Split from: I'm reading "The God Delusion" - a review in progress

[articulett]

He's not a creationist, he's "just asking questions".

Do they ever question their woo with the same curiosity?

 

[darnell11]

Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God" meaning that he used the word "God" to refer to the physical laws of the universe. He stated that he did not believe in any sort of personal god.

Thanks for correcting me!

 

[CFLarsen]

Since when is it about the person rather than the argument being presented?

I'd like to point out that this 'evidence' is like one, maybe two, people just repeating their biases against me ad nauseum for whooping them in arguments.

Well, put those on ignore, then, and ignore them, instead of talking about how much people want to talk about you.

And then, you can address the arguments being presented.

 

[Belz...]

I pointed out that "deterministic" isn't (necessarily) the opposite of "random".

It is, unless "random" is used to mean "deterministic process of which we don't have know all the factors."

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Even more mind-bending (for me, anyway) is a random variable having a variance of zero. I.e. a constant-random variable.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hi, folks. Didn't realize the thread had split.

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

Can anyone seriously suggest that you know the outcome of evolutionary processes? Was it somehow predetermined that bipedal mammals would become the dominant species on Earth some 600 million years after the Cambrian explosion? I'm thinking that it wouldn't have happened if 65 million years ago someone* hadn't thrown a really big rock at the Gulf of Mexico. Sounds random to me.

What is not random is the assembly of molecules into DNA, or organs into bodies. That happens according to the laws of physics, as expressed in chemistry. That's the analogy made by IDers and creationists that rightfully draws fire. They sometimes talk about those organs or the strings of DNA "randomly" assembling themselves. That's absurd. No one thinks that happens.

However, that isn't what Dawkins is attacking. He is attacking the characterization of evolution as having happened by chance. Sorry, Dick, but it did. The mutations occur randomly, although some things are more likely to mutate than others. The selection occurs randomly, although some selection is more likely than others. The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that, and whether or not the creationists accept that, it really did happen. We are here by chance.

What's the problem?


==========
*figuratively speaking, of course. No one threw the rock. It was just a random event.

 

[CFLarsen]

The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that.

No. It. Does. Not.

 

[mijopaalmc]

No. It. Does. Not.

So saith the Lord!!!!!

 

[davidsmith73]

Mutations are random, in regards to whether they are neutral, adverse, or useful.

Does anyone know whether this has ever been empirically tested?

 

[steenkh]

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

Can anyone seriously suggest that you know the outcome of evolutionary processes?

If the environment gets colder, you can be pretty sure that the result of the selection process will be a better adjustment to the cold. If a main source of food gets scarce, the selection process will also favour changes that make it possible to use other food source.

The actual method is randomly chosen. In the first case, animals could change their metabolism, or they could gain longer fur; in the second example, a longer reach could offset the dwindling food source, or a change in enzymes could make it possible to digest other kinds of food. But nevertheless, the selection process drives evolution to find answers to specific problems, and that is not random.

 

[Meadmaker]

If the environment gets colder, .... But nevertheless, the selection process drives evolution to find answers to specific problems, and that is not random.

You're using the language of purpose here. "find"? "answers"? "problems"?

But, leaving aside the use of language and its limitations, and our stong tendency to associate purpose with things, even if they have none, there's still an issue here.

The specific "problems" that must be "solved" are selected randomly. Dinosaurs were very poorly suited to survive asteroid impacts and the associated changes in climate. Bye-bye dinosaurs. If that asteroid hadn't hit, the future course of evolution would have been very different. The fact that the ecological niche previously occupied by dinosaurs was now vacant was a coincidence, a chance occurrence, a random event. Our shrew-like ancestors were not selected by special fitness to have descendants that would dominate the world. Their genes got lucky.

 

[Belz...]

I don't know how to break it to you folks, but the selection process is pretty darned random as well. The whole thing is just filled with randomness.

