| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/28/2007 10:54:29 PM · #801 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I totally, completely, and utterly disagree. How can you say it's a misconception to say evolution has anything to do with chance? It is the BEDROCK of the theory. To take my car parts analogy a bit further, natural selection could be considered the wheels of the auto. It is what the car uses to move from one place to another. Random mutation is, like I said before, the engine. Without the engine, the wheels are useless. |
While I totally disagree with that analogy rather than argue it, I like to go back to what you said earlier, which I replied to but didn't get an answer on. That is the part you said earlier about evolutionists and how they should feel uncomfortable about the whole thing. Why should they feel uncomfortable? It sounds to me you're trying to wedge in faith. If as you say, you believe in evolution and have faith how do you reconcile the "random chance" part? You're using the word random but I feel you really mean the hand of god (i.e. not random). Am I wrong?
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 22:58:12.
|
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:14:36 PM · #802 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I totally, completely, and utterly disagree. How can you say it's a misconception to say evolution has anything to do with chance? It is the BEDROCK of the theory. To take my car parts analogy a bit further, natural selection could be considered the wheels of the auto. It is what the car uses to move from one place to another. Random mutation is, like I said before, the engine. Without the engine, the wheels are useless. |
While I totally disagree with that analogy rather than argue it, I like to go back to what you said earlier, which I replied to but didn't get an answer on. That is the part you said earlier about evolutionists and how they should feel uncomfortable about the whole thing. Why should they feel uncomfortable? It sounds to me you're trying to wedge in faith. If as you say, you believe in evolution and have faith how do you reconcile the "random chance" part? You're using the word random but I feel you really mean the hand of god (i.e. not random). Am I wrong? |
Well, let's look at abiogenesis (the rising of life from non-life). Evolutionists, to put it crassly, believe that if you have enough time and enough monkeys, Shakespeare will be written (given enough time and enough places of favorable conditions life will arise). Now this is logically true. However, the truth is we have no idea how many monkeys we have (let the monkey's represent habitable planets) and although we have an idea of how much time we have, it actually keeps getting shorter and shorter. The best evidence supports the idea that life arose on earth nearly as soon as it was possible geologically speaking.
So while an astute evolutionist will delight in turning the creationist's analogy of the monkeys and the typewriters on its head by saying that such a crazy thing is entirely possible, they really have no idea if it is entirely applicable as we have neither infinite time nor infinite monkeys. We actually don't even know how easy it is for life to arise since we have very few ideas (if any) how that could even have been achieved. So we don't even know what a reasonable amount of time or monkeys would be. To sum up, we don't know a) how many monkeys and time is reasonably needed, b) how many monkeys we have and c) seem to be getting an ever shortening amount of time. At this point I think the term "faith" can be applied quite aptly.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 23:15:32. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:24:04 PM · #803 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, let's look at abiogenesis (the rising of life from non-life)... |
Why? While one may logically conclude that life had to "begin" at some point (or perhaps independently at multiple points), the theory of evolution itself makes no predictions or claims about the origin. Whether or not we can explain how life began has absolutely no bearing on whether one species may evolve into another.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 23:24:47. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:37:14 PM · #804 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis, you are either misinterpreting him or me because we are saying the same thing. |
I did not interpret at all. I transcribed and posted. I did not even comment. You may intepret as you see fit.
However, grossly mischaracterising his lecture by calling it spin is low-ball. He's the world's pre-eminent expert on evolutionary theory, for gods' sake. If you accept evolutionary theory, surely you have no quarrel with his expert opinion. Remember your willingness to defer to the expert biologist earlier?
No, he did not stumble at all with those half-baked puerile questions from the Liberty "University" people. He skewered them quite nicely, in fact.
