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

[CFLarsen]

Neither a random nor a non-random evolution make an intelligent designer impossible or necsaary. The reason being is that the intelligent designer is so ill-defined (even when they really mean the christian God, as he remains rather ill-defined as well).

A random evolutionary process would require miraculous interventions along the way to get from abiogenesis to humans guaranteed.

*BING*

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Try again.

Acts of gods and such, like chucking in a meteor here and there to switch things up when things aren't going your way.

But meteors aren't divine intervention.

A non-random evolutionary process would mean a hypothetical designer would just set things in motion billions of years ago and humans, the apple of his eye, would come about as planned.

There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.

A question for you. What does "follow the postulate to the door" mean?

Take it to the logical end.

 

[CFLarsen]

Restate it for us.

Is there something you didn't understand?

 

[Walter Wayne]

*BING*

Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis.

Try again.

*BING*

The result of abiogenesis is the starting point for evolution.

Try again.

But meteors aren't divine intervention.

No kidding.

There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.

An argument for non-random evolution also makes it possible for an intelligent designer. In fact it makes it possible for a more tradition caring god as a designer.

Your arguing for the christian god.

 

[benji]

There you have it: Your argument makes it possible for an intelligent designer. You are arguing in favor of ID.

You really don't get it, do you?

A Random process actually means anything but ID (It's ID, not RD!). A deterministic (completely non-random-in the technical sense of the word) process means someone *might* have determined something from the start - so your point of view could actually be used for making a point for ID, although still a weak one.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Is there something you didn't understand?

Yes, what your evidence for non-random evolution was.

 

[CFLarsen]

*BING*

The result of abiogenesis is the starting point for evolution.

Try again.

Look, are you discussing abiogenesis or evolution? Make up your mind.

No kidding.

So why bring it up? Don't waste my time with irrelevancy.

An argument for non-random evolution also makes it possible for an intelligent designer. In fact it makes it possible for a more tradition caring god as a designer.

Your arguing for the christian god.

You really don't get it, do you?

A Random process actually means anything but ID (It's ID, not RD!). A deterministic (completely non-random-in the technical sense of the word) process means someone *might* have determined something from the start - so your point of view could actually be used for making a point for ID, although still a weak one.

Nonsense. It would only be true if we didn't have natural explanations for evolution.

Yes, what your evidence for non-random evolution was.

See post #112 for reference.

 

[benji]

Nonsense. It would only be true if we didn't have natural explanations for evolution.

So what you are saying is that, should we find another planet with life on it, it would have to be an exact copy of earth, because that's the only way it could have turned out to evolve?

By the way: "natural explanations for evolution" do not rule out a designer. You are still making a case for god if you say it's non-random in the technical sense of it. Randomness doesn't just include chemical processes. It also means that someone - or luck - guided that one meteor.

Take the hammerhead shark. The most accepted hypothesis today is that its unusual head didn't form through (slow) evolution, but is the result of a mutation. One of the many that occur, but one of the extremely few that survive and found itself a niche. Without that one (random) genetic defect, there wouldn't be hammerhead sharks.

But I guess a big part of the debate stems from you confusing rhetorical and technical arguments.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Post number 39.

That was a very accurate account of what evolution is.

I'll steal that.

So with all the talk about trivial vs. non-trivial systems, you think a trivial one is an accurate account of evolution. Why?

Why would a selection mechanism that is so simple be an "accurate account" of a complex system?

Why would a system where individual results were independent of each other be an "accurate accout" of a system with heredity.

Other posts to follow.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Yes, but we can only do it once, because the species would have evolved into something different. Not a lot of difference, but different nonetheless.

The result would be different if you ran it again, the very definition of randomness.

And where is your evidence that it would be "not a lot difference". Can you say that about a complex system with many interdependent species?

 

[Walter Wayne]

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

You can say it is "deterministic" for each generation. The next generation is not solely dependent on the preceding.

If it was solely dependent on the preceding generation you'd have made an argument for a non-random system. What your statement says is not evidence one way or the other.

 

[Walter Wayne]

But evolution cannot be predicted exactly.

How is that evidence for non-random evolution? It is better evidence for technically random evolution than non-random, and it is pretty much one of the layman definitions of random.

 

[Walter Wayne]

Nope. I know I am disagreeing with you.

Evolution isn't random, in the sense that there aren't limitations to what the next generation will be like. Two furry polar bears can get a polar bear with slightly longer fur - but two furry polar bears won't get a slug.

