Forums > Social Discussion > Intelligent Design vs Evolution
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
just lost .... evil init
2,474 posts
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posted:
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is.
*deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
ok so first read this https://www.venganza.org/
i mean really!!!! wtf?!?!?!?! i just cant get over how
this is. *deep cleansing breath*
ok so how is it that any educated person (as one would assume the Kansas School Board would be required to have some level of education?) or even a mildly retarded chimp for that matter would even consider adding something like ID to a science curriculum?
Now if the ID group where to be taking a page or two from Cellular Automata (which evolution essentially is just in a much more complex environment with more complex survival/interaction rules) and add that the resulting now is possibly the result of design by choosing the rules such that it would evolve in such a way to have created the given now, or that the soul's link to the real world might be the apparently random quantum tunnelling effects that take place in the microtubules (yet another CA) in the brain then i wouldnt have such a big problem with their proposal. both of which are horribly speculative and cant be proven but both allow for the concept of "god" to be introduced to highlight that science doesnt have all the answers
i suppose next we will be using the fox network for our history classes?
/end vent
Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness that most frightens us. We ask ourself, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous and talented? Who are you NOT to be?
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Indeed.
I mean what amazes me is that if it is all the exact word of God then God really isn't a very clear thinker... or maybe just a poor writer
Indeed.
I mean what amazes me is that if it is all the exact word of God then God really isn't a very clear thinker... or maybe just a poor writer
"Moo," said the happy cow.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
You are still presuming that Gen 2 is a separate account of creation. By this assumption, Genesis 2 says that the sun and fish were never created.
If you read Genesis 2 as a description of the beginning of man, in the context of creation in general, it makes a lot more sense.
Your contradictory lists of “order” have two major problems:
1. It fails to recognize the difference between the creation of plants, and the planting of the specific trees in the Garden of Eden. Vs. 8 and 9 are not the creation of plants in general, but just the growing of the Garden.
2. Your list wrongly states that birds and land animals were created after Adam. Verse 19 says that God had formed them previously, and then brought them to Adam after Adam had been made. This is in agreement with the order of creation in Chapter 1. Then God made Eve. This detailed description is in harmony with the general description of creation found in Chapter 1.
Again, your errors stem from the misconception that Chapter 2 is another account of creation. Verse 4 states that it is an account of when they were created.
The account is clear. The effort to find a contradiction when none actually exists in the text is what has made it complicated. I have tried previously to resist responding to the claims that the Bible is full of "contradictions." I should have done it in this instance as well, as this discussion has taken us far off topic. I will try in the future to refrain from discussing alleged contradictions unless someone creates a topic for it.
You are still presuming that Gen 2 is a separate account of creation. By this assumption, Genesis 2 says that the sun and fish were never created.
If you read Genesis 2 as a description of the beginning of man, in the context of creation in general, it makes a lot more sense.
Your contradictory lists of “order” have two major problems:
1. It fails to recognize the difference between the creation of plants, and the planting of the specific trees in the Garden of Eden. Vs. 8 and 9 are not the creation of plants in general, but just the growing of the Garden.
2. Your list wrongly states that birds and land animals were created after Adam. Verse 19 says that God had formed them previously, and then brought them to Adam after Adam had been made. This is in agreement with the order of creation in Chapter 1. Then God made Eve. This detailed description is in harmony with the general description of creation found in Chapter 1.
Again, your errors stem from the misconception that Chapter 2 is another account of creation. Verse 4 states that it is an account of when they were created.
The account is clear. The effort to find a contradiction when none actually exists in the text is what has made it complicated. I have tried previously to resist responding to the claims that the Bible is full of "contradictions." I should have done it in this instance as well, as this discussion has taken us far off topic. I will try in the future to refrain from discussing alleged contradictions unless someone creates a topic for it.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Can I ask you this again please?
Written by: Sym
Patriarch, where do you learn about evolution? have you read any books on it?
Can I ask you this again please?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Actually in the KJV verses 18/19 (which are different from what I earlier posted) it doesn't say that the animals were already existing. But hey, I'll not derail this thread by making you come up with explainations for the long list of contradictions in the Bible.
Written by: Patriarch917
You are still presuming that Gen 2 is a separate account of creation. By this assumption, Genesis 2 says that the sun and fish were never created.
If you read Genesis 2 as a description of the beginning of man, in the context of creation in general, it makes a lot more sense.
Your contradictory lists of “order” have two major problems:
1. It fails to recognize the difference between the creation of plants, and the planting of the specific trees in the Garden of Eden. Vs. 8 and 9 are not the creation of plants in general, but just the growing of the Garden.
2. Your list wrongly states that birds and land animals were created after Adam. Verse 19 says that God had formed them previously, and then brought them to Adam after Adam had been made. This is in agreement with the order of creation in Chapter 1. Then God made Eve. This detailed description is in harmony with the general description of creation found in Chapter 1.
Again, your errors stem from the misconception that Chapter 2 is another account of creation. Verse 4 states that it is an account of when they were created.
The account is clear. The effort to find a contradiction when none actually exists in the text is what has made it complicated. I have tried previously to resist responding to the claims that the Bible is full of "contradictions." I should have done it in this instance as well, as this discussion has taken us far off topic. I will try in the future to refrain from discussing alleged contradictions unless someone creates a topic for it.
Actually in the KJV verses 18/19 (which are different from what I earlier posted) it doesn't say that the animals were already existing. But hey, I'll not derail this thread by making you come up with explainations for the long list of contradictions in the Bible.
"Moo," said the happy cow.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I learned about evolution in school, college, and self study. Yes, I have read books on it.
Written by: SymWritten by: Sym
Patriarch, where do you learn about evolution? have you read any books on it?
Can I ask you this again please?
I learned about evolution in school, college, and self study. Yes, I have read books on it.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Ok, ok, just once more. The KJV translates "yaw-tsar" (to mold into a form, create) as "formed." The word "formed" is in the past tense, which was sufficient for the way English was spoken at the time the KJV was made. In modern English, we would prefer to have another word to signify whether God "then formed" or whether he "had formed" the animals. The goal, as I remember, is to convey the "pluperfect" form of the word. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but the best scholars today who produce modern translations either render it as "had formed" or put a footnote explaining it.
Even if, however, we were to accept your reading of the KJV, this would still not be an actual contradiction. Just has God had created plants in general earlier, and then made the Garden of Eden grow in particular, He could also have made the animals in general earlier, then just making these individual animals in particlar to bring to Adam as representatives of the rest of the animals in the world. This would be the conclusion if your interpretation of the word was followed, since it is unreasonable to think that God created and then brought every animal in the world to Adam.
Still, the best explanation is that the modern translators of the NIV did a better job of conveying the meaning of the Hebrew in modern English. Although old commentaries show that the KJV wording was understood in the same sense, I agree that the addition of the modifier "had" does a better job of conveying the meaning intended.
I would note that a much more debateable issue is whether in chapter 1 the earth "was void" or whether it "became void." Suggestions of a pre-adamic world are purely speculative, but interesting to consider.
Written by: spiralx
Actually in the KJV verses 18/19 (which are different from what I earlier posted) it doesn't say that the animals were already existing. But hey, I'll not derail this thread by making you come up with explainations for the long list of contradictions in the Bible.
Ok, ok, just once more. The KJV translates "yaw-tsar" (to mold into a form, create) as "formed." The word "formed" is in the past tense, which was sufficient for the way English was spoken at the time the KJV was made. In modern English, we would prefer to have another word to signify whether God "then formed" or whether he "had formed" the animals. The goal, as I remember, is to convey the "pluperfect" form of the word. I'm no Hebrew scholar, but the best scholars today who produce modern translations either render it as "had formed" or put a footnote explaining it.
Even if, however, we were to accept your reading of the KJV, this would still not be an actual contradiction. Just has God had created plants in general earlier, and then made the Garden of Eden grow in particular, He could also have made the animals in general earlier, then just making these individual animals in particlar to bring to Adam as representatives of the rest of the animals in the world. This would be the conclusion if your interpretation of the word was followed, since it is unreasonable to think that God created and then brought every animal in the world to Adam.