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 23:56:56. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:47:44 PM · #805 |
Incidentally, the part I transcribed is about 10 minutes from the end. And you'll note that I transcribed verbatim. And I can't point out enough times that I did not even comment in my post, I merely offered his words, verbatim... so perhaps you could tell me how you think I "misinterpreted"? DrAchoo, you should follow the principle of the assumption of good faith, before making accusations that are not readily apparent from the post of the person you're replying to. Either that or read the post first. ;-)
Message edited by author 2007-11-28 23:56:44. |
|
|
|
11/28/2007 11:56:58 PM · #806 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A localized decrease in entropy was achieved at an overall increase in entropy to the system as a whole? |
Good call, lol! So, it's testable, then...got any closed systems and recently deceased pets handy? Should make for an interesting weekend.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:17:07 AM · #807 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Louis, you are either misinterpreting him or me because we are saying the same thing. |
I did not interpret at all. I transcribed and posted. I did not even comment. You may intepret as you see fit.
However, grossly mischaracterising his lecture by calling it spin is low-ball. He's the world's pre-eminent expert on evolutionary theory, for gods' sake. If you accept evolutionary theory, surely you have no quarrel with his expert opinion. Remember your willingness to defer to the expert biologist earlier?
No, he did not stumble at all with those half-baked puerile questions from the Liberty "University" people. He skewered them quite nicely, in fact. |
Not so fast Lewey. We are in a point/counterpoint type of discussion are we not? Perhaps I missed that you were now jumping to my side. I assumed (and maybe I was wrong) that you quoted me and quoted Dawkins in an effort to counterpoint my argument. If not, and you are suddenly supporting me, I apologize. You will also note that I said "I give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt." about whether he was spinning his answer or not. I think it's more likely you do not understand it. (especially since you refuse to comment on it at all)
It's all a matter of opinion on the "skewer" bit. I see it differently, of course. As an example I can recall, his bit about the deep mysteriousness of quantum mechanics vs. the trinity is silly. To paraphrase (and I am doing it accurately) Dawkins states that quantum mechanics is deeply mysterious and interesting because it is scientific (ie. it makes predictions (and that the predictions are exquisitely accurate is icing on the cake)) while the Trinity is deeply uninteresting because it is not science (it cannot make predictions). See my post further up about how I feel concerning people who do not think things outside science are worth any time.
So please, stop with the holier-than-thou attitude. If you post something say why you are posting it for cripes sakes. Don't just throw something up there and see if it sticks without claiming any responsibility for whether it does or not. That is arguing like a wuss. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:18:00 AM · #808 |
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A localized decrease in entropy was achieved at an overall increase in entropy to the system as a whole? |
Good call, lol! So, it's testable, then...got any closed systems and recently deceased pets handy? Should make for an interesting weekend. |
Better make it a long weekend. While such things are theoretically entirely within the realm of possibility, they aren't very likely. We're gonna need some time. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:29:42 AM · #809 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Well, let's look at abiogenesis (the rising of life from non-life)... |
Why? While one may logically conclude that life had to "begin" at some point (or perhaps independently at multiple points), the theory of evolution itself makes no predictions or claims about the origin. Whether or not we can explain how life began has absolutely no bearing on whether one species may evolve into another. |
Sorry Shannon. Louis got me a bit hot under the collar and I missed you. Yes, I agree. I'm perhaps shifting gears a little from evolution as a specific theory to naturalism as a whole. You guys keep forgetting that I buy into evolution. I especially buy into it when a high diversity of genes are already present. I can't see how it can't be true. However, Richard asked a different question so I moved the conversation a bit in reply.
Actually hopefully Richard reads this before posting because I think I only indirectly answered his question. Yes, to me you can substitute at least at some point "random mutation" with "the Hand of God". I don't know if that is happening all the time, some of the time, or only at the beginning, but at some point I think it makes the most sense (to me) that there was direction in the process. Yes, it's a leap of faith, but to assume a naturalistic answer is also a leap (which was the point of what I wrote to Richard above). I don't fault someone for leaping the other way. I've never argued in all my years that design is superior to naturalism, I've always argued when it gets down to the brass tacks we are all in the boat called "not enough information to make a fully informed decision".
