"blind chance" argument is getting old

[MaxWeiss]

This gem is getting worn out fast. What is so hard to understand that things aren't from blind chance. Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is. How is this argument still going??? And how on earth is it still considered GOOD in some circles????

[Phil153]

How did the first cell arise from basic elements?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
This gem is getting worn out fast. What is so hard to understand that things aren't from blind chance. Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is. How is this argument still going??? And how on earth is it still considered GOOD in some circles????

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a simple matter of creationists telling lies if they think they can get away with it. Instead of trying to argue against what evolution actually says, they concoct a fake evolution, a straw-man-evolution, with natural selection removed. They have been being called out on it repeatedly for ages but they keep doing it. It is yet another classic example of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the creationist cult.

[surftheiop]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your telling me that RANDOM mutations arent the driving force behind evolution? without this element of CHANCE then natural selection couldnt exist because everything would be the same so evolution would be imposible.

Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
How did the first cell arise from basic elements?

[/ QUOTE ]

It didn't.

[Prodigy54321]

it's not so much incorrect to say so as it is just disingenuous...

when people say something about evolution being random chance, I'm never really sure what they mean...some mean what they should mean..that is..that there is some element of chance...some are mistaken in thinking that it is all blind chance...creationist propoganda helps to perpetuate this misconception

EDIT:they also don't seem to understand that if evolution was only blind chance, our own existence would probably be enough to make us pretty sure that the theory is bogus.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
How did the first cell arise from basic elements?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you're getting at but FWIW ...

A cell is already a complex object that is just as much a product of evolution (including of course natural selection and hence not purely a product of random chance), as are multicellular organisms. There may have been as much as 100million years of evolution leading up to cells (or maybe less time than that, but certainly plently of time).

Earlier evolutionary objects would have included strings of simple molecules yielding RNA, DNA and proteins. The basic molecular building blocks, such as amino acids etc., do not need any natural selection, since they produced in vast numbers under the right conditions.

But evolution starts waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before the `first' cell.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only point of a very simplistic analogy is that the Selection has nothing to do with chance. Now, depending on the topic, intelligent people can discuss how that selection is made, but the 'chance' element that applies to mutation can be left out of the discussion at the selection level.

luckyme

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
How did the first cell arise from basic elements?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, is somebody teaching that is how the process went ... let's hope their accreditation is lifted.

luckyme

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what "does" natural selection?

A: Unintelligent forces.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your telling me that RANDOM mutations arent the driving force behind evolution? without this element of CHANCE then natural selection couldnt exist because everything would be the same so evolution would be imposible.

Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you trolling. Surely you don't think no-one will notice your bait-and-switch with the words SOME and ALL. Evolution definitely includes SOME random chance. But the creationists fraudulent misrepresentation of evolution, involves pretending that natural selection is not part of evolution at all and that it is ALL random chance.

[madnak]

They have a point in that most of the mechanics of the universe are ultimately probabilistic, including virtually every reaction that's relevant to our species.

The true implications of this shatter the creationist position and mutilate the validity of the argument in question. But most of those making this argument are probably far from understanding that.

[surftheiop]

luckyme how can you discuss evolution without discussing chance?

That would be like discussing poker without using probability.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
luckyme how can you discuss evolution without discussing chance?

That would be like discussing poker without using probability.

[/ QUOTE ]
So at no point does it stop being 'blind chance?' Obviously there is a role for mutations. They aren't even really random, since they must choose from the physically possible choices, but thats not the point. At some point, natural selection cannot be called 'blind chance.' I have no idea what your use of the word 'based' means, but how many things can natural selection be based on? If its only one then I disagree with the choice of random mutations for the role.

[surftheiop]

Is it safe to say that without "Blind Chance" evolution couldnt exist?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
luckyme how can you discuss evolution without discussing chance?

That would be like discussing poker without using probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't discuss anything without including chance, in theory. The reason you don't phase into the floor right now or spontaneously melt is BLIND CHANCE OMG!

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

This gem is getting worn out fast.


[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you could define the gem you're talking about.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont know, have you got one in mind?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

Life is an exergonic process anyhow, so I don't see the relevance.

Moreover, in any closed system the order will increase sometimes - the reason the second law must be stated as a tendency now is that the entire principle of entropy is probabilistic. That is, a more entropic system can be defined as a "more likely" configuration of a system. That's what stability is all about. But it's entirely possible for the free energy of a system to increase randomly. The whole point is that when the free energy increases, the system is in a more stable (less ordered) state, that is, a state it "doesn't like to spend much time in." Over an infinite amount of time, of course, such a system will spend some time in every configuration.

But once again, life is a decrease in order. Life is entropic. The limited endergonic reactions of life are almost universally very inefficient, particularly in anaerobes. Life is entropic. This may be the point most of you theists can't get through your skull, but it's scientific fact.

[surftheiop]

All im saying is chance is an integral part of evolution, im not saying that the reason species are the way they are is only dependant on chance, as the mutations (that were caused by chance) were deemed beneficial by natuaral selection).

I believe things evolve, its not like im trying to argue against evolution here.