Still, the best explanation is that the modern translators of the NIV did a better job of conveying the meaning of the Hebrew in modern English. Although old commentaries show that the KJV wording was understood in the same sense, I agree that the addition of the modifier "had" does a better job of conveying the meaning intended.
I would note that a much more debateable issue is whether in chapter 1 the earth "was void" or whether it "became void." Suggestions of a pre-adamic world are purely speculative, but interesting to consider.
BRONZE Member
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
veteran
1,453 posts
Location: Lancs England
Posted:
but why this book and not any other where is the authenticity to it
but why this book and not any other where is the authenticity to it
before i met those lot i thought they'd be a bunch of dreadlocked hippies that smoked, set things on fire ,and drank a lot of tea but then when i met them....oh wait (PyroWill)
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Patriarch917, don’t you think it’s time to let this Intelligent Dishonesty go?
The bible is not a history book and most Christian don’t believe the fables that comes out of the Center for Science and Culture because they lack any understanding of biological processes.
Furthermore, the CSC is part of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank founded by fundamentalists in the early 1990s, in the United States.
Patriarch917, don’t you think it’s time to let this Intelligent Dishonesty go?
The bible is not a history book and most Christian don’t believe the fables that comes out of the Center for Science and Culture because they lack any understanding of biological processes.
Furthermore, the CSC is part of the Discovery Institute, a conservative Christian think tank founded by fundamentalists in the early 1990s, in the United States.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Again, what is your definition of genetic information?
Again, what is your definition of genetic information?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
UnNatural Scientist - Currently working on a Breville-legged monkey
757 posts
Location: Bath Uni or Shrewsbury, UK
Posted:
Rather a good article
Rather a good article
Give me a lever long enough and a place to stand and I can beat the world into submission.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Here's a quote from wikipedia on genetics:
"Within organisms, genetic information generally is carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA molecules.
Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing the amino-acid sequences in proteins, which in turn play a large role in determining the final phenotype, or physical appearance, of the organism."
The arrangment of the atoms in DNA can be thought of (simplistically) as letters forming words. Those words then describe the functions of the organism. Just as the letters I am typing can be thought of as representing thoughts, sounds, pictures, etc., the genes can be thought of as describing an organism.
If we know the code, we can distingish between useful information and nonsense. Someone who can read english can tell the difference between a string of letters that means something, and a string of letters that is nonsense.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Again, what is your definition of genetic information?
Here's a quote from wikipedia on genetics:
"Within organisms, genetic information generally is carried in chromosomes, where it is represented in the chemical structure of particular DNA molecules.
Genes encode the information necessary for synthesizing the amino-acid sequences in proteins, which in turn play a large role in determining the final phenotype, or physical appearance, of the organism."
The arrangment of the atoms in DNA can be thought of (simplistically) as letters forming words. Those words then describe the functions of the organism. Just as the letters I am typing can be thought of as representing thoughts, sounds, pictures, etc., the genes can be thought of as describing an organism.
If we know the code, we can distingish between useful information and nonsense. Someone who can read english can tell the difference between a string of letters that means something, and a string of letters that is nonsense.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Then by that definition genetic information is added all the time. In the case of nylonase an enzyme is gained from the mutation of an existing one but the lost one is quickly regained by bacterial conjuctation and plasmid swapping, resulting in an increase of one entirly new and novel gene.
However it is a common creationist argument based on a misunderstanding of information theory that information cannot be added except by an intelligent designer (like a human or god).
Here's an entire page full of article on the subject. It includes a page on the Nylonase, but the arguement against are full of non-truths and makes claims that have been thourally disproven. The arguements they use were pulled apart in the link to the Nylonase bacterium I provided earlier.
Something doesn't add up here...
Then by that definition genetic information is added all the time. In the case of nylonase an enzyme is gained from the mutation of an existing one but the lost one is quickly regained by bacterial conjuctation and plasmid swapping, resulting in an increase of one entirly new and novel gene.
However it is a common creationist argument based on a misunderstanding of information theory that information cannot be added except by an intelligent designer (like a human or god).
Here's an entire page full of article on the subject. It includes a page on the Nylonase, but the arguement against are full of non-truths and makes claims that have been thourally disproven. The arguements they use were pulled apart in the link to the Nylonase bacterium I provided earlier.
Something doesn't add up here...
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
You are mistaken in thinking that Creationists argue that “information cannot be added except by an intelligent designer.”
Tossing handfuls of magnetic letters towards a refrigerator is a random way of generating information. The majority of the “information” will be meaningless. Occasionally, letter may fall into a meaningful pattern, spelling out a word. In theory, it is possible to have all of the letters fall into a meaningful pattern of words that will form a sentence. In theory, it is possible for an entire book’s worth of information to be randomly show up if enough letters are jumbled together for long enough.
However, even meaningful information is not enough by itself. What we want (in an organism’s DNA) is information that describes the functions of a cell that can live and reproduce in the present environment. Meaningful information is not enough, we need applicable information.
Natural selection wipes out even meaningful information that is not applicable. If a human zygote were to form by chance in the ocean, it would be a great set of meaningful information, but it would not be applicable information. It would still die because it would be in the wrong environment.
What we have in the spontaneous generation of life is comparable to a person asking “What color is the sky” and throwing magnetic letters at a refrigerator. The letters fall by chance, and the person looks to see whether a correct answer has been formed. If the letters come up with the word “red,” we would say that the answer is meaningful, but incorrect. If the letters fall into the pattern “you are a noob,” we would say that this is a very meaningful response, but it still doesn’t apply correctly to the situation.
In the creation of an organism, the environment can be thought of as asking a question. Nonliving molecules arrange themselves by chance. When they organize into nonsense, they do not live and reproduce. When they organize into forms of life that could otherwise live and reproduce, but not in this particular environment, they are destroyed. Even when they are perfectly able to reproduce and live in the environment, an accident may still destroy them, or the population may live for a while and go extinct.
Even if you believe all of this could happen, it does not follow that it has happened. A monkey banging on a typewriter could write a recipe for brownies upon request, but this has never happened. In fact, the odds against it suggest that it may never happen.
As you can see, the argument is not over whether the random generation of information is possible, but whether it is the best explanation for the presence of the information that we see. We can see cookbooks full of recipes, but we do not expect everyone to believe the theory that they were made by monkeys, just because it is a remote statistical possibility.
It is certainly disputed whether the earth could ever have had conditions that would have allowed life to develop by chance, but even if we accept for the sake of argument that it was possible, it does not follow that this explanation is the best one.
I do not dispute that useful, applicable information can be generated by chance. I dispute that this mechanism is the best explanation for the presence of useful information.
Here’s another example. Spend enough time outdoors in the U.S., and you are liable to find a flint arrowhead.
Non-Https Image Link
For the most part, there is nothing particularly special about them. They are just peculiarly shaped rocks. Nothing unnatural has happened to them. They have simply been chipped away by some force into a form that happens to be useful for a particular purpose.
Two theories exist as to how these “arrowheads” formed. One is that they are simply random shapes of rocks. One is that they were intelligently designed.
I have seen a guy take a piece of flint and whack it with a deer antler to make an “arrowhead.” To me, this shows that such “arrowheads” may have been formed when deer rubbed their heads against rocks, perhaps to scratch an itch. Alternatively, rockslides, falling sticks, or hail may have also played some part in the formation of these “arrowheads.” As you can see, it is entirely possible to believe they are merely evolved rocks.
I have a collection of such rocks. Some people have suggested that the rocks were made for some purpose by some intelligent designers. They can’t prove it, of course. They weren’t around back then to see it done. They have books that say it happened, but why should I believe the books? The only real evidence they have is the rocks themselves. The experiments I have seen prove that natural processes are capable of making the rocks, so even if “intelligent designers” did exist who used these rocks for arrowheads, I theorize that they simply found them laying on the ground like I did, rather then making them themselves.
