|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 14. June 2006 17:58
Shi: quote:
After all, the opposite of random is intention and purpose.
Not according to the definitions of randomness that I'm familiar with. In statistics, randomness means a flat probability distribution. In information theory, it means high information entropy. In algorithmic information theory, it means incompressibility. For all of these definitions, the opposite of random is regular.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. June 2006 18:22
Since purpose and intention is not part of the vocabulary of mathematics, we should limit our discussion to the relavent domain. What do you suppose is the opposite of purpose and intention? I would say and most would agree that it is randomness. Human has a common sense intuition about what random means even if they know nothin about any fancy mathe theories. As far as I know, the opposite to the God/purpose position is the randomness/accident position. Life is either purposely created or is a random accident. Enlighten me if you know any opposite position to purpose that is not randomness.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 14. June 2006 18:55
Shi: quote:
What do you suppose is the opposite of purpose and intention?.
Purposeless and unintentional. That sounds like a flippant answer, and I apologize for that, but it's the only one I know. If purposeful and intentional are well-defined, then prepending a "not" to those definitions gives us their opposites.
You posed the question of "random or intentional" to Zachriel, but that seems like a false dichotomy to me. Is the orbit of Neptune random, or is it intentional?
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. June 2006 19:35
2ndclass:
You are invoking tautology or circular definition, which does not explain. Day and night are opposites. Not-day does not explain night if we have no experience of night.
The orbits of stars and planets are clearly not random. The question is what is the cause of the non-random pattern. Here lies the dichotomy: is it caused by random accident or by purpose? Whenever one sees a pattern or design, one faces such dichotomy. Hence you have ID sees designer from pattern whereas you have the opposite NDE sees randomness from pattern. The NDE position is clearly anti-human common sense pure and simple and that is why human do not behave based on NDE principle. We humans are more then what NDE led us to believe we are. We want to fit in within our human society, for sure, as is dictated by NDE's survival of the fittest. If we dont, we will be locked up in prison or mental institutions. But we surely also want to be distinct and unique and different as when we want to accomplish or create something that have never been done before. NDE offers nothing to explain our drive to be unique and not-fit in and creative. NDE is not a creative force in nature and cannot explain human creativity. It is an adaptive force and explains the drive of human to fit in. If NDE (to fit in) is a partial truth, the opposite of NDE (to be unique or non-fit) must be the complementary truth and remains to be unearthed.
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 14. June 2006 20:05
quote:
The orbits of stars and planets are clearly not random.
Then they must be intentional, according to your dichotomy.
Unless you're using random to mean unpredictable here, which I suspect is the case. In other places, you use it to mean unintentional. I'm guessing that this ambiguity will cause difficulties in your discussion with Zachriel, but I'll bow out so I don't derail it further.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. June 2006 20:29
2ndclass:
I see now where you are coming from. I agree now there are two different opposites to random. First, as Zach pointed out, is regular. A pattern is either random or its opposite regular. The orbits of stars are either random or regular. The second opposite to random is intention and purpose. This concerns the cause of a pattern. The cause of a regular pattern can be either random or purpose. In this case one clearly cannot use regular to replace the word purpose.
The confusion lies in the fact that we use the same word 'random' to describe two different phenomena, a pattern and the cause of the pattern. But we use different words for a pattern that is regular and has non-random causes. We use the word regular to describe the pattern and we use the word purpose for the cause of the pattern. I can fix it by using the word accident as the opposite of purpose. So a pattern is either regular or random. A cause of a pattern is either accident or purposeful.
I am glad that you brought up the issue, which has clarified my thought. I hope my intention is now clear to you. Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. June 2006 20:52
So, when Zach says that the enviroment is non-random, he is referring to the pattern being regular, such as the day and night cycle. But if he believes in NDE, he must also infer that the cause of such non-random regular pattern is accident.
When I say the environment is random, I am refering to the cause for whatever pattern the environment displays.
So NDE requires a regular and non-random environment such as the stable Earth's day and night cycle, as Zach pointed out. But his NDE hat requires that the cause of such stable non-random environment is a random accident. So, the ultimate cause of complex life is a random accident. NDE is essentially saying that random variation selected by an accidentally created environment can result in regular pattern. In other words, randomness selected by accidents can create complex and meaningful pattern. No one in his right mind could see that fancy happens in reality or in theory. Unless he is blinded by faith in the NDE.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 14. June 2006 22:25
Shi: "So, when Zach says that the enviroment is non-random, he is referring to the pattern being regular, such as the day and night cycle."