[surftheiop]

I believe things evolve so im not trying to argue against evolution in anyway.
i just think the when the OP said "Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance"
this is a false statement because random mutations play a huge roll in evolution.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
All im saying is chance is an integral part of evolution, im not saying that the reason species are the way they are is only dependant on chance, as the mutations (that were caused by chance) were deemed beneficial by natuaral selection).

I believe things evolve, its not like im trying to argue against evolution here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. You aren't the person the OP was probably ranting against. But can you understand how saying "Evolution is basically just blind chance!!111!!" can draw a little ire? I know thats not EXACTLY what you said, but...

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural system need only be closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

Any examples?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

this is a false statement because random mutations play a huge roll in evolution.


[/ QUOTE ]

You guys are funny. OP posts a rant against theists who attack chance then an evolutionist starts to praise chance. You should all get together and make a pilgimmage to the throne of Pope Dicke I to get an ex cathedra ruling on this issue so theists will know the ground rules.

[Speedlimits]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural system need only be closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

Any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you two are essentially in agreement. Blind chance was necessary in creating the first cells or bacteria. But once the the evolutionary process starts it leaves little to chance. One could say the spontaneous emergence of life was quite literally blind chance.

If you are talking about evolution, then the issue of chance has little to do with it.

Just because the origin of life/evolution was predicated upon chance does not mean the actual process is determined by it.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural system need only be closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

Any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that simple. "Orderliness" can't easily be measured. There are probably some particle accelerator situations, but for a complex system you're asking the wrong questions (and responding to the wrong part of my post).

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural system need only be closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

Any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that simple. "Orderliness" can't easily be measured. There are probably some particle accelerator situations, but for a complex system you're asking the wrong questions (and responding to the wrong part of my post).

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to a physical process in general. That's why my response was to only part of your post.

Broaden your definition of "orderliness" as far as necessary to cite the best observation of its increase as described.

[madnak]

Such a definition of order has nothing to do with physics. Therefore it's absolutely arbitrary.

But very well, I'll use crystalization, diffusion and osmosis across cell membranes, condensation and evaporation, and capillary action as passive/spontaneous reactions that result in an increase in perceived order.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm referring to a physical process in general. That's why my response was to only part of your post.

Broaden your definition of "orderliness" as far as necessary to cite the best observation of its increase as described.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice to see that you've created yet another new account, Sharkey.

[Skidoo]

I don't dispute the attribution of increase in orderliness per se, but those processes are the result of pre-existing biological programs and therefore can't be construed as instances of the phenomenon in question which is necessary for evolution of species. That's what I was getting at by asking for your "best" example of a general process in which a closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't dispute the attribution of increase in orderliness per se, but those processes are the result of pre-existing biological programs and therefore can't be construed as instances of the phenomenon in question which is necessary for evolution of species. That's what I was getting at by asking for your "best" example of a general process in which a closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many of those processes aren't biological at all (crystalization, evaporation, condensation). As for capillary action and diffusion, use your imagination. No biological component is necessary (especially for diffusion, which was only biological in the first place because of the "across the cell membrane" part).

[Skidoo]

Which of the non-biological processes increases the information content of a closed natural system?

You're right, of course. Most of your examples are non-biological.

[vhawk01]

What in the world do you mean (specifically) by information content?

[madnak]

That doesn't mean anything. If you're going to talk science, stop inventing terms. Even the philosophy of information doesn't include any common definition of information content. And much as I'd love to get into the philosophy of information, it's really off the subject. The only way I can think it possibly applies is to DNA and RNA, but that is a huge jump from organization and entropy. If you want to talk replication, or meaningful patterns that provide useful information, then concede this point and start from square one.

[surftheiop]

uh ??

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
What in the world do you mean (specifically) by information content?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, maybe some working definitions are called for. I'll start with "orderliness" as the most useful, with possible slight modifications later.

The orderliness of a physical system is the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

I'd rather drop "information" as being too close to entropy.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is.

[/ QUOTE ]

What closed natural system has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no closed natural systems, other than the closed natural system. Or at any rate, if there were any other closed system we would by definition be unable to penetrate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The natural system need only be closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

Any examples?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you two are essentially in agreement. Blind chance was necessary in creating the first cells or bacteria. But once the the evolutionary process starts it leaves little to chance. One could say the spontaneous emergence of life was quite literally blind chance.

If you are talking about evolution, then the issue of chance has little to do with it.

Just because the origin of life/evolution was predicated upon chance does not mean the actual process is determined by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

But chance does have everything to do with it. It's just not "blind" chance, and it never was. The problem is that we're talking about strange probabilities - it's best for most people to accept that the universe is a matter of cause and effect, which it is on a practical level, but causes and effects function probabilistically. It's never possible to say "cause, therefore effect." It may be possible to say "cause, therefore 9*10^googolplex chance of effect," but only that much. In fact, we really can't easily quantify some of the relevant probabilities that are too low and too high - something like Knuth arrow notation might help, but really the most we can say is "really really huge."