Is this theory of the evolution of arrowheads scientifically valid? Almost certainly. It explains the evidence we found using natural processes, chance, and time. Is it widely accepted by the public? No, but neither is the evolution of life. Is it correct? I think not, but I can’t provide indisputable evidence that they were intelligently designed. Someone who believes they came about by chance can probably always find a way to doubt the evidence for design.
Is it more parsimonious to believe that a solved Rubik’s cube was solved intelligently? Certainly so. Is it possible for one to be solved randomly? Absolutely, we even know the odds.
Both intelligent design and chance are scientifically valid, possible explanations for the presence of life. Which one is correct is virtually impossible to prove at this time. Thus, some people choose to believe one, and some choose to believe the other. I would tell children about both possibilities, and let them decide for themselves.
You are mistaken in thinking that Creationists argue that “information cannot be added except by an intelligent designer.”
Tossing handfuls of magnetic letters towards a refrigerator is a random way of generating information. The majority of the “information” will be meaningless. Occasionally, letter may fall into a meaningful pattern, spelling out a word. In theory, it is possible to have all of the letters fall into a meaningful pattern of words that will form a sentence. In theory, it is possible for an entire book’s worth of information to be randomly show up if enough letters are jumbled together for long enough.
However, even meaningful information is not enough by itself. What we want (in an organism’s DNA) is information that describes the functions of a cell that can live and reproduce in the present environment. Meaningful information is not enough, we need applicable information.
Natural selection wipes out even meaningful information that is not applicable. If a human zygote were to form by chance in the ocean, it would be a great set of meaningful information, but it would not be applicable information. It would still die because it would be in the wrong environment.
What we have in the spontaneous generation of life is comparable to a person asking “What color is the sky” and throwing magnetic letters at a refrigerator. The letters fall by chance, and the person looks to see whether a correct answer has been formed. If the letters come up with the word “red,” we would say that the answer is meaningful, but incorrect. If the letters fall into the pattern “you are a noob,” we would say that this is a very meaningful response, but it still doesn’t apply correctly to the situation.
In the creation of an organism, the environment can be thought of as asking a question. Nonliving molecules arrange themselves by chance. When they organize into nonsense, they do not live and reproduce. When they organize into forms of life that could otherwise live and reproduce, but not in this particular environment, they are destroyed. Even when they are perfectly able to reproduce and live in the environment, an accident may still destroy them, or the population may live for a while and go extinct.
Even if you believe all of this could happen, it does not follow that it has happened. A monkey banging on a typewriter could write a recipe for brownies upon request, but this has never happened. In fact, the odds against it suggest that it may never happen.
As you can see, the argument is not over whether the random generation of information is possible, but whether it is the best explanation for the presence of the information that we see. We can see cookbooks full of recipes, but we do not expect everyone to believe the theory that they were made by monkeys, just because it is a remote statistical possibility.
It is certainly disputed whether the earth could ever have had conditions that would have allowed life to develop by chance, but even if we accept for the sake of argument that it was possible, it does not follow that this explanation is the best one.
I do not dispute that useful, applicable information can be generated by chance. I dispute that this mechanism is the best explanation for the presence of useful information.
Here’s another example. Spend enough time outdoors in the U.S., and you are liable to find a flint arrowhead.
Non-Https Image Link
For the most part, there is nothing particularly special about them. They are just peculiarly shaped rocks. Nothing unnatural has happened to them. They have simply been chipped away by some force into a form that happens to be useful for a particular purpose.
Two theories exist as to how these “arrowheads” formed. One is that they are simply random shapes of rocks. One is that they were intelligently designed.
I have seen a guy take a piece of flint and whack it with a deer antler to make an “arrowhead.” To me, this shows that such “arrowheads” may have been formed when deer rubbed their heads against rocks, perhaps to scratch an itch. Alternatively, rockslides, falling sticks, or hail may have also played some part in the formation of these “arrowheads.” As you can see, it is entirely possible to believe they are merely evolved rocks.
I have a collection of such rocks. Some people have suggested that the rocks were made for some purpose by some intelligent designers. They can’t prove it, of course. They weren’t around back then to see it done. They have books that say it happened, but why should I believe the books? The only real evidence they have is the rocks themselves. The experiments I have seen prove that natural processes are capable of making the rocks, so even if “intelligent designers” did exist who used these rocks for arrowheads, I theorize that they simply found them laying on the ground like I did, rather then making them themselves.
Is this theory of the evolution of arrowheads scientifically valid? Almost certainly. It explains the evidence we found using natural processes, chance, and time. Is it widely accepted by the public? No, but neither is the evolution of life. Is it correct? I think not, but I can’t provide indisputable evidence that they were intelligently designed. Someone who believes they came about by chance can probably always find a way to doubt the evidence for design.
Is it more parsimonious to believe that a solved Rubik’s cube was solved intelligently? Certainly so. Is it possible for one to be solved randomly? Absolutely, we even know the odds.
Both intelligent design and chance are scientifically valid, possible explanations for the presence of life. Which one is correct is virtually impossible to prove at this time. Thus, some people choose to believe one, and some choose to believe the other. I would tell children about both possibilities, and let them decide for themselves.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Do you have some kind of block by which it becomes impossible for you to understand the difference between evolution and chance?
We have explained it very clearly on a large number of occassions yet you still persist in this fallacy. Why is that?
Do you have some kind of block by which it becomes impossible for you to understand the difference between evolution and chance?
We have explained it very clearly on a large number of occassions yet you still persist in this fallacy. Why is that?
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
Forget puppy power, Scrappy's just gay
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
632 posts
Location: Southampton Uni
Posted:
Your Arrowheads conundrum in analogous to William Paley's watch, the creationist argument that first reared its head in 1802, well before Wallace came up with the idea of the mutability of species. As such, it is an idea that has been knocked down more times that I can possibly count, and is not worth responding to.
Arrowhead is to watch as batwing is to eye, Patriarch. You are using 200 year old arguments that predate the theory you seek to lower to the level of a hypothesis based on the ideas of a man-written book that serves as a moral story, history and law book primarily, the word of which you take as truth, ignoring the blatent contradictions, editing and mistranslations.
So, in seeking to prove that Evolution is as unscientific as Creationism, you betray your own beliefs as incomplete, selective and, from my perspective, arrogant. My apologies, that's not meant as an insult, rather, I mean that you come across as so totally convinced of your own beliefs you ignore the work of biblical scholars and replace their findings that're based on research, years of work and peer review with your own beliefs.
It is this last part that seals your fate. If you cannot be scientific about the book that you claim is fact, then you cannot be scientific about your claims against Evolution. Thus, again, we show that the initial point is correct, ID and Creationism should not be taught in a science class room.
Your Arrowheads conundrum in analogous to William Paley's watch, the creationist argument that first reared its head in 1802, well before Wallace came up with the idea of the mutability of species. As such, it is an idea that has been knocked down more times that I can possibly count, and is not worth responding to.
Arrowhead is to watch as batwing is to eye, Patriarch. You are using 200 year old arguments that predate the theory you seek to lower to the level of a hypothesis based on the ideas of a man-written book that serves as a moral story, history and law book primarily, the word of which you take as truth, ignoring the blatent contradictions, editing and mistranslations.
So, in seeking to prove that Evolution is as unscientific as Creationism, you betray your own beliefs as incomplete, selective and, from my perspective, arrogant. My apologies, that's not meant as an insult, rather, I mean that you come across as so totally convinced of your own beliefs you ignore the work of biblical scholars and replace their findings that're based on research, years of work and peer review with your own beliefs.
It is this last part that seals your fate. If you cannot be scientific about the book that you claim is fact, then you cannot be scientific about your claims against Evolution. Thus, again, we show that the initial point is correct, ID and Creationism should not be taught in a science class room.
Spin, bounce, be one with the world, because it is yours to enjoy...
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
to you both
EDITED_BY: Sym (1142367233)
to you bothEDITED_BY: Sym (1142367233)
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Patriarch, you amaze me in the way you can miss the point of evolution and ignore what others have said to suit your needs!
The points about letters in the sea, Rubik’s cube and magnetic letters and so on are very true. If you were to randomly attempt to make a fully working life form by randomly assembling molecules there is a very strong chance that you would end up with something that isn’t alive. I think every person on earth must agree (although there is bound to be an old book written by some guy who thinks otherwise – with it’s loyal following to boot).