That is correct. "Random" has a specific meaning in the mathematics of statistics and probability. Day and night are a cyclical pattern due to the rotation of the Earth. The diurnal cycle is not random, but regular.
Shi: "But if he believes in NDE, he must also infer that the cause of such non-random regular pattern is accident."
Not at all. The evidence for biological evolution (i.e. NDE) is independent of the evidence for the Earth's rotation.
Shi: "So NDE requires a regular and non-random environment such as the stable Earth's day and night cycle, as Zach pointed out."
Life requires a non-random environment — regardless of any theory of origins.
Shi: "But his NDE hat requires that the cause of such stable non-random environment is a random accident."
Evolution can occur in controlled environments as well as natural ones.
In any case, you are still conflating "random accident" with contingency. For instance, astronomers believe the Earth's rotation is due to the history of its formation. This process was certainly not random, but due to the natural properties of matter and motion.
For some reason you believe pattern cannot exist without intelligent intervention. There is no scientific justification for this and there are many examples in nature of patterns that have strong scientific explanations that do not involve such intervention.
Now if you wish to wax philosophical about God's hand in the universe, that's fine. But it's not science. The Earth's continued rotation is well-explained by basic scientific principles such as inertia.
IP: Logged
|
|
Shi
Member
Member # 1923
|
posted 14. June 2006 23:21
quote:
For instance, astronomers believe the Earth's rotation is due to the history of its formation. This process was certainly not random, but due to the natural properties of matter and motion.
The history of the formation of the earth is random or not is not a scientifically settled issue. Juat like the formation of the cosmo is not settled. If it is the public would have given up on God. I am sure you are familiar with the fine tuning of the cosmos and how everything is perfectly and uniquele fit for life as Denton argues. Well do you know the best alternative to the God hypothesis that scientists can offer to explain this? It is called the multiverse. There are infinite number of possible universes and ours is one of the luck accidents that happen to support us. In fact it would require an infinite number of accident to be hiting on just the unique case out of all possible cases. So, the best alternative to God is an accident theory.
quote:
For some reason you believe pattern cannot exist without intelligent intervention. There is no scientific justification for this and there are many examples in nature of patterns that have strong scientific explanations that do not involve such intervention.
just because science can explain snow flake as inherent properties of matter does not mean more complex patterns can be explained the same way. if you chose to believe snow flake, why you selectively ignore the fact that a boeing 747 cannot be assembled by wind blowing a junk yard? There are a lot more facts in nature that says complex pattern cannot arise independent of intelligence. Being selective in your use of evidence only expose the weakness of your position. To extrapolate snow flake to human brain is the same fallacy as to extrapolate micro to macro evol.
quote:
The Earth's continued rotation is well-explained by basic scientific principles such as inertia.
again science did not explain the origin of such phenomenon. God is invoked to explain things that science cannot. We need a coherent theory of all of nature even if such theory may contain elements of uncertainty or guesswork. NDE is not a coherent theory. It trys to limit itself only to life but in doing so it illiminates God intervention in life. On the other hand the evolution theory for the cosmo is either God or a multiverse accident. Many NDE people believe in God, which is evidence itself against NDE being a coherent theory. They are okay with accepting two opposite evolution theories, one with God that causes evolution of the cosmo and the other without God that cause life on Earth. By Ocam's rule, we should use the minimum needed. There is no evidence that the evolution of the whole nature is governed by different laws at different time periods. The goal of science is to find a single universal and unifying law of nature. NDE people has just taken NDE out of contention for such a law by also believing God.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 02:47
quote:
..nothing you have posted leads me to believe that your model is better at explaining the data than Ho's and other specialists in the field.
You can start by explaining genetic redundancy from the standard model:
1) how did redundant genes evolve that are not associated with gene duplication,
2) why do they not evolve faster then essential genes.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 03:06
quote:
And reading the literature leads one to believe that scientists are pursuing every active lead, and that these leads all point to evolution from common descent with selection and drift being prominent mechanisms of change.
Common descent is okay as long as you talk about organisms that interbreed. For organisms that do not it is inferred from shared characteristics and similarities, which can also be the result of design and NRM.