The problem is that some are suggesting the generation and evolution of life was "really really huge" in the negative direction - that is, the likelihood was so low that even if God is inherently very unlikely, he has to be more likely than that. But the reality is that if life involves a "really really huge" probability, it's toward the positive rather than the negative end - but most likely there's no "10^googolplex" kinds of number involves in the overall probability.

Unfortunately no scientist can up and say "it was 97.885% likely that life would come into existence," because we don't have enough data yet to make such predictions. We can prove that organic molecules, including even proteins, will definitely form spontaneously - we can watch it happen. But RNA? That's tougher. We can predict that RNA is very likely to spontaneously form under such-and-such conditions within such-and-such a time, but we can't test that prediction, however solid it is intuitively, unless we can model or duplicate the conditions and time span. But it's basically impossible to compute a model, and the time spans we're talking about are hundreds of millions of years - I doubt the theists will sit down and wait for the experiment to come to a conclusion.

Thus the hands of scientists are tied on the issue - it's impossible to come up with "the chances." But we do know they're higher than for the ludicrous examples theists are throwing out. We also know about basic mechanics and how many reactions are facilitated to the point that very little "coincidence" has to occur. That's often where the theists attack, and it's where scientists are best defended, although it takes a long time to explain anything meaningful.

But there are some coincidences that must occur - that's why it took billions of years to happen. We don't know to what extent it was a gradual process and to what extent it involved "jumps," and if we could only figure that out we might put an end to the creationist babble once and for all.

At any rate, the theists are very dishonest in how they present their arguments. For example, theists make statements like "what are the chances the wind will blow the sand on a little beach together to form a Honda Accord?" (Even then, the probability is a function of time, of course - though the likelihood is probably one of those "really really small" numbers assuming less than quadrillions of years or more). A more appropriate statement would be "if the galaxy were filled with various car parts flying around at different rates of speed and with different orientations, what are the chances that, somewhere in the galaxy, the parts would eventually (over billions of years) bang into each other in such a way that they make a contraption capable of some kind of movement?" In this case, actually, the size should be larger than the galaxy and the time frame should be much longer than billions of years, but at least this scenario is intellectually honest, that is to say, analogous with scientific theories of abiogenesis.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
The orderliness of a physical system is the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're only allowing closed systems. Information about one closed system cannot, by definition, provide information about another closed system. "Closed" means that nothing goes in or out - there is no communication between the systems. The extent to which one system can provide data about the state of another system is exactly the extent to which that system is open. I'm smelling tautology.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The orderliness of a physical system is the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're only allowing closed systems. Information about one closed system cannot, by definition, provide information about another closed system. "Closed" means that nothing goes in or out - there is no communication between the systems. The extent to which one system can provide data about the state of another system is exactly the extent to which that system is open. I'm smelling tautology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing taut. We've been over this already. No need to eliminate measurement. The natural system has to be closed only to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

[madnak]

Right, but that's any input from the other system. You're saying no input from the other system that can be used to determine the state of that system. Therefore, for all intents and purpose, no input at all.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The orderliness of a physical system is the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you're only allowing closed systems. Information about one closed system cannot, by definition, provide information about another closed system. "Closed" means that nothing goes in or out - there is no communication between the systems. The extent to which one system can provide data about the state of another system is exactly the extent to which that system is open. I'm smelling tautology.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing taut. We've been over this already. No need to eliminate measurement. The natural system has to be closed only to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the observed increase in orderliness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sharkey, do you have nothing better to do than to troll SMP? It's sad that you created a new account to do this in order to avoid detection. At least with the "Sharkey" account, people would see your name and eventually learned that it's useless to waste their time debating with you.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Right, but that's any input from the other system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[madnak]

How so?

[Skidoo]

Why should measuring a system necessarily significantly interfere with the same? It's only under exceptional conditions that this is the case. Therefore, don't expect much in that direction of argument.

[Borodog]

Skidoo,

Do you have a point? There are no closed systems except the Universe itself, and it is well understood how one part of that system may become more orderly at the expense of another.

[Skidoo]

Of course, which is why I have made the distinction of "closed with respect to" rather than just closed.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Why should measuring a system necessarily significantly interfere with the same? It's only under exceptional conditions that this is the case. Therefore, don't expect much in that direction of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? No. Measuring a system always affects that system. Moreover, it's impossible to measure a closed system from outside that system. This is basic physics - I have to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, which is why I have made the distinction of "closed with respect to" rather just closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no systems that meet your criteria of being "closed with respect to the whatever that could cause the thing", so what is your point?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should measuring a system necessarily significantly interfere with the same? It's only under exceptional conditions that this is the case. Therefore, don't expect much in that direction of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? No. Measuring a system always affects that system. Moreover, it's impossible to measure a closed system from outside that system. This is basic physics - I have to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I have concluded that you are looking for an excuse to flee the discussion.

Are you saying you can't measure the temperature of the outside air without significantly changing it?

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why should measuring a system necessarily significantly interfere with the same? It's only under exceptional conditions that this is the case. Therefore, don't expect much in that direction of argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? No. Measuring a system always affects that system. Moreover, it's impossible to measure a closed system from outside that system. This is basic physics - I have to conclude you don't know what you're talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I have concluded that you are looking for an excuse to flee the discussion.