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 00:30:22. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:39:16 AM · #810 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually hopefully Richard reads this before posting because I think I only indirectly answered his question. Yes, to me you can substitute at least at some point "random mutation" with "the Hand of God". I don't know if that is happening all the time, some of the time, or only at the beginning, but at some point I think it makes the most sense (to me) that there was direction in the process. Yes, it's a leap of faith, but to assume a naturalistic answer is also a leap (which was the point of what I wrote to Richard above). I don't fault someone for leaping the other way. I've never argued in all my years that design is superior to naturalism, I've always argued when it gets down to the brass tacks we are all in the boat called "not enough information to make a fully informed decision". |
Wouldn't this lead to a lack of free will? Besides, if there is direction why waste all these mutations that don't amount to anything? Why not have precise mutations that lead directly to something beneficial to the species? Is God just sloppy or learning as it goes? :P
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 00:58:58.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:13:02 AM · #811 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually hopefully Richard reads this before posting because I think I only indirectly answered his question. Yes, to me you can substitute at least at some point "random mutation" with "the Hand of God". I don't know if that is happening all the time, some of the time, or only at the beginning, but at some point I think it makes the most sense (to me) that there was direction in the process. Yes, it's a leap of faith, but to assume a naturalistic answer is also a leap (which was the point of what I wrote to Richard above). I don't fault someone for leaping the other way. I've never argued in all my years that design is superior to naturalism, I've always argued when it gets down to the brass tacks we are all in the boat called "not enough information to make a fully informed decision". |
Wouldn't this lead to a lack of free will? Besides, if there is direction why waste all these mutations that don't amount to anything? Why not have precise mutations that lead directly to something beneficial to the species? Is God just sloppy or learning as it goes? :P |
OK, you ask two questions here. I'll try to keep them separate.
1) Free will is sticky. At the bottom, materialism and Free Will are mutually exclusive so you cannot have Free Will in a naturalistic system. In a dualist system (so there is the physical and the not-physical (which would presumably include God)), you could potentially have Free Will. How much do we truly have? I don't know and I wrestle with that question all the time.
2) This question, while seemingly interesting, doesn't mean much. It makes presuppositions on what a God-created universe should look like. As another example some might point out to the vastness of the universe and ask why God created it all. "It seems like such a waste of space." But on the other hand if the universe were quite small the same skeptic would say, "This is all your God can come up with?" Your question is along the same lines and my answer would simply be that God does as He does. I do not know why.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 01:13:47. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 08:07:48 AM · #812 |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 08:28:21 AM · #813 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always argued when it gets down to the brass tacks we are all in the boat called "not enough information to make a fully informed decision". |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
God does as He does. I do not know why. |
Nor, apparently, IF. ;-)
Note that if God intentionally created Man as claimed by most/all religions, then the outcome of the initial "design" decisions (including vestigal organs and genetic flaws) were known, and the idea of "chance" or "randomness" goes out the window, probably taking free will along with it.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 08:34:15. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 10:53:10 AM · #814 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You will also note that I said "I give Dawkins the benefit of the doubt." about whether he was spinning his answer or not. I think it's more likely you do not understand it. (especially since you refuse to comment on it at all) |
Now I understand that you don't like to be wrong. And I also understand that you are very proud of your education. But continually trivializing the responses of others by accusing them of not understanding the basic principles, of being uneducated, of being armchair critics, is elitism, and the very essence of bad arguing. I would suggest you have a bit more respect for those willing to engage your points. Otherwise, you come off as merely suffering from corruption of pride.
Letting Dawkins do the talking is the point itself. Insulting the intelligence of the messenger is just adolescent. I don't think there is any ambiguity between:
Gordon: "chance" is not exactly what evolutionary theory is predicated on.
DrAchoo: You are incorrect.
Dawkins: One of the biggest fallacies in popular understanding of Darwinian evolution by natural selection is that it is a theory of random chance. It is not. It's the very opposite, and this is one of the most important things to understand about it.
It is apparently you who are so eager to muddy the waters by virtually equating genetic mutation with natural selection that not only do you refuse to admit to having made a basic mistake that is a very common mistake, but you refuse to defer to Dawkins, the evolutionary man himself, and then you fly off the handle when you are merely offered the quote as-is, claiming that because I haven't offered my own spin on his lecture that I am not even arguing. Huh? Is it so very important to be right, that you must assume everyone else is an idiot? |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 11:35:54 AM · #815 |
I'm probably best off to just ignore your posts Louis. First you say you are "just putting the quote out there" when I say you were misinterpreting it as an attempt to counter my argument. Now you say I don't listen to Dawkins when he clearly counters my argument. Can't have it both ways pal.