If you actually knew anything at all about evolution (and by that I mean what anyone would take away from reading pop-science books like the blind watchmaker – I can’t vouch for school education as I haven’t been to school) then you would know it is not chance at all – far from it!
Oddly enough I have been listening to a podcast(1) where the interviewee Daniel Dennett talks about religion evolving like a virus using humans as a vector. Dawkins has a similar essay called ‘Viruses of the mind’ (2).
Patriarch, Can I ask if you have read anything by Dawkins? He really does a good job at explaining what evolution is and how it works. I think ‘The blind watchmaker’ would be a good start for you as it addresses the confusion about chance and design that you have.
1. https://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=39
2. https://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
Patriarch, you amaze me in the way you can miss the point of evolution and ignore what others have said to suit your needs!
The points about letters in the sea, Rubik’s cube and magnetic letters and so on are very true. If you were to randomly attempt to make a fully working life form by randomly assembling molecules there is a very strong chance that you would end up with something that isn’t alive. I think every person on earth must agree (although there is bound to be an old book written by some guy who thinks otherwise – with it’s loyal following to boot).
If you actually knew anything at all about evolution (and by that I mean what anyone would take away from reading pop-science books like the blind watchmaker – I can’t vouch for school education as I haven’t been to school) then you would know it is not chance at all – far from it!
Oddly enough I have been listening to a podcast(1) where the interviewee Daniel Dennett talks about religion evolving like a virus using humans as a vector. Dawkins has a similar essay called ‘Viruses of the mind’ (2).
Patriarch, Can I ask if you have read anything by Dawkins? He really does a good job at explaining what evolution is and how it works. I think ‘The blind watchmaker’ would be a good start for you as it addresses the confusion about chance and design that you have.
1. https://www.pointofinquiry.org/?p=39
2. https://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
I'm not sure what your problem is with the idea that life has evolved by chance. If life wasn't created by chance, then it was created on purpose. A central tenant of modern evolutionary theory is that the mutations which generate the new characteristics of living organisms occur by chance, not by some design or for some purpose. It is true that most people (at least in America) who believe in evolution don't believe that evolution happens by chance, but believe that it is directed by God. However, naturalistic evolutionary theory teaches otherwise. Consider this quote from an educational web site produced by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education:
"Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18
It defines "random" as: "Unpredictable in some way. Mutations are "random" in the sense that the sort of mutation that occurs cannot generally be predicted based upon the needs of the organism."
Naturalistic evolution attributes the creation of information to chance, not to some designer. No one looked at the environment, decided what the first organism needed, and then coded that information in the DNA. The information was put there without a plan or a purpose. The majority of attempts probably failed, but one random set of information happened to be meaningful and useful enough to describe the functions of a living organism that could survive in the environment.
Even if you do not think that evolution is occurring by chance, it is worth my time to discuss because plenty of other people do. For example, the Humanist Manifesto III states that humans are "the result of unguided evolutionary change." The idea that we are the product of chance processes, not designed ones, is the crucial difference between evolution and ID. If you take away they idea that evolution is occurring by chance, you are left with the option that it is occurring for some purpose.
The idea that chance, not God, is responsible for life is central to naturalistic evolution. If you want, I could provide you with pages of quotes to that effect, such as this one from Jacques Monad, an evolutionary biochemists and Nobel Prize winner:
"We call these events [mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere."
Of course, strictly speaking nothing occurs by "chance" (at least in Newtonian physics). One can say that everything is determined by the laws of physics. Thus, from the moment the universe was created it was "inevitable" that I would be typing this. This is true, but it is based on a different meaning of the word. Naturalism posits that the universe was not created with the purpose of having us exist, but rather was created with no plan in mind. Thus, we occurred by "chance."
To drop it to a simpler level, we can imagine a singe mutation in a gene. We can say "this mutation did not occur by chance, it occurred because radiation hit it." We can then go look at the source to see whether that radiation was fired with the intention of causing the mutation (fired by scientists in a lab, for instance), or whether it mutation was not an intended consequence (the radiation came from the sun, and the sun didn't care whether it was causing a mutation or not).
We can take this further, and asks whether the scientists (or the sun) intended this mutation. It is possible to intentionally cause a mutation, but to have no intention as to the purpose of that mutation. Thus, even an intelligent actor can be thought of as creating random information. When I whack a rock with a hammer just for the heck of it, the result is different from when Michelangelo carved statues. One produce a random result, the other produces a designed one.
Naturalistic evolution posits that the creation of life was a random event. It occurred by chance, not on purpose. Furthermore, the mutations that have added all of the subsequent information to that chance arrangement in the original life form also occurred by chance. Organisms do not mutate for the purpose of becoming better adapted to the environment. They mutate whether it will make them better or not.
I have read articles by evolutionists proclaiming that evolution is not occurring "by chance." Usually, it is admitted that the information is generated by chance mutations, but Natural Selection is appealed to as a force which "directs" evolution. Remember, however, that natural selection is not a disputed issue. Both creationists, ID advocates, and evolutionists agree on the role of natural selection. It destroys informatio that is not suitable to the environment.
One cannot appeal to natural selection as having a role in the generation of the information, however. Natural selection does not tell how to create a good organism, it simply kills bad ones. In Naturalistic Evolution, the mechanism that generates the information is not looking at the outside environment and trying to come up with a solution. It is generating random solutions, and the outside environment is eliminating them.
Can such a method produce the meaningful, useful information coded in the genes of the first living organism, (along with all of the other parts of the organism at the same time)? If we assume that conditions could exist which would allow these parts to come together without being destroyed, we can say that it is possible, and even try to calculate the odds.
Is this the best explanation for life as we know it? Opinions diverge.
One can dispute over the meaning of the words "chance" and "design," which is why I like to describe by analogy rather than with labels. Both evolution and creation agree that natural selection did not create life, it could only destroy it. One can correctly state that the underlying dispute between naturalistic evolution and creation is whether life was produced by chance, or by design.
Written by: jeff(fake)
Do you have some kind of block by which it becomes impossible for you to understand the difference between evolution and chance?
We have explained it very clearly on a large number of occassions yet you still persist in this fallacy. Why is that?
I'm not sure what your problem is with the idea that life has evolved by chance. If life wasn't created by chance, then it was created on purpose. A central tenant of modern evolutionary theory is that the mutations which generate the new characteristics of living organisms occur by chance, not by some design or for some purpose. It is true that most people (at least in America) who believe in evolution don't believe that evolution happens by chance, but believe that it is directed by God. However, naturalistic evolutionary theory teaches otherwise. Consider this quote from an educational web site produced by the University of California Museum of Paleontology and the National Center for Science Education:
"Mutations are random
Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be."
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_18
It defines "random" as: "Unpredictable in some way. Mutations are "random" in the sense that the sort of mutation that occurs cannot generally be predicted based upon the needs of the organism."
Naturalistic evolution attributes the creation of information to chance, not to some designer. No one looked at the environment, decided what the first organism needed, and then coded that information in the DNA. The information was put there without a plan or a purpose. The majority of attempts probably failed, but one random set of information happened to be meaningful and useful enough to describe the functions of a living organism that could survive in the environment.
Even if you do not think that evolution is occurring by chance, it is worth my time to discuss because plenty of other people do. For example, the Humanist Manifesto III states that humans are "the result of unguided evolutionary change." The idea that we are the product of chance processes, not designed ones, is the crucial difference between evolution and ID. If you take away they idea that evolution is occurring by chance, you are left with the option that it is occurring for some purpose.
The idea that chance, not God, is responsible for life is central to naturalistic evolution. If you want, I could provide you with pages of quotes to that effect, such as this one from Jacques Monad, an evolutionary biochemists and Nobel Prize winner:
"We call these events [mutations] accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere."