Are you saying you can't measure the temperature of the outside air without significantly changing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Skidoo, you are so obviously trolling it is ridiculous.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, which is why I have made the distinction of "closed with respect to" rather just closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no systems that meet your criteria of being "closed with respect to the whatever that could cause the thing", so what is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is to ask the following:

What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

So far, the answers have looked a lot like attempts to dodge the question by confining the discussion to limiting cases where the method of observation significantly effects what is being observed.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, which is why I have made the distinction of "closed with respect to" rather just closed.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no systems that meet your criteria of being "closed with respect to the whatever that could cause the thing", so what is your point?

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is to ask the following:

What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of this question? There is no such closed system regarding abiogenesis or evolution, so what is the relevence to the discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
So far, the answers have looked a lot like attempts to dodge the question by confining the discussion to limiting cases where the method of observation significantly effects what is being observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

So far it looks like people trying to figure out what the point of your question is, since it doesn't seem to be relevent to anything under discussion.

[Skidoo]

Are you saying evolution of species can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying your gibberish about closed systems is irrelevent, since the surface of the Earth is not a closed system. So again, what is the point?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused Skidoo, are you saying that the Earth is a..."natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness"?

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying your gibberish about closed systems is irrelevent, since the surface of the Earth is not a closed system. So again, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wasting your time arguing with Sharkey. (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=5416882&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

[Borodog]

Are you sure this guy is Sharkey? I have Sharkey on ignore.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you sure this guy is Sharkey? I have Sharkey on ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's pretty obvious. The writing style alone should give it away. Sharkey became so reviled in SMP that he obviously decided to registers under a new name in order to get people to play his game.

[Borodog]

Eh. I haven't read a Sharkey post in months.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying your gibberish about closed systems is irrelevent, since the surface of the Earth is not a closed system. So again, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

What precisely are you having trouble understanding?

I have said repeatedly that the only closure required is that which excludes input necessary to account for the state of the orderliness of the system.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying your gibberish about closed systems is irrelevent, since the surface of the Earth is not a closed system. So again, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

What precisely are you having trouble understanding?

I have said repeatedly that the only closure required is that which excludes input necessary to account for the state of the orderliness of the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is irrelevent, because there is no such exclusion from the Earth's surface. So again, what is your point?

[Prodigy54321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm saying your gibberish about closed systems is irrelevent, since the surface of the Earth is not a closed system. So again, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

What precisely are you having trouble understanding?

I have said repeatedly that the only closure required is that which excludes input necessary to account for the state of the orderliness of the system.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to guess that it's the fact that the Earth is not an example of that

[Borodog]

It appears that your whole argument is to erroneously assume that the surface of the Earth is closed to whatever your mumbo jumbo is, and then try to use that to show that the increase in orderlieness from abiogenesis and evolution then somehow violate something that you can't really explain. I.e. you assume your conclusion.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused Skidoo, are you saying that the Earth is a..."natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Nor am I denying it's the case.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
It appears that your whole argument is to erroneously assume that the surface of the Earth is closed to whatever your mumbo jumbo is, and then try to use that to show that the increase in orderlieness from abiogenesis and evolution then somehow violate something that you can't really explain. I.e. you assume your conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We haven't advanced to the stage of an argument yet. I'm still waiting for an answer to the following:

What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

Read carefully. I'm not talking about this or any other planet.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It appears that your whole argument is to erroneously assume that the surface of the Earth is closed to whatever your mumbo jumbo is, and then try to use that to show that the increase in orderlieness from abiogenesis and evolution then somehow violate something that you can't really explain. I.e. you assume your conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

We haven't advanced to the stage of an argument yet. I'm still waiting for an answer to the following:

What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

Read carefully. I'm not talking about this or any other planet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still waiting for the relevence of the question.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you saying evolution of species can proceed without an increase in orderliness as I have defined it?

[/ QUOTE ]

An "increase in orderliness" as you've defined it can't exist. And yes, of course evolution can proceed without it. Evolution is all about feedback and chain reactions and energy from outside sources.

As for the temperature example, you can't measure the temperature of a system without affecting the system, no. Physically impossible.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

No such system can exist in this universe, not as you've defined it. Maybe your terminology is terminally inconsistent with that of physics and chemistry. In that case, it's your place to clarify - many of the terms you're using have accepted meanings, and if your intended meanings is anything like those accepted meanings, then this scenario is an impossibility.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
As for the temperature example, you can't measure the temperature of a system without affecting the system, no. Physically impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're starting to look disingenuous. I'll repost the question you pretended to reply to:

Are you saying you can't measure the temperature of the outside air without significantly changing it?

[madnak]

That question is unrelated to any of my claims, and unrelated to your own definitions. I guess it took me awhile to discover that you were a genuine troll. If you aren't, you might want to pay attention to the fact that the educated posters on this forum have come to a consensus that you are, and consider why that might be.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What natural system that is closed to the extent of excluding input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order?

