Randomness or Design?

Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 5:48 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

If people want to think that the human brain is the result of a uncountably-high number of utterly random and unguided mutations, then that's what they're going to think, and they are entitled to that opinion.

Well, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the brain is a result of random mutations with some being removed from the selection process.

Well, I considered that last part implied. Consider my quoted statement re-phrased to include that if you wish.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 5:50 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Well, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the brain is a result of random mutations with some being removed from the selection process.

Well, I considered that last part implied. Consider my quoted statement re-phrased to include that if you wish.

Perhaps G-d wrote the algorithms and then hit Run on his computer keyboard and the whole Universe started happening(evolution and all)from there?

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 5:58 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Well, the reason why selected mutations seems easy be believe happens to be the following:
1) Traits are genetically transmitted
2) Radical genetic change can and has occurred through the transmission process
3) There is fossil evidence that suggests that different creatures have existed and disappeared over time
4) Within those fossils and current living beings there is evidence that premise 2 is what historically happened
5) Life is imperfect with reasons that seem explainable through a genetically based perspective but not as well explained through a view of intentional creation by a perfect being.

Facts 3, 4, and 5 disagree with intentional creation by a perfect being. Facts 1 and 2 are arbitrary in a situation with intentional creation by a perfect being, as are other facts involved in this, such as some geological facts. Thus, there is a reason to think that an evolutionary theory may be valid.

You're connecting random dots, thus you're seeing order in chaos.
Number 5 is pure speculation.
Even with all 5, you've haven't even roughly outlined evolution.
So how are those 4 remaining dots supposed to paint a picture of evolution?

(Sorry, that's the fast-fast version, since I must leave at this very moment.)

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 6:08 pm

Ragtime wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Of course I am connecting "random" dots, seeing order in "chaos", that is the goal of science. There needs to be a theoretical framework to see facts.

Number 5 is a point that can be made with reference to plants, vestigial organs or relatively vestigial organs, and things of that nature.

As for the 4 remaining dots. 1 gives a mechanism. 2 shows that this mechanism can work. 3 suggests that the history of species seems non-purposive. 4 is that our mechanism found in 2 can explain 3, and thus gives us the theory of evolution.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 6:12 pm

Haliphron wrote:

What if its NEITHER a truly random process NOR the result of some intelligent designer? Its the result of a lengthy process, governed by a set of physically implemented algorithms that are RECURSIVELY iterated over what took Millions and Millions of years? Keep in mind that external influences on a deterministic dynamic system DO have affect what its next state will be.

Well, genetic variation is usually somewhat random, in as much as it is difficult to know in advance what variation will exist, I suppose we can argue that these are in fact deterministic, but there is no reason to describe them as deterministic, because for all analytical intents and purposes these changes are random. I also did not argue against a lengthy process based upon nature.

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

19 Feb 2009, 6:33 pm

Haliphron wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Ragtime wrote:

Well, that isn't the argument. The argument is that the brain is a result of random mutations with some being removed from the selection process.

Well, I considered that last part implied. Consider my quoted statement re-phrased to include that if you wish.

Perhaps G-d wrote the algorithms and then hit Run on his computer keyboard and the whole Universe started happening(evolution and all)from there?

That would be anathema to most evolutionists. Somehow, they think that the process must be unguided by intelligence.

_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.

Haliphron
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,980

19 Feb 2009, 6:35 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Haliphron wrote:

For all analytical purposes you say? What exactly do you mean by that? Id have to see some statistical as well as physical evidence that there is some kind of non-determinism going on here. It is MORE likely that they are deterministic rather than being Truly random. A good example of a Truly nondeterministic, random process in nature is radioactive decay. The main reason for this is that Quantum Forces prevent radioactive nuclear from exchanging information with each other whereas with DNA molecules there's nothing to prevent that. The double helix is a very stable structure and there are a lot of mechanical constraints on these molecules that limit their degrees of freedom.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 6:47 pm

Haliphron wrote:

I mean that the variation in genetic selection is easier to model as randomness as the influences are more likely to be situation, perhaps creature specific, like coin-flips are. A coin is described as 50% likely to be heads, and 50% likely to be tails, but there is no quantum variation