Of course, strictly speaking nothing occurs by "chance" (at least in Newtonian physics). One can say that everything is determined by the laws of physics. Thus, from the moment the universe was created it was "inevitable" that I would be typing this. This is true, but it is based on a different meaning of the word. Naturalism posits that the universe was not created with the purpose of having us exist, but rather was created with no plan in mind. Thus, we occurred by "chance."
To drop it to a simpler level, we can imagine a singe mutation in a gene. We can say "this mutation did not occur by chance, it occurred because radiation hit it." We can then go look at the source to see whether that radiation was fired with the intention of causing the mutation (fired by scientists in a lab, for instance), or whether it mutation was not an intended consequence (the radiation came from the sun, and the sun didn't care whether it was causing a mutation or not).
We can take this further, and asks whether the scientists (or the sun) intended this mutation. It is possible to intentionally cause a mutation, but to have no intention as to the purpose of that mutation. Thus, even an intelligent actor can be thought of as creating random information. When I whack a rock with a hammer just for the heck of it, the result is different from when Michelangelo carved statues. One produce a random result, the other produces a designed one.
Naturalistic evolution posits that the creation of life was a random event. It occurred by chance, not on purpose. Furthermore, the mutations that have added all of the subsequent information to that chance arrangement in the original life form also occurred by chance. Organisms do not mutate for the purpose of becoming better adapted to the environment. They mutate whether it will make them better or not.
I have read articles by evolutionists proclaiming that evolution is not occurring "by chance." Usually, it is admitted that the information is generated by chance mutations, but Natural Selection is appealed to as a force which "directs" evolution. Remember, however, that natural selection is not a disputed issue. Both creationists, ID advocates, and evolutionists agree on the role of natural selection. It destroys informatio that is not suitable to the environment.
One cannot appeal to natural selection as having a role in the generation of the information, however. Natural selection does not tell how to create a good organism, it simply kills bad ones. In Naturalistic Evolution, the mechanism that generates the information is not looking at the outside environment and trying to come up with a solution. It is generating random solutions, and the outside environment is eliminating them.
Can such a method produce the meaningful, useful information coded in the genes of the first living organism, (along with all of the other parts of the organism at the same time)? If we assume that conditions could exist which would allow these parts to come together without being destroyed, we can say that it is possible, and even try to calculate the odds.
Is this the best explanation for life as we know it? Opinions diverge.
One can dispute over the meaning of the words "chance" and "design," which is why I like to describe by analogy rather than with labels. Both evolution and creation agree that natural selection did not create life, it could only destroy it. One can correctly state that the underlying dispute between naturalistic evolution and creation is whether life was produced by chance, or by design.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I disagree:
According to that, ID doesn't accept natural selection (IE Darwin).
The point about chance is right. The mutations do happen by chance, but that is a very long way from saying that life and all the other things that people bring up like the eye happend by chance. They did not - they came about by natural selection working on random mutations.
You are very close to understanding the theory, but you have to extend it to include natural selection working on the mutations.
I really think you should read the blind watchmaker - as I said before - it's a very good book and it covers everything we're talking about in much more depth than I could in a post.
Written by:
I have read articles by evolutionists proclaiming that evolution is not occurring "by chance." Usually, it is admitted that the information is generated by chance mutations, but Natural Selection is appealed to as a force which "directs" evolution. Remember, however, that natural selection is not a disputed issue. Both creationists, ID advocates, and evolutionists agree on the role of natural selection. It destroys informatio that is not suitable to the environment.
I disagree:
Written by: wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
According to that, ID doesn't accept natural selection (IE Darwin).
The point about chance is right. The mutations do happen by chance, but that is a very long way from saying that life and all the other things that people bring up like the eye happend by chance. They did not - they came about by natural selection working on random mutations.
You are very close to understanding the theory, but you have to extend it to include natural selection working on the mutations.
I really think you should read the blind watchmaker - as I said before - it's a very good book and it covers everything we're talking about in much more depth than I could in a post.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
Mutations occur by chance, but natural selection works on them in a non-random manner. Evolution is the combination of these two effects, so chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution is not chance.
Now I've already shown how something vastly improbable can come about by a combination of chance and selection, but there has still never been any evidence for the existance of God. So any 'theory' that proposes God as a ceneral tenant is severely lacking.
Bring us God, till then Intelligent design is baseless.
Mutations occur by chance, but natural selection works on them in a non-random manner. Evolution is the combination of these two effects, so chance plays a role in evolution, but evolution is not chance.
Now I've already shown how something vastly improbable can come about by a combination of chance and selection, but there has still never been any evidence for the existance of God. So any 'theory' that proposes God as a ceneral tenant is severely lacking.
Bring us God, till then Intelligent design is baseless.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
veteran
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
1,376 posts
Location: London, UK
Posted:
Drudwyn put it very well; Patriarch917, you are now just doing nothing but raising strawman arguments to support your cause. At the start of this debate it could be excused as ignorance; now it is obviously just either stupidity or (as I think more likely) a deliberate attempt to slip away from all of the arguments that have knocked everything you've said down.
Religion as a concept or as a personal belief I have no problem in; your brand of deliberate ignorance I think goes against everything that makes us human, I genuinely find it distresssing to think that people *want* to be that ignorant
Drudwyn put it very well; Patriarch917, you are now just doing nothing but raising strawman arguments to support your cause. At the start of this debate it could be excused as ignorance; now it is obviously just either stupidity or (as I think more likely) a deliberate attempt to slip away from all of the arguments that have knocked everything you've said down.
Religion as a concept or as a personal belief I have no problem in; your brand of deliberate ignorance I think goes against everything that makes us human, I genuinely find it distresssing to think that people *want* to be that ignorant
"Moo," said the happy cow.
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Your interpretation is incorrect. It is not natural selection that is disputed. Natural selection is a current, observable feature of our world.
Natural selection is accepted. What is not accepted is the idea that natural selection is the best explanation for certain features of life.
I'm sure you can see the difference. You may accept natural selection as existing and playing a part in nature, but not consider it the best explanation for poodles.
I have always affirmed the nonrandom role of natural selection. Remember my example with the blind man trying to solve the Rubik's cube? Natural selection was the guy sitting across from him who would look at the cube and say whether it had been solved or not.
Natural selection acts as a filter that destroys bad information but lets good information reproduce. Under the theory of evolution, however, the information is produced by chance.
Since natural selection is not able to influence the information until after it is created, massive amounts of random information is thought to be produced, with the occasional good one.
None of this is "disputed" as being impossible in theory. What is disputed is whether this is the best explanation for life as we know it.
Written by: SymWritten by:
I have read articles by evolutionists proclaiming that evolution is not occurring "by chance." Usually, it is admitted that the information is generated by chance mutations, but Natural Selection is appealed to as a force which "directs" evolution. Remember, however, that natural selection is not a disputed issue. Both creationists, ID advocates, and evolutionists agree on the role of natural selection. It destroys informatio that is not suitable to the environment.
I disagree:Written by: wikipedia
Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."[1] Its leading proponents, all of whom are affiliated with the Discovery Institute[2], say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the origin of life.[3]
According to that, ID doesn't accept natural selection (IE Darwin).
Your interpretation is incorrect. It is not natural selection that is disputed. Natural selection is a current, observable feature of our world.
Natural selection is accepted. What is not accepted is the idea that natural selection is the best explanation for certain features of life.
I'm sure you can see the difference. You may accept natural selection as existing and playing a part in nature, but not consider it the best explanation for poodles.
I have always affirmed the nonrandom role of natural selection. Remember my example with the blind man trying to solve the Rubik's cube? Natural selection was the guy sitting across from him who would look at the cube and say whether it had been solved or not.
Natural selection acts as a filter that destroys bad information but lets good information reproduce. Under the theory of evolution, however, the information is produced by chance.
Since natural selection is not able to influence the information until after it is created, massive amounts of random information is thought to be produced, with the occasional good one.
None of this is "disputed" as being impossible in theory. What is disputed is whether this is the best explanation for life as we know it.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
It require only phenomenon observable in the world today, and is thus highly parsimonious.
ID require a magic, supernatural being, which has never been observed and for which there is no evidence, and is thus vastly lacking.
It require only phenomenon observable in the world today, and is thus highly parsimonious.