[/ QUOTE ]

No such system can exist in this universe, not as you've defined it. Maybe your terminology is terminally inconsistent with that of physics and chemistry. In that case, it's your place to clarify - many of the terms you're using have accepted meanings, and if your intended meanings is anything like those accepted meanings, then this scenario is an impossibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

Clarification appears to be unnecessary. You have given the correct answer.

[Borodog]

And it's still irrelevent to abiogenesis or evolution, so for about the 5th time, what is the point?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
And it's still irrelevent to abiogenesis or evolution, so for about the 5th time, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is saying that protein folding is impossible.

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
This gem is getting worn out fast. What is so hard to understand that things aren't from blind chance. Nature is NOT doing things with blind chance. That's clearly the opposite of what natural selection is. How is this argument still going??? And how on earth is it still considered GOOD in some circles????

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is poorly written, and your (mistaken) idea is poorly explained.

[Skidoo]

The "orderliness" of a physical system is defined as the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

Since no physical system that is closed to some input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order, the conclusion is that the "mutual information" of two physical systems requires a (cumulative) mediating process that carries, or transmits, at least the relative order of the two systems.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what "does" natural selection?

A: Unintelligent forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

B: Blind chance permutation mutations.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what "does" natural selection?

A: Unintelligent forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

B: Blind chance permutation mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely wrong. If anything can be said to "do" the natural selection its differential reproductive success, or the environment (in the broadest sense).

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
And who does the hand selection?

A: An intelligent force.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what "does" natural selection?

A: Unintelligent forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

B: Blind chance permutation mutations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
The "orderliness" of a physical system is defined as the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? According to whom?

[ QUOTE ]
Since no physical system that is closed to some input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order, the conclusion is that the "mutual information" of two physical systems requires a (cumulative) mediating process that carries, or transmits, at least the relative order of the two systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the point?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The "orderliness" of a physical system is defined as the degree to which measurements on that system can be used to determine the state of another physical system.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? According to whom?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ad hoc for the sake of brevity.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since no physical system that is closed to some input necessary to account for the state of its orderliness has been observed to have a tendency toward greater order, the conclusion is that the "mutual information" of two physical systems requires a (cumulative) mediating process that carries, or transmits, at least the relative order of the two systems.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, what is the point?

[/ QUOTE ]

The transmission establishing the mutual dependence of two relatively orderly physical systems must have at least the orderliness regarding the referent system as does the resulting modification. But this mediation is itself a physical system requiring another medium to bring it into an orderly state, etc indefinitely: an impossible course for spontaneous adaptation. Therefore, one physical system, such as an ecological niche, cannot create a functional image of itself in another physical system, like a species, without a preexisting capacity of equal or greater orderliness to realize the exchange.

[Borodog]

Your pseudotechnobabble fails to impress.

Snowflakes form. Get over it.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Your pseudotechnobabble fails to impress.

Snowflakes form. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I revised that post several times to express it in the simplest language possible. If you're unwilling to make an effort after all your complaining, then, indeed, something about snowflakes.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your pseudotechnobabble fails to impress.

Snowflakes form. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I revised that post several times to express it in the simplest language possible. If you're unwilling to make an effort after all your complaining, then, indeed, something about snowflakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry man...your post was non-sensical. Does what you said actually make sense to you? Do you actually believe that there is some known physical law that prevents the possibility of evolution?

Do you think maybe such a fatal flaw might have been noticed by a few members of the scientific community?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry man...your post was non-sensical. Does what you said actually make sense to you? Do you actually believe that there is some known physical law that prevents the possibility of evolution?

Do you think maybe such a fatal flaw might have been noticed by a few members of the scientific community?

[/ QUOTE ]

(shrug)

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry man...your post was non-sensical. Does what you said actually make sense to you? Do you actually believe that there is some known physical law that prevents the possibility of evolution?

Do you think maybe such a fatal flaw might have been noticed by a few members of the scientific community?

[/ QUOTE ]

(shrug)

[/ QUOTE ]

good answer.
is that the equivalent of "I haven't thought about any of those issues", or what?

I was actually wondering. I'm sorry if my tone came off as rhetorical.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your pseudotechnobabble fails to impress.

Snowflakes form. Get over it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I revised that post several times to express it in the simplest language possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.chrisabraham.com/orly-thumb.jpg

[MaxWeiss]

While it is more of a rant, I think that everybody understands what I am trying to say. If they or you don't, I'll be happy to clarify.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me the underlying basic input data for the random deck generator shuffler and I will predict exactly how the deck is stacked. It's been done before. I'm sure you know about it. So much for "true" randomness. OP is correct 100%.

Randomness and statistics are features for us to classify and try to predict something for which we lack information/understanding.

Mutations appear random to us because we don't know enough about what causes them or how. However we do know that certain types of stimuli affect mutations. Such as radioactive activity.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me the underlying basic input data for the random deck generator shuffler and I will predict exactly how the deck is stacked. It's been done before. I'm sure you know about it. So much for "true" randomness. OP is correct 100%.

Randomness and statistics are features for us to classify and try to predict something for which we lack information/understanding.