To what "randomness" are you refering ? True randomness, or just our inability to define all the factors that come into play for a deterministic event ?

Sounds random to me.

It doesn't to me. That rock was going to hit there, unless you think that quantum fluctuations could have altered its course.

However, that isn't what Dawkins is attacking. He is attacking the characterization of evolution as having happened by chance. Sorry, Dick, but it did. The mutations occur randomly, although some things are more likely to mutate than others. The selection occurs randomly, although some selection is more likely than others. The theory of evolution says that life arose and developed by chance. It really does say that, and whether or not the creationists accept that, it really did happen. We are here by chance.

What's the problem?

We're not here by "chance" in the absolute sense. In terms of predictability, of course, there's no way you could calculate the odds.

 

[Meadmaker]

We're not here by "chance" in the absolute sense.

Is there any sense in which we are not here by chance?

In terms of predictability, of course, there's no way you could calculate the odds.

The fact that there are "odds", shows that there is chance. We might have developed. We might not have developed. There's no guiding hand to make sure we did develop. It just happened. If climate had been different, different things would have happened. If some predator had mutated to become more efficient, Lucy would have been eaten and not reproduced. If another asteroid had hit, who knows?

What's so scary about saying "chance"?

 

[tracer]

I'm thinking that it wouldn't have happened if 65 million years ago someone* hadn't thrown a really big rock at the Gulf of Mexico.

The fascinating thing is, He was just trying to pitch us high and inside so that we wouldn't crowd the plate so much. He never intended to give us first base.

 

[Belz...]

Is there any sense in which we are not here by chance?

Quite. The sense in which "random" just means that you don't know all the factors that come into play, but in which the event itself is completely deterministic and involves no randomness, per se. Of course, once we open that door, every event since the laws of the universe were settled is deterministic and there is no evidence for any randomness aside from quantum fluctuations, themselves not known, yet, to influence the macroscopic.

The fact that there are "odds", shows that there is chance.

Yes, but only in the more restricted meaning of the word. That's why I asked.

We might have developed. We might not have developed. There's no guiding hand to make sure we did develop. It just happened.

It didn't "just" happen. The conditions were right. Luck had nothing to do with it. And I'm not talking about "fate".

What's so scary about saying "chance"?

Nothing's scary about it. It's just inaccurate.

 

[CFLarsen]

So saith the Lord!!!!!

No, science.

Good enough for ya?

 

[mijopaalmc]

No, science.

Good enough for ya?

Actually, no. You made a statement in direct contravention of the evidence offered without making any effort to refute the evidence. Natural selection, whose randomness (more properly, probabilicity or stochasticity) of which is at issue here, is based on probabilities. Most often, there is a range of genomes upon which it acts, which have different probabilities of surviving and reproducing. Thus, natural selection at most favors those genomes that have a high probability of surviving and reproducing and disfavors those that don't. This makes it a probabilistic or stochastic process because we cannot determine for certain that an individual will survive and reproduce; we can only make a statement of how likely survival and reproduction are.

 

[CFLarsen]

Actually, no.

O....K. Science is not good enough for ya.

What is good enough for ya? The Bible?

You made a statement in direct contravention of the evidence offered without making any effort to refute the evidence. Natural selection, whose randomness (more properly, probabilicity or stochasticity) of which is at issue here, is based on probabilities. Most often, there is a range of genomes upon which it acts, which have different probabilities of surviving and reproducing. Thus, natural selection at most favors those genomes that have a high probability of surviving and reproducing and disfavors those that don't. This makes it a probabilistic or stochastic process because we cannot determine for certain that an individual will survive and reproduce; we can only make a statement of how likely survival and reproduction are.

Why is it my problem if you don't understand science?

 

[Meadmaker]

The fascinating thing is, He was just trying to pitch us high and inside so that we wouldn't crowd the plate so much. He never intended to give us first base.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Evolution says that life arose by chance just like chemistry says that H2O bonds by chance....