I don't know how to make this any more clear. I am not "virtually equating genetic mutation with natural selection". Let's revisit my quote above: "Natural selection is not random; good traits are selected for, bad traits are selected against. But natural selection does not matter if you do not have the mutations to begin with. Nothing in evolution can occur without random mutation. Is that equating one with the other? No. Is it putting them in relation to each other? Yes.
Let me put it simply. Can you, or Dawkins, or anybody give me a simple, but complete definition of Evolution without using the word "random" or "chance" or a synonym? If you can, I stand corrected. I trust Shannon enough to act as an impartial juror with the definition.
If you can do that, and we can get our discussion back on track, then great. If not, I will just ignore your posts and you are free to ignore mine.
EDIT: I'll save a post concenrning the definition. If you use the term "genetic variation" or the like, please indicate where the variation comes from or how it arises otherwise I will consider the definition incomplete.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 11:39:51.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 11:47:14 AM · #816 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you, or Dawkins, or anybody give me a simple, but complete definition of Evolution without using the word "random" or "chance" or a synonym? |
No, of course not. I don't think anyone suggested that. I merely countered your point that was itself a counter to Gordon's very correct interpretation of evolution that chance is not the seminal process, natural selection is. Dawkins clearly states that there is a chance element in the form of genetic mutation, but the theory taken whole is the opposite of chance. I don't understand why this got you so upset, or why this particular point must turn this discussion to the irrational. Feel free to ignore me, but it makes little sense to me.
Incidentally, I don't think we need an arbiter. Surely, as mature people, we can work this out ourselves? |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 11:48:58 AM · #817 |
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists Douglas J. Futuyma has defined biological evolution as follows:
"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:04:43 PM · #818 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you, or Dawkins, or anybody give me a simple, but complete definition of Evolution without using the word "random" or "chance" or a synonym? |
Ummm... I just checked a half-dozen or so dictionaries and couldn't find a single definition of evolution that DID include any word or phrase indicating chance or randomness, even among the secondary definitions. You might want to rethink that challenge.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 12:05:22. |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:22:11 PM · #819 |
Ya, I looked at some dictionaries too. The definitions do not include it although it is there obviously as the genetic variation.
I guess I'll back up and start all over and explain why this is an issue with me. I think I said it before and I'll stick by it. Random mutation is fundamental to natural selection and not the other way around. You cannot have natural selection without random mutation. You could logically have random mutation without natural selection (although the second likely follows the first in most situations). I need to get to the end of that youtube video to see if Dawkins is being disingenuous because I don't know the question he was answering. If the question was something like "blah blah blah how can you believe man could have evolved from random chance?" then I think he IS being mildly disingenuous by discounting the random aspect. I only got 30 minutes into the video before I had to leave for cub scouts yesterday.
Anyway, I still firmy hold that someone who does not understand that randomness is the ultimate master of a naturalist, evolutionary system is fooling themselves. There are systems that channel that randomness, but randomness is nonetheless king.
EDIT: It's not like I really need to show examples because I think you guys do understand that random mutation plays a role, but this is from the berkeley website about evolution (#3 on google for "evolution"). It's a basic primer for evolution and under "genetic variation" they have:
Genetic variation
Without genetic variation, some of the basic mechanisms of evolutionary change cannot operate.
There are three primary sources of genetic variation, which we will learn more about:
Mutations are changes in the DNA. A single mutation can have a large effect, but in many cases, evolutionary change is based on the accumulation of many mutations.
Gene flow is any movement of genes from one population to another and is an important source of genetic variation.
Sex can introduce new gene combinations into a population. This genetic shuffling is another important source of genetic variation.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 12:26:13.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:26:55 PM · #820 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Can you, or Dawkins, or anybody give me a simple, but complete definition of Evolution without using the word "random" or "chance" or a synonym? |
The definition of "evolution" cannot include either of those words, because they are not *part* of the definition. As you yourself point out, there's nothing random about natural selection. Beneficial traits are selected for, detrimental traits are selected against.