Mutations appear random to us because we don't know enough about what causes them or how. However we do know that certain types of stimuli affect mutations. Such as radioactive activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're hopelessly lost in the analogy.
Most analogies, as this one, are meant to clarify the area or level of the situation.

The logical error made in the 'blind chance' comments are caused by looking at the 'chance' in the underlying mutation/shuffling and then applying that feature to the rigid algorithm that exists at a level above it.

It doesn't matter that in a deterministic universe the mutation or the shuffle ( which I will do when you drop over) is not 'really' random. What's important is that cause of the mutation that arises has no connection to the process that selects whether to keep it or not.

In the card analogy it doesn't matter who or what deals the cards, my selection will definitely not be random. Same with natural selection, it doesn't care if the mutation was from radiation, drift or random sexual shuffle, whatever ... the selection is built on something outside the shuffling system including the entire environment the entity arises finds itself in.

hope that's clearer, luckyme

[soon2bepro]

Oh, oh. I'm sorry. I didn't read through the whole thread. I though OP meant what I thought he meant.

Now I see the point he was trying to make, and yours too.

My opinion on the subject is that we can't really tell. We can't tell if DNA has evolved into something that can mutate to adapt to the enviroment. So far there is no evidence for that, but it could be the case, at least partially.

We know of lifeforms that do this within an individual lifetime. For example our skin is a very adaptative organ. So is our brain.

A friend of mine holds that DNA has "intelligent, adaptative mutation". He's otherwise a skeptic, but he claims this is confirmed scientific evidence. I completely disagreed, so I did some minor research on the subject and found nothing to support his point. If anyone could link me to some trusted site or book that states this, it would be appreatiated.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
We can't tell if DNA has evolved into something that can mutate to adapt to the enviroment

[/ QUOTE ]

Not following you here..What would it mean if there were DNA from which arose an entity that isn't adapted to the environment? The environment includes variations of the same species.

luckyme

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Natural selection drives evolution, natural selection is based on mutations, mutations are based on chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Winning poker is based on hand selection, hand selection is done on dealt cards, dealt cards are based on chance.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me the underlying basic input data for the random deck generator shuffler and I will predict exactly how the deck is stacked. It's been done before. I'm sure you know about it. So much for "true" randomness. OP is correct 100%.

Randomness and statistics are features for us to classify and try to predict something for which we lack information/understanding.

Mutations appear random to us because we don't know enough about what causes them or how. However we do know that certain types of stimuli affect mutations. Such as radioactive activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about quantum randomness? But more importantly, what about processes that depend on likely configurations that are by no means certain (ie, most biological functions, including replication, transcription, and translation)? How do you explain the fact that reactions with high activation energy sometimes occur even without catalysis? That anomalies are highly common all over the place in organisms? That organisms, especially cells, have mechanisms to handle processes that "break" or fail to function normally?

By the way, mutations aren't exactly a complete mystery to us. Keep in mind that radiation affects processes through reactions that could happen spontaneously, but rarely do. You'd be surprised how often major health problems are the result of chance interactions, or just normal interactions that happen not to fall into place, etc.

[soon2bepro]

madnak: It's the same for quantum mechanics. It's simply something we can't understand.

Even if the world wasn't totally deterministic, we'd only be able to understand those parts that are. Since that is the only way we know how to learn, by experience. Seriously, you think it's more likely that true randomness exists today in the form of QM, or that there's something we're missing that prevents us from understanding it's deterministic nature, the same everything else in the universe seems to work by? Have in mind, that in any area of scientific knowledge, if there was the slighest factor we weren't considering, or weren't aware of (perhaps even because it's not tangible), it would give the apparence of randomness when studied.

About mutation, I'm not saying it's not based on interacting factors. Much to the opposite, I was saying that interacting factors are probably the ONLY thing that matters as far as the result of a particular individual replication error (aka mutation) goes. As I said though, This wasn't what the topic was about, so my apologies.


Lestat: I meant that:

We can't say if DNA is something that has evolved to become able to "choose" mutations in order to fit the enviroment, in other words, adapt itself to circumstances. aka "Intelligent" mutation.

Please tell me this is what the OP was about. If not I have made the same mistake twice. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

(I could just read through the whole thread, but I'm too lazy today)

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you explain the fact that reactions with high activation energy sometimes occur even without catalysis?

[/ QUOTE ]

Biologically? Sounds interesting. You're talking beyond the obvious prob-a-blob-a-bilistic tunneling, right?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Even if the world wasn't totally deterministic, we'd only be able to understand those parts that are. Since that is the only way we know how to learn, by experience. Seriously, you think it's more likely that true randomness exists today in the form of QM, or that there's something we're missing that prevents us from understanding it's deterministic nature, the same everything else in the universe seems to work by?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know whether quantum randomness is "actual" randomness. But it seems very reasonable to believe that randomness can exist at the fundamental level of the universe. To me it's a very satisfying concept as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Have in mind, that in any area of scientific knowledge, if there was the slighest factor we weren't considering, or weren't aware of (perhaps even because it's not tangible), it would give the apparence of randomness when studied.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would give the appearance of random "interference," not of randomness per se. We could still identify patterns. An indication of true randomness is something special, regardless of whether true randomness actually "exists."