ID require a magic, supernatural being, which has never been observed and for which there is no evidence, and is thus vastly lacking.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
In that case maybe you should change the wikipedia entery. I think it's a safe place to quote from as both sides have equial chance to edit it.
Yes, I remember. Do you remember my 'clay' post? The one you didn't respond to.
This is reductionist, inaccurate and misleading.
So where does the whole 'life is too complex to have come about though evolution alone' argument that ID supporters have come from then? Is this your view, or the view of ID supporters?
I'll say it again - you really should read the blind watchmaker. It covers everything here very well indeed.
Written by: Patriarch917
Your interpretation is incorrect. It is not natural selection that is disputed. Natural selection is a current, observable feature of our world.
Natural selection is accepted. What is not accepted is the idea that natural selection is the best explanation for certain features of life.
In that case maybe you should change the wikipedia entery. I think it's a safe place to quote from as both sides have equial chance to edit it.
Written by: Patriarch917
Remember my example with the blind man trying to solve the Rubik's cube? Natural selection was the guy sitting across from him who would look at the cube and say whether it had been solved or not.
Yes, I remember. Do you remember my 'clay' post? The one you didn't respond to.
Written by: Patriarch917
Natural selection acts as a filter that destroys bad information but lets good information reproduce. Under the theory of evolution, however, the information is produced by chance.
Since natural selection is not able to influence the information until after it is created, massive amounts of random information is thought to be produced, with the occasional good one.
This is reductionist, inaccurate and misleading.
Written by: Patriarch917
None of this is "disputed" as being impossible in theory. What is disputed is whether this is the best explanation for life as we know it.
So where does the whole 'life is too complex to have come about though evolution alone' argument that ID supporters have come from then? Is this your view, or the view of ID supporters?
I'll say it again - you really should read the blind watchmaker. It covers everything here very well indeed.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
The wikipedia entry does not need to be changed. It is correct quote from the Discovery institute. While perhaps the punctuation could be changed to make it more clear, the passage you quoted clearly says they dispute whether natural selection is the best explanation, not whether natural selection exists. Further reading of their literature will confirm this.
I do remember your clay post. I did not respond to it because it was a description of natural selection, not of information generation. Your example involving self replicating clay stated "if something changes in the form of the clay crystal for whatever reason" and then described how natural selection would favor a positive change and disfavor a negative one.
This was in response to my posts on randomly generating solved Rubik's cubes, in which I let a solved Rubik's cube represent something that had developed the ability to reproduce. To generate the solved Rubik's cube, I used a random method (someone wearing a blindfold). Once the right solution was achieved, natural selection would favor the solved one as being superior to the unsolved ones (it would live and become the first reproducing cube).
Your example assumed that reproduction had already been achieved by the clay, and mentioned in passing that changes were being made to the clay for "whatever reason." This was completely different from my example, which was an analogy of how the first reproducing life form was being developed. Moreover, the whole point was to determine whether it seemed more reasonable to think that force generating the changes that eventually produced the solved Rubik's was an intelligent or a random one.
Jeff made similar changes to the analogy. While my example let a solved Rubik's cube represent the first ability to reproduce, he let cubes with "correct vertices" reproduce, and also decided that they were more superior than those without. The basic gist of what he was trying to do was to break something that had high odds against it into smaller steps, and then increasing the opportunities for those small steps to be accomplished. This shifting of probability was muddled by allowing the "storing" of good results (which I shall explain in a moment), but the effect of breaking a probability up into small steps does not change the probability.
The jump from unsolved Rubik's cubes to at least one solved Rubik's cube can be made in a single step by generating about 43 quintillion random cubes at the same time. It can also be made in a series of small steps by making random turns on a single cube about 43 quintillion times. Between these two extremes, you can pick any combination of cubes and turns that you like. It doesn't matter whether you take it in one step or many, however, the probability remains the same.
However, jeff obscured this by allowing in between stages to "store" their results, and reproduce a new population. Since our goal was reproduction in the first place, you can see how important this change was. The effect was to drop the odds against achieving reproduction down to a much lower number.
This can be done much more simply, by either increasing the population of cubes to 43 quintillion, or using something that actually had a much higher probability of occurring. For example, he could have said that a flipped coin which lands on heads has achieved reproduction. The odds of achieving reproduction would then be 50/50.
What was the purpose of lowering the probability against reproduction? Reproduction makes it easier to achieve the goal of solving a Rubik's cube. However, if only a solved Rubik's cube can reproduce, this will not help you. Like the clay analogy, this ended up describing natural selection of reproducing organisms, not the generation of the information needed to make the first reproducing organism.
A further difference was added: the ability to "store results." This allowed "close" results (semi-solutions) to be built upon. Once a "semi-solved" mark was reached, the entire population of cubes was changed to a "semi-solved" state, and subsequent random turns were only allowed to alter the non-solved portions of the cube. However, this is not how natural selection works. Natural selection will not tell you what parts are getting close and should be left alone. Even if a cube is just one turn away from being solved, the next turn will still be random. Thus, there is a higher probability that it will mess up the "almost-solved" cube, rather than solving it.
I will not use his example directly because it is unwieldy and the numbers are off. Instead, let us imagine two six sided dice. Assume, for a minute, that our dice are capable of reproducing. Now they want to be able to digest food. In order to digest food, the dice must have the number 6 face up.
On our first roll, the odds of getting a 6 are three against one. We happen to get a 1 and a 3. Following jeff's Rubik's cube analogy, the 3 would be seen as closer to six than 1. Therefore, the 1 dies and the 3 reproduces. We now have two dice showing the number 3.
You will perhaps object that the 3 will not be favored by natural selection, since it wasn't a 6. The 3 still can't digest! The 3 may be closer to 6 than 1, you might say, but only a 6 can digest the food.
This was valid when the goal was reproduction, since "almost reproducing" doesn't do us much good. However, let's pretend that 3 actually does allow partial digestion. Thus, the 1 completely starves to death, and the 3 makes it just long enough to reproduce.
Now a second round of random mutation takes place. We take both of the dice showing 3, and we roll them. What are the odds of getting a six this time? The answer is: the odds are the same. It doesn't matter that last time we got lucky and got partial digestion. This random roll will not consider how the previous roll did and adjust it's behavior.
The important thing to realize, however, is that natural selection doesn't care whether you got close last time either. The only difference is that you got another chance to try to make it, but your chances of getting a 1 and dying are still just as good as getting a 6 and being able to digest food.
What is the point? Natural selection doesn't encourage the random generation of good information. It just allows good information to exist once it is generated, and kills off bad information. The mechanism that generates the information is still random mutations, which do not learn from the past or look to the future.
The driving force behind evolution is not natural selection. It is random change. Natural selection merely filters out the bad changes from the good ones. Organisms do not learn from mistakes. They still make bad mutations and die off.
Thus, even if you assume a bunch of non-living chemicals constantly arranging themselves into DNA molecules and reproducing, the odds against getting useful DNA (and all the rest of the cell) do not change. Even if natural selection allowed "close" DNA to reproduce itself for some reason and take over the world, the odds of getting useful DNA from that aren't any better, the mutations will still be random and be more likely to destroy good functions than create additional new ones. We would have to give the DNA the ability to remember the bad choices and limit itself to making the ones that it hasn't yet tried in order to work through to the solution in small steps.
This is how a human solves a Rubik's cube, we remember what the cube used to look like unsolved, and we try new positions that we think will get us closer to the goal we have in mind. We can do this because we are intelligent.
Natural selection is not intelligent. It does not remind the chemicals of the bad past mutations they should avoid, and the good ones that they should leave alone. Neither does it inform them of a goal that they should strive for.
The theory that evolution occurs by chance increases in information, with the bad ones being eliminated by natural selection and the good ones being allowed to accumulate, is not a controversial idea to those who believe in naturalistic evolution. If you wish to distance yourself from it and take the position that God acts to encourage good mutations (theistic evolution), I can accept that.