What convinced me that I am right is my observation on the GULO genes. Usually taken by Darwinians as the ultimate evidence of common descent of the primates, and ignored by creationist. I have had this example many times presented in pro-evolutionary discussion boards (and it still is), but I have now definite proof that the mutations are simply the result of a non-random mechanism. Because common descent of primates is untrue, I predicted this in 2002 on the EvC forum and in 2003 a paper was published that provided the scientific evidence. Darwinism was wrong, GUToB was right. Therefore is a better scientific theory. GUToB explains where Darwinism doesn't.
(If there is interest I can post my paper on the GULO genes here as an original research submission, as it has been rejected now five times by the Darwinism-dominated scientific journals).
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 03:19
quote:
The random mutation plus natural selection mechanism so far has only been shown to accout for varieties within a species and is a mechanism for maitaining species stability.
If you look into the genomes of dog varieties you find that the variation is not due to random point mutations but rather stems from shuffling of preexisting genetic elements (As discussed previously). In bacteria we see the same: jumping genetic elemenst. Even Lenski admitted that in a recent paper. Genomes are prepared to induce variation. In other words, variation is not a random mechanims as it is mediated by genetic elements.
It is sientifically incorrect to keep referring to evolutiona as RM + NS. It is untrue!
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. June 2006 06:32
Point mutations have always been very important in ensuring ultimate extinction. Without that extinction there could never have been evolution. Now that evolution is finished all we have to look forward to is our ultimate demise. So far we are doing a great job of it. Optimistic isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 15. June 2006 07:24
Shi: "The history of the formation of the earth is random or not is not a scientifically settled issue."
Your continued use of the word "random" is fraught with conflation. The vast majority of planetary astronomers see the Earth's formation as a natural consequence of the congregation of matter. One of the predictions of this is that there will be other planets around other stars. Originally proposed by Bruno in 1584, only recently has it been possible to actually detect such planets. And yet, they do exist.
If you insist that the rotational period of the Earth is due to some sort of design, then you are not talking science. Nor are you talking about the Theory of Evolution which has nothing to do with the formation of planets. Even if the Earth was plopped into its precise orbit, the evidence of evolution remains.
Shi: "I am sure you are familiar with the fine tuning of the cosmos and how everything is perfectly and uniquele fit for life as Denton argues."
That's called puddle-logic.
"It's rather like a puddle waking up one morning. A puddle wakes up one morning and thinks: 'This is a very interesting world I find myself in. It fits me very neatly. In fact it fits me so neatly... I mean really precise isn't it?... It must have been made to have me in it.'" — Douglas Adams
And even if you hold to puddle-logic, it's not science because it doesn't make empirical predictions beyond the sense of wonder already described. There may be underlying symmetries that explain the "fit", just as once electricity and magnetism were considered two separate forces, and just as once no one could really explain the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.
Shi: "Well do you know the best alternative to the God hypothesis that scientists can offer to explain this? It is called the multiverse."
Actually not. There are many plausible scenarios. However, the difference is that scientists do not consider it a settled issue, but merely speculation. You make a specific assertion, but your assertion does not constitute a scientific theory.
Shi: "just because science can explain snow flake as inherent properties of matter does not mean more complex patterns can be explained the same way."
But that wasn't the issue, was it? You are conflating non-random with design. But again, as you keep using the word "random", it is very hard to know what you are claiming. In fact, you probably don't have a strong grasp of your own claim.
Shi: "We need a coherent theory of all of nature even if such theory may contain elements of uncertainty or guesswork. NDE is not a coherent theory."
The Theory of Evolution is a theory concerning biology. It it not a "coherent theory of all nature".
Shi: "It trys to limit itself only to life but in doing so it illiminates God intervention in life."
All scientific theories work within limited domains, including the Theory of Gravity, Germ Theory or Quantum Theory. The test of a theory is its ability to make specific empirical predictions.
Shi: "Many NDE people believe in God, which is evidence itself against NDE being a coherent theory. They are okay with accepting two opposite evolution theories, one with God that causes evolution of the cosmo and the other without God that cause life on Earth."
You are conflating religion with science. There is no scientific theory that God causes the "evolution of the cosmos". Whether He does or not is a religious or philosophical statement, not a scientific one.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 15. June 2006 07:34
quote:
Point mutations have always been very important in ensuring ultimate extinction.
The accumulation of disadvantagous mutations is very high and could indeed lead to extinctions. Humans would have to bring forth much more offspring than is actually happening to outpace this effect; it is known as Haldanes dilemma. We are doomed to disappear... ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