[ QUOTE ]
About mutation, I'm not saying it's not based on interacting factors. Much to the opposite, I was saying that interacting factors are probably the ONLY thing that matters as far as the result of a particular individual replication error (aka mutation) goes. As I said though, This wasn't what the topic was about, so my apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the interacting factors resemble randomness to such a degree that the mechanics of life typically "treat" them as random. Certainly mutations are functionally random.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Biologically? Sounds interesting. You're talking beyond the obvious prob-a-blob-a-bilistic tunneling, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
madnak: It's the same for quantum mechanics. It's simply something we can't understand.

Even if the world wasn't totally deterministic, we'd only be able to understand those parts that are. Since that is the only way we know how to learn, by experience. Seriously, you think it's more likely that true randomness exists today in the form of QM, or that there's something we're missing that prevents us from understanding it's deterministic nature, the same everything else in the universe seems to work by?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've said this before. There seems to be a gap in understanding about quantum randomness.
Experimental evidence indicates that it is, in fact, TRUE randomness. The 'hidden variables' hypotheses are just what you are suggesting...that it's not random, we just can't detect the mechanism.
These hypotheses are experimentally testable. It's very interesting work, mostly in the late 70's and early 80's, by Alain Aspect and others. They are experimental tests of the EPR paradox.
There are some who still argue against it, because there are other assumptions that you can throw out the window, such as causality, that would match with the results. But you need to make some choices between which cherished notion you wish to disregard.

Again...physicists have not just obvserved apparently random behavior...they have demonstrated that the hypothesis that it is, in fact, non-random conflicts with experimental results unless we wish to throw out other very-well-tested theories.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
It would give the appearance of random "interference," not of randomness per se. We could still identify patterns. An indication of true randomness is something special, regardless of whether true randomness actually "exists."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following. How would you identify patterns if there are factors you don't even know exist?

[ QUOTE ]
But the interacting factors resemble randomness to such a degree that the mechanics of life typically "treat" them as random. Certainly mutations are functionally random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we know this for a fact?
I was under the impression that we can't really tell much about what factor or combination of factors create which mutation.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would give the appearance of random "interference," not of randomness per se. We could still identify patterns. An indication of true randomness is something special, regardless of whether true randomness actually "exists."

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not following. How would you identify patterns if there are factors you don't even know exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

You could use the distribution of results, for example. I know it gets more complicated, and I'd love to be able to understand the studies arahant is talking about, but I'm not there yet.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But the interacting factors resemble randomness to such a degree that the mechanics of life typically "treat" them as random. Certainly mutations are functionally random.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do we know this for a fact?
I was under the impression that we can't really tell much about what factor or combination of factors create which mutation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And no, we can't - mutations are caused by random factors, so of course we can't. Random thermal fluctuations or such things, it could be this or that or the other. But that hardly means we're completely in the dark. And we're moving further and further into the "light" - for example, we now have a limited ability to actually identify some mutations at the molecular level.

But we know the process of replication and what can affect the process. We know the enzymes involved, we know what the environment is, and we know what can disrupt the process theoretically. So we don't need any new empirical data. Given the mechanisms, we can predict that stuff - and have done so very successfully. There may be some things that can cause mutations that we haven't yet identified, but they'd still do it by adding energy to the system, inhibiting the enzymes, etc. There certainly can't be any sort of "intentional" change - it's an awesome molecule, but it's still just a molecule. It doesn't have feelings or thoughts. Its mechanisms exist due to selection, not chance.

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
You could use the distribution of results, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that there doesn't necessarily have to be one where we can identify any patterns. Hell, it could even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster's whims...


[ QUOTE ]
Yes. And no, we can't - mutations are caused by random factors, so of course we can't. Random thermal fluctuations or such things, it could be this or that or the other. But that hardly means we're completely in the dark. And we're moving further and further into the "light" - for example, we now have a limited ability to actually identify some mutations at the molecular level.

But we know the process of replication and what can affect the process. We know the enzymes involved, we know what the environment is, and we know what can disrupt the process theoretically. So we don't need any new empirical data. Given the mechanisms, we can predict that stuff - and have done so very successfully. There may be some things that can cause mutations that we haven't yet identified, but they'd still do it by adding energy to the system, inhibiting the enzymes, etc. There certainly can't be any sort of "intentional" change - it's an awesome molecule, but it's still just a molecule. It doesn't have feelings or thoughts. Its mechanisms exist due to selection, not chance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying there's any sort of "intention" behind it, but that it could conceivably act as if there is, because of natural selection. After all, intention (survival and reproduction) is just a result of natural selection itself.

We are able to somewhat adapt to the enviroment (so are other lifeforms), I don't think the idea that the DNA could conceivably do something like this through mutation is that far-fetched. But again I think there is no evidence to support that.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You could use the distribution of results, for example.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me that there doesn't necessarily have to be one where we can identify any patterns. Hell, it could even be the Flying Spaghetti Monster's whims...