I can also accept someone who says "all of the information needed for the generation of life occurred by chance." I understand that if you decide not to believe in God or some other intelligent creator, this is the only option left. While I may disagree that this is the best thing to believe in, I can certainly see why someone would end up accepting this, despite any odds against it.
I don't think I've even brought up the actual numbers against the origin of life. As Sym said "The maths doesn't matter, it's the point that matters." I could simply state the odds (according to scientists who believe in evolution) and ask disdainfully "how could you possibly believe that these odds could have been overcome on such a small planet in a mere billion or two years!?!" Such rhetoric is merely a backhanded insult, not an invitation to reason together. My goal is not to insult anyone for believing what they do, but merely to discuss and debate those beliefs.
The wikipedia entry does not need to be changed. It is correct quote from the Discovery institute. While perhaps the punctuation could be changed to make it more clear, the passage you quoted clearly says they dispute whether natural selection is the best explanation, not whether natural selection exists. Further reading of their literature will confirm this.
I do remember your clay post. I did not respond to it because it was a description of natural selection, not of information generation. Your example involving self replicating clay stated "if something changes in the form of the clay crystal for whatever reason" and then described how natural selection would favor a positive change and disfavor a negative one.
This was in response to my posts on randomly generating solved Rubik's cubes, in which I let a solved Rubik's cube represent something that had developed the ability to reproduce. To generate the solved Rubik's cube, I used a random method (someone wearing a blindfold). Once the right solution was achieved, natural selection would favor the solved one as being superior to the unsolved ones (it would live and become the first reproducing cube).
Your example assumed that reproduction had already been achieved by the clay, and mentioned in passing that changes were being made to the clay for "whatever reason." This was completely different from my example, which was an analogy of how the first reproducing life form was being developed. Moreover, the whole point was to determine whether it seemed more reasonable to think that force generating the changes that eventually produced the solved Rubik's was an intelligent or a random one.
Jeff made similar changes to the analogy. While my example let a solved Rubik's cube represent the first ability to reproduce, he let cubes with "correct vertices" reproduce, and also decided that they were more superior than those without. The basic gist of what he was trying to do was to break something that had high odds against it into smaller steps, and then increasing the opportunities for those small steps to be accomplished. This shifting of probability was muddled by allowing the "storing" of good results (which I shall explain in a moment), but the effect of breaking a probability up into small steps does not change the probability.
The jump from unsolved Rubik's cubes to at least one solved Rubik's cube can be made in a single step by generating about 43 quintillion random cubes at the same time. It can also be made in a series of small steps by making random turns on a single cube about 43 quintillion times. Between these two extremes, you can pick any combination of cubes and turns that you like. It doesn't matter whether you take it in one step or many, however, the probability remains the same.
However, jeff obscured this by allowing in between stages to "store" their results, and reproduce a new population. Since our goal was reproduction in the first place, you can see how important this change was. The effect was to drop the odds against achieving reproduction down to a much lower number.
This can be done much more simply, by either increasing the population of cubes to 43 quintillion, or using something that actually had a much higher probability of occurring. For example, he could have said that a flipped coin which lands on heads has achieved reproduction. The odds of achieving reproduction would then be 50/50.
What was the purpose of lowering the probability against reproduction? Reproduction makes it easier to achieve the goal of solving a Rubik's cube. However, if only a solved Rubik's cube can reproduce, this will not help you. Like the clay analogy, this ended up describing natural selection of reproducing organisms, not the generation of the information needed to make the first reproducing organism.
A further difference was added: the ability to "store results." This allowed "close" results (semi-solutions) to be built upon. Once a "semi-solved" mark was reached, the entire population of cubes was changed to a "semi-solved" state, and subsequent random turns were only allowed to alter the non-solved portions of the cube. However, this is not how natural selection works. Natural selection will not tell you what parts are getting close and should be left alone. Even if a cube is just one turn away from being solved, the next turn will still be random. Thus, there is a higher probability that it will mess up the "almost-solved" cube, rather than solving it.
I will not use his example directly because it is unwieldy and the numbers are off. Instead, let us imagine two six sided dice. Assume, for a minute, that our dice are capable of reproducing. Now they want to be able to digest food. In order to digest food, the dice must have the number 6 face up.
On our first roll, the odds of getting a 6 are three against one. We happen to get a 1 and a 3. Following jeff's Rubik's cube analogy, the 3 would be seen as closer to six than 1. Therefore, the 1 dies and the 3 reproduces. We now have two dice showing the number 3.
You will perhaps object that the 3 will not be favored by natural selection, since it wasn't a 6. The 3 still can't digest! The 3 may be closer to 6 than 1, you might say, but only a 6 can digest the food.
This was valid when the goal was reproduction, since "almost reproducing" doesn't do us much good. However, let's pretend that 3 actually does allow partial digestion. Thus, the 1 completely starves to death, and the 3 makes it just long enough to reproduce.
Now a second round of random mutation takes place. We take both of the dice showing 3, and we roll them. What are the odds of getting a six this time? The answer is: the odds are the same. It doesn't matter that last time we got lucky and got partial digestion. This random roll will not consider how the previous roll did and adjust it's behavior.
The important thing to realize, however, is that natural selection doesn't care whether you got close last time either. The only difference is that you got another chance to try to make it, but your chances of getting a 1 and dying are still just as good as getting a 6 and being able to digest food.
What is the point? Natural selection doesn't encourage the random generation of good information. It just allows good information to exist once it is generated, and kills off bad information. The mechanism that generates the information is still random mutations, which do not learn from the past or look to the future.
The driving force behind evolution is not natural selection. It is random change. Natural selection merely filters out the bad changes from the good ones. Organisms do not learn from mistakes. They still make bad mutations and die off.
Thus, even if you assume a bunch of non-living chemicals constantly arranging themselves into DNA molecules and reproducing, the odds against getting useful DNA (and all the rest of the cell) do not change. Even if natural selection allowed "close" DNA to reproduce itself for some reason and take over the world, the odds of getting useful DNA from that aren't any better, the mutations will still be random and be more likely to destroy good functions than create additional new ones. We would have to give the DNA the ability to remember the bad choices and limit itself to making the ones that it hasn't yet tried in order to work through to the solution in small steps.
This is how a human solves a Rubik's cube, we remember what the cube used to look like unsolved, and we try new positions that we think will get us closer to the goal we have in mind. We can do this because we are intelligent.
Natural selection is not intelligent. It does not remind the chemicals of the bad past mutations they should avoid, and the good ones that they should leave alone. Neither does it inform them of a goal that they should strive for.
The theory that evolution occurs by chance increases in information, with the bad ones being eliminated by natural selection and the good ones being allowed to accumulate, is not a controversial idea to those who believe in naturalistic evolution. If you wish to distance yourself from it and take the position that God acts to encourage good mutations (theistic evolution), I can accept that.
I can also accept someone who says "all of the information needed for the generation of life occurred by chance." I understand that if you decide not to believe in God or some other intelligent creator, this is the only option left. While I may disagree that this is the best thing to believe in, I can certainly see why someone would end up accepting this, despite any odds against it.
I don't think I've even brought up the actual numbers against the origin of life. As Sym said "The maths doesn't matter, it's the point that matters." I could simply state the odds (according to scientists who believe in evolution) and ask disdainfully "how could you possibly believe that these odds could have been overcome on such a small planet in a mere billion or two years!?!" Such rhetoric is merely a backhanded insult, not an invitation to reason together. My goal is not to insult anyone for believing what they do, but merely to discuss and debate those beliefs.
Scientist of Fortune
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
1,189 posts
Location: Edinburgh
Posted:
You clearly do not understand just how basic and simple a replicator can be. Those big impressive odds were produced to show that life must have come about from much simpler components than proteins and DNA. RNA and RNApolymerase can constitute a replicator, and it is conjectured that clay may be able to act as a replicator under some circumstances. The problem that people face when discussing the origins of life is that there are so many potential routes it is difficult to asertain which is the most likely.
Your hypothesis however, still lacks evidence for a rather major component...
I think you should study this subject before you try and criticise it again with worn out fallacies, store bought rhetoric and lousy metaphores.
