem to rarely be swayed by mere facts.