Haliphron, I am not concerned about "true randomness", and frankly it could not be "truly random" in the terms in which you would describe it. "True randomness" is a matter that I am relatively unconcerned with, as to me it does not matter either way as I am only concerned with the scientific explanation for the origin of the brain, and I never invoked a personal opinion about these issues.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Feb 2009, 6:49 pm

Ragtime wrote:

That would be anathema to most evolutionists. Somehow, they think that the process must be unguided by intelligence.

well, scientists such as biologists, geologists, astrophisists, etc. take the process of evolution as the more valid theory given the evidence there is to support it, and the focus is aimed to natural phenomena according to the adherence of the scientific method, and given that, I believe they cannot make any affirmation under scientific grounds about wether that is guided by a higher intelligence or not, it wouldn't even be a valid hypothesis I believe, they only can work with what they can find, detect and measure, concentrating on the natural aspect only without proposing a possible supernatural cause or intervention or proposing otherwise.

There are the theistic evolutionists though, which they believe the process of evolution is guided by God, but that's not and can't be a scientific view, rather theological or philosophical.

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

Last edited by greenblue on 19 Feb 2009, 7:03 pm, edited 5 times in total.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

19 Feb 2009, 6:53 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I see probabilities as applying to events where there is lack of planning or knowledge, but where the outcome is designed to occur it doesn't show randomness, but rather, intelligence. The level of intelligence is shown in the sophistication of the design. A simple or unknowledgeable mind could conceive and carry out a simple plan, and a more complex and knowledgeable mind a more sophisticated plan.

Genetic algorithms in computing, and simulated neural networks allow the solving of intricate problems via basic randomness that is iteratively adjusted many-many times. So ... no, complexity or 'sophistication' can arise even when a simple mind sets out and has no specific plan, just a simple selection criteria.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 7:01 pm

monty wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Computer simulations, are they entirely accurate or only as accurate to the extent that the programmer programs them to be? How well they match with reality is dependent on the analyst's view of reality.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

19 Feb 2009, 7:15 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

Well, are theories entirely accurate, or only as accurate to the extend that the thinker's thoughts correspond to reality? We can mention the fact you bring up about *any* theoretical model.

greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Feb 2009, 7:16 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

And before that we trek to an uninhabitable m-class planet which is the result of two stars passing eachother.... yes, it is an interesting story, but this Enterprise doesn't suit me.

I don't know what Star trek had to do with it exactly, but I can say that Star Trek and most science fiction for that matter are not Intelligent Design friendly, rather the opossite, even though they take some ideas from science, sometimes they take some ideas from mysticism and few religious aspects as well but remain secular, in the case of Star Trek:TNG, it doesn't seem to be that religious friendly, DS9 seems to be though, it has been said that Gene Roddenbery despised religion and it seems to be illustrated in TNG (Who Watches the Watchers). You should take a look at this other interesting episode

_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Feb 2009, 7:32 pm

greenblue wrote:

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

And before that we trek to an uninhabitable m-class planet which is the result of two stars passing eachother.... yes, it is an interesting story, but this Enterprise doesn't suit me.

Star Trek is pretty cool. Though it is probably for laziness on making costumes, the number of humanoid lifeforms is quite hilarious in my opinion, as it is not what would be expected from random evolution. I know the show is mildly hostile towards religion, (as seen in such episodes as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENQcDeL4c-o , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wes9LFNQ2E , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-jfdkZIE20 .) but I still like it.

Edit: now I see how he explains the costume budget in The Chase. Interesting.

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

19 Feb 2009, 7:45 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

My point: genetic algorithms are not programmed per se. They are allowed to evolve randomly for some large number of generations, and end up leading to complex, useful solutions. It is irrelevant whether such solutions are truly optimal or merely a good fit ... such algorithms demonstrate that complexity can arise from relatively simple processes, provided there is mutation and selection.

Genetic algorithms show that the watchmaker can be blind, deaf, and dumb.

saintetienne
Deinonychus

Joined: 3 Jun 2008
Age: 110
Gender: Male
Posts: 387

19 Feb 2009, 7:49 pm

a computer has a logo etc on it so you know it was designed, a human doesn't so you know it wasn't

Page 2 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Randomness or Design? Post Reply New Topic

Randomness or Design?