You clearly do not understand just how basic and simple a replicator can be. Those big impressive odds were produced to show that life must have come about from much simpler components than proteins and DNA. RNA and RNApolymerase can constitute a replicator, and it is conjectured that clay may be able to act as a replicator under some circumstances. The problem that people face when discussing the origins of life is that there are so many potential routes it is difficult to asertain which is the most likely.
Your hypothesis however, still lacks evidence for a rather major component...
I think you should study this subject before you try and criticise it again with worn out fallacies, store bought rhetoric and lousy metaphores.
According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
That is my goal too.
Now, just a quick reply for the moment - What would you say if in your dice example, the dice multiplied by the number shown and died after every change. So as per your exapmle we get a 1 and a 3 on the first go. The 1 reproduces another 1 but the 3 reproduces 2 extra 3's.
We now have one 1 and three 3's, so we roll again and get one 6 and three 1's - you can see that within only 2 generations we have got to 6 because of selection. If you want to use something better than dice, you can see the clay example again - as thats what is going on.
If you have changed to say that you agree with selection, but the reason for the mutations is god, then you are saying something different from the ID supporters.
Looking back at your post (about page 10 and on) you are seemingly saying that the bible is as valid as evolution is, and that the account given is what happend.
Are you now going back on that point or were you playing devil's advocate? Do you now think that God made the first replicator and set the ball rolling, nudging it in the 'right' direction from time to time? If you are, then why the change of tack?
Once again I'll advise you to read The Blind Watchmaker. Not because I want to say you're wrong, but because it will talk you though where we are coming from - in the same way that we have read the bible (although I wouldn't say that anything Dawkins has written is like the bible to me...).
Written by:
My goal is not to insult anyone for believing what they do, but merely to discuss and debate those beliefs.
That is my goal too.
Now, just a quick reply for the moment - What would you say if in your dice example, the dice multiplied by the number shown and died after every change. So as per your exapmle we get a 1 and a 3 on the first go. The 1 reproduces another 1 but the 3 reproduces 2 extra 3's.
We now have one 1 and three 3's, so we roll again and get one 6 and three 1's - you can see that within only 2 generations we have got to 6 because of selection. If you want to use something better than dice, you can see the clay example again - as thats what is going on.
If you have changed to say that you agree with selection, but the reason for the mutations is god, then you are saying something different from the ID supporters.
Looking back at your post (about page 10 and on) you are seemingly saying that the bible is as valid as evolution is, and that the account given is what happend.
Are you now going back on that point or were you playing devil's advocate? Do you now think that God made the first replicator and set the ball rolling, nudging it in the 'right' direction from time to time? If you are, then why the change of tack?
Once again I'll advise you to read The Blind Watchmaker. Not because I want to say you're wrong, but because it will talk you though where we are coming from - in the same way that we have read the bible (although I wouldn't say that anything Dawkins has written is like the bible to me...).
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
I make my own people.
607 posts
Location: Nashville, Tennessee, USA
Posted:
Naturalistic evolution can be disputed on a number of levels. With this discussion of information theory, I have assumed away all other hurdles except the creation of the information. I have, for example, assumed for the sake of argument that there might have been pure pools of activated components of the cell that could assemble themselves and then "come alive."
Of course, there is no evidence that this was ever the case. Abiogenesis is almost pure speculation. The few experiments that have been done are mostly very old, used conditions that can't occur naturally, and ended up producing conditions that would have made life impossible to occur.
The basic problem is the the conditions that can create the components of life won't sustain life once it is created. On the other hand, the conditions needed for life to continue would destroy the components from which life is supposed to have come.
The lack of experimental data and plausible theories make abiogenesis as a whole not worth discussing. However, if you assume away all other dificulties, information generation is still an interesting aspect to consider.
Your analogy for dice reaches the goal of 6. However, as you can see the 6 was still generated randomly at the same odds. Natural selection did not affect the generation of the information, it just affected the number of tries. The information is still being created randomly. We did not get a 6 "because of selection." We still got the six from a random roll.
Naturalistic evolution can be disputed on a number of levels. With this discussion of information theory, I have assumed away all other hurdles except the creation of the information. I have, for example, assumed for the sake of argument that there might have been pure pools of activated components of the cell that could assemble themselves and then "come alive."
Of course, there is no evidence that this was ever the case. Abiogenesis is almost pure speculation. The few experiments that have been done are mostly very old, used conditions that can't occur naturally, and ended up producing conditions that would have made life impossible to occur.
The basic problem is the the conditions that can create the components of life won't sustain life once it is created. On the other hand, the conditions needed for life to continue would destroy the components from which life is supposed to have come.
The lack of experimental data and plausible theories make abiogenesis as a whole not worth discussing. However, if you assume away all other dificulties, information generation is still an interesting aspect to consider.
Your analogy for dice reaches the goal of 6. However, as you can see the 6 was still generated randomly at the same odds. Natural selection did not affect the generation of the information, it just affected the number of tries. The information is still being created randomly. We did not get a 6 "because of selection." We still got the six from a random roll.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
You all make me sad. This discussion has degenerated into lets assault the intelligence of Patriarch because he has the strength of character to stand up for a less popular belief.
Wikipedia is a pretty crappy encyclopedia. Stop quoting it. It is not a good or reliable source of information,
I don’t agree with Patriarch. In ID, there are varying degrees of hands on design. I believe in a nudging after setting things on its way.
What happened here was not trying to understand where people come from but an attack on a stance that many people here believe to be a folly.
While Patriarch has weak arguments, in my opinion, he has rarely degenerated into personal attacks, but offers what he sees as support and explaination.
Huzzah for him (and Sym, you usually do a good job too)
Screw the rest of you
You all make me sad. This discussion has degenerated into lets assault the intelligence of Patriarch because he has the strength of character to stand up for a less popular belief.
Wikipedia is a pretty crappy encyclopedia. Stop quoting it. It is not a good or reliable source of information,
I don’t agree with Patriarch. In ID, there are varying degrees of hands on design. I believe in a nudging after setting things on its way.
What happened here was not trying to understand where people come from but an attack on a stance that many people here believe to be a folly.
While Patriarch has weak arguments, in my opinion, he has rarely degenerated into personal attacks, but offers what he sees as support and explaination.
Huzzah for him (and Sym, you usually do a good job too)
Screw the rest of you
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
For the fiest half of your post: I don't clame to be an expert on this, but a quick wikipedia search found links to experiments that have recreated amino acids. Sure, we are only guessing at what the conditions were like at the time, but it does take away from your argument.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
https://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645
https://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf
I'm sure some other people here who know more about this than me can back me up here: it is very possable for life to ahve been created "by chance" if you will on Earth.
For the dice part: The random selection is still there, but it shows how a population can get pulled in a direction in complex ways. If we have a situation where a 1 would roll 6 times quicker than any other number, but the 6 made 6 more then selection might in time make dice that roll a 6 first then each child makes a 1 that makes 6's.
The dice argument is a flawed as the cube one.
I think you should read the Blind Watchmaker: I will send you a copy if you like? I've just checked the Nashville library and they have 7 copies, 6 are in stock now.
For the fiest half of your post: I don't clame to be an expert on this, but a quick wikipedia search found links to experiments that have recreated amino acids. Sure, we are only guessing at what the conditions were like at the time, but it does take away from your argument.
See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_experiment
https://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/19/10/1645
https://www.issol.org/miller/miller1953.pdf
I'm sure some other people here who know more about this than me can back me up here: it is very possable for life to ahve been created "by chance" if you will on Earth.
For the dice part: The random selection is still there, but it shows how a population can get pulled in a direction in complex ways. If we have a situation where a 1 would roll 6 times quicker than any other number, but the 6 made 6 more then selection might in time make dice that roll a 6 first then each child makes a 1 that makes 6's.
The dice argument is a flawed as the cube one.
I think you should read the Blind Watchmaker: I will send you a copy if you like? I've just checked the Nashville library and they have 7 copies, 6 are in stock now.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [intelligent design v * evolution] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > Intelligent Design vs Evolution [866 replies]
- Forums > Is Intelligent Design a Theory or a Critique? [60 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com