[/ QUOTE ]

It could be, but the whims would need to appear random. Again, I don't know enough about what arahant is talking about to say. It's definitely impossible to prove true randomness, but I believe he's correct that it may be possible to prove true randomness given certain other assumptions.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm not saying there's any sort of "intention" behind it, but that it could conceivably act as if there is, because of natural selection. After all, intention (survival and reproduction) is just a result of natural selection itself.

We are able to somewhat adapt to the enviroment (so are other lifeforms), I don't think the idea that the DNA could conceivably do something like this through mutation is that far-fetched. But again I think there is no evidence to support that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it does do something like that. It's called meiosis.

I suppose it's not inconceivable that there could be some kind of mechanism designed to "allow" only certain sorts of mutations - it seems extremely unlikely to me, given that the complex changes from a given mutation can't possibly be predicted. Binary fission seems too simple for such a mechanism, and mitosis seems to try "too hard" not to make mistakes. But enough funky stuff happens that I suppose, based on what I know, there could be mechanisms with the effect you're describing.

[MaxWeiss]

First of all, I did not mean to imply that random mutations do not occur. As far as I understand it (which is a small amount, BTW) randomness does occur. BUT the process of natural selection, of adaptation and survival, weeds out the unnecessary mutations.

Also, from the (very little) I know about quantum mechanics, there is randomness above and beyond what we would use to define our lack of knowledge. Most of us here at 2+2 probably understand that "probability" is simply our best estimate based on available info but since the info in not complete, we cannot be 100% certain about an outcome. Apparently in QM, even with complete info, there is still a probability factor, a randomness factor, in which lack of sufficient information is NOT the reason, or if it is, it is not nearly enough to account for it. Even if ALL the information is available, there is still a chance factor.

Intuitively this bothers me, but I just don't know enough about the topic to make any judgments yet. My "intuition" is based on a "middle world" model. Our brains aren't programmed to intuitively understand the very small QM world, so as long as the math works out, I'm satisfied even if my intuition is not.

[soon2bepro]

There is simply no way in which you can be sure that you know absolutely every relevant information.

[MaxWeiss]

I know, I know... and that's why it bothers me. It seems that if it is possible to know all relevant information then we know with certainty what will happen, but a big thing in QM, the Uncertainty Principle, states that we CANNOT get that info--that it is fundamentally impossible, no matter what advances in knowledge or technology we have. If we measure the velocity, we cannot know the position. And vice versa.

Again, I don't know much about the topic, but that principle bothers me. But again, I just don't know enough to comment on it one way or the other.

Keep in mind that if it is, in principle, impossible to know two separate and relevant pieces of information at once, then once you get one piece (presumably the more important piece), you in effect have all possible relevant information.

I have a few introductory books on QM. I should really spend some of the winter break learning it.

[soon2bepro]

Determinism doesn't mean you can predict the future.

It just means that for a given state of the universe in t1 (time position 1), there is only one possible state of the universe in t2.

This doesn't mean that it's humanly possible to know everything in order to predict the future. In fact, when considering the complexity of the universe, it becomes quite clear that it's not.

Besides, we have but our 5 senses to perceive reality, but there is no reason to believe this is enough. Or that the method by which we perceive reality leaves nothing out. Again, given the complexity of the universe, and understanding that our senses came to be through evolution, one would almost tend to think the opposite.

Finally, perceiving something isn't enough, you have to understand it. Though our level of intelligence beats that of any other species on earth, when you consider how complex the universe is to us, you realize that this is not enough, and there'll always be things we don't yet understand. But give it time. In time we will probably learn to predict quantum behaviour.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Besides, we have but our 5 senses to perceive reality, but there is no reason to believe this is enough. Or that the method by which we perceive reality leaves nothing out. Again, given the complexity of the universe, and understanding that our senses came to be through evolution, one would almost tend to think the opposite.


[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think that's realistic. We've been able to extend our senses through the technology of measurement. We can't physically detect ultraviolet light, for example, but we know that it exists. Same with gravity, neutrinos, etc.
You could argue that there exist forces we haven't even thought of measuring, but it's pretty clear that either we've found them all, or they don't interact with any matter or force which is measurable. And if they don't interact with anything measurable, they may as well not exist. It doesn't mean much to say that there exists a 'force', but it doesn't influence anything. Although that seems to be the theist position these days /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[soon2bepro]

precisely since you can't predict certain events (such as quantum fluctuation) would seem to indicate that we're missing out on something.

[siegfriedandroy]

you're probably pretty dam bright, so i wont try to argue. in reality, you don't know sh*t about why flowers and planets and animals exist. most of you are reprehensible imitations of dead and gone 'philosophers' who knew ...(nothi..


in reality, you suck college kid. soon 2be pro suks more than you. and victor sucks the most. i have a friend name vicotr who is atheist. not the vicotr on this thread. a smarter one, yet still a fool. whatever. you see a universe every day. stars humans etc etc. and ds says its crazy to invoke the teleoloical argument. ds is mistaken. it is obvious that if a great universe is created, then it was created by someone far greater than the universe. if you cannot understand this, then you are worse than victor