The "random" or "chance" element is a component of the mechanism by which evolution operates.
It's not normal to require that the definition of a thing include a detailed description of the mechanism by which the thing operates.
R.
ETA: I see we cross-posted, Doc. I deduce from your post above that you probably agree with what I just said.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 12:28:50.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 12:43:42 PM · #821 |
Maybe Bear is getting to the heart of why there is so much friction here. There is the theoretical definition of evoution and there is the practical application of evolution. It is possible Louis and Shannon are concentrating on the first (of which I agree you do not necessarily need to talk about randomness to define simply by starting with "genetic variation" and leaving it at that) while I am concentrating on the second (of which you obviously need randomness to generate the genetic variation otherwise you are left with nonrandom variation which is synonymous with design which we know is not the answer for either of them).
So as usual, most of the strife generated in these arguments simply comes from different starting definitions or assumptions (ie. theoretical evolution vs. practical evolution). Maybe we should be more clear in the future.
To me "theoretical evolution" need only encompass "the change over time in genetic variation (of a population)" (that's from wiki).
To me "practical evolution" stretches from abiogenesis to the present day as a theory of how life arose and arrived at us.
EDIT: My prediction about Dawkins' question/answer (and it's still loading, I'm almost there) is that the question is about practical evolution and Dawkins' answers concerning theoretical evolution.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 12:47:00.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:04:11 PM · #822 |
| Out of interest Doc, have you heard of theMiller-Urey experiments? and the RNA world hypothesis? |
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:33:23 PM · #823 |
Well, I finally got to the question. It actually doesn't look like the was really a question at all but rather a "can you speak to chance, natural selection, and intelligent design." comment. Anyway, I should have gone back and seen this in the original quote because it really just sums up what I've been trying to say.
"Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic codes."
I completely agree with Dawkins on this. End of story. I'm not sure how this differs from what I have, perhaps less eloquently, been trying to say.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:41:51 PM · #824 |
I certainly have.
The Miller-Urey experiments are currently considered interesting, but not applicable to our own earth. The proposed atmosphere used by Miller and Urey (I think it was actually mainly Miller who was the grad student and Urey just took the credit as his mentor) has been judged to be quite different than what we now consider to be the best guesses about what the primordial earth's atmosphere consisted of. Wiki does relate some of the controversy surrounding this (and don't think "opponent" in this scenario means "creationist" when it merely indicates science vetting its own ideas). This is why current ideas have tried to move the creation of organic molecules off earth. For example, some propose that comets were responsible for depositing organic molecules on the surface of the earth.
The RNA World hypothesis is also interesting but has its own issues. You can see some listed in the criticism section. They mainly have to do with the synthesis of RNA and its stability. Pentose sugars, for example, are very difficult to synthesize under conditions that are favorable to other parts of the RNA molecule. Also, I worked with RNA in undergrad and for a year in fellowship while doing basic research. Even under laboratory conditions RNA is a finicky molecule and is apt to degradation. I'm not sure it represents a good candidate for the original self-replicating molecule.
Message edited by author 2007-11-29 13:43:41.
|
|
|
|
11/29/2007 01:47:46 PM · #825 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Natural selection is the non-random survival of randomly varying genetic codes."
I completely agree with Dawkins on this. End of story. I'm not sure how this differs from what I have, perhaps less eloquently, been trying to say. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, I believe in evolution, but I also would feel that the person who truly understands biology would be uncomfortable with some of the hurdles which have been surmounted merely by time and chance. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm just saying we need to give that complexity the respect it deserves and either be awed that it was created or be awed that it arose by chance. |
It differs, because in the Dawkins quote he essentially indicates that evolution by natural selection is specifically non-random survival of traits produced by chance mutations, but in your previous two quotes you clearly remove the entire non-random part from your allusion to the process of evolution, either by accident or design.
An eye didn't come in to being merely by time and chance and similarly the theory of evolution doesn't require us to be awed by things that arose by chance alone. It is a fairly fundamental misstatement of the theory at that point. That was simply the point I was raising, after you'd made the comment a few times.
|
|