You mean evolution isn't unbounded, which isn't what random means in the technical or layman's sense.

Similarly, evolution isn't deterministic, in the sense that you can predict exactly what the offspring will be like. You have all sorts of influences: Environment, mutated genes, you name it.

No evidence there for non-random evolution, not any that doesn't fit as well with random evolution.

So that concludes following your link to the so called evidence provided. Half of it wasn't evidence at all, and the half that was equally suited to random evolution.

 

[CFLarsen]

So what you are saying is that, should we find another planet with life on it, it would have to be an exact copy of earth, because that's the only way it could have turned out to evolve?

No.

By the way: "natural explanations for evolution" do not rule out a designer. You are still making a case for god if you say it's non-random in the technical sense of it. Randomness doesn't just include chemical processes. It also means that someone - or luck - guided that one meteor.

Which has a natural explanation.

Take the hammerhead shark. The most accepted hypothesis today is that its unusual head didn't form through (slow) evolution, but is the result of a mutation. One of the many that occur, but one of the extremely few that survive and found itself a niche. Without that one (random) genetic defect, there wouldn't be hammerhead sharks.

How did it mutate? Through chemical processes? Through radiation? All have natural explanations.

But I guess a big part of the debate stems from you confusing rhetorical and technical arguments.

I am using scientific arguments.

Post number 39.

So with all the talk about trivial vs. non-trivial systems, you think a trivial one is an accurate account of evolution. Why?

Why would a selection mechanism that is so simple be an "accurate account" of a complex system?

Why would a system where individual results were independent of each other be an "accurate accout" of a system with heredity.

Other posts to follow.

The result would be different if you ran it again, the very definition of randomness.

And where is your evidence that it would be "not a lot difference". Can you say that about a complex system with many interdependent species?

If it was solely dependent on the preceding generation you'd have made an argument for a non-random system. What your statement says is not evidence one way or the other.

How is that evidence for non-random evolution? It is better evidence for technically random evolution than non-random, and it is pretty much one of the layman definitions of random.

All of these are questions arising from my explanations. So you do understand what I am saying, you just don't agree with it.

 

[Walter Wayne]

All of these are questions arising from my explanations. So you do understand what I am saying, you just don't agree with it.

Are you going to answer them?

 

[CFLarsen]

Are you going to answer them?

Do you admit that I did give my evidence for non-random evolution was?

 

[Walter Wayne]

Do you admit that I did give my evidence for non-random evolution was?

You have used the "I asked questions first" tactic on this bulletin board, why have the rules changed?

As I stated you have given no evidence was more favourable to a non-random evolution than to a random evolution.

 

[JohnChasWebb]

What on earth does that prove? Einstein was an atheist and he achieved far more than Russell Stannard, therefore atheism wins!

As for evolution being random, yes the mutations are random but the process by which their success is determined (natural selection) is anything but.

As the man himself put it:

Einstein was not an atheist. Quite the contrary...

2 of many spiritual Einstein quotes immediately below.

1) I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details.

2) Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

See "simpletoremember.com/vitals/einstein.htm" for many more

 

[Meadmaker]

E,g, does it in any way indicate, or make possible, an intelligent designer?

No.

 

[Meadmaker]

What does that mean in terms of real-life evolution? How does it apply?

It means the outcome of any evolutionary process cannot be predicted with certainty. For example, we cannot predict that a million years from now, the descendants of humans will be smarter, or taller, or longer lived.

As another example, we cannot look at a proto-planet that happens to lie in the "Goldilocks Zone" of a star and predict that it will someday harbor intelligent life. We also cannot predict that it won't. It is, in principle, possible to assign a probability that intelligent life will evolve on such a planet, but we do not yet have the knowledge to make a reasonable statement about that probability.

One thing it most certainly does not mean is that we cannot make any predictions at all. That sentence has a double negative, so let's walk through it slowly to make sure it's understood. We can make predictions about random processes. While we cannot know the exact outcome of a random process (otherwise it would be a deterministic process), we can know the range of possible outcomes. When we roll two standard dice, we know that the sum might be 2, but it is more likely to be 7, and there is absolutely no chance that it will be 13.

Applying that to evolution, when two polar bears mate, we know that the offspring will be a polar bear and not an ostrich. However, there is a chance that it will be a polar bear with a genetic mutation and if that mutation is favorable, there will be more chance that it will be passed on to future generations. If the population of bears with such a mutation is isolated, there might be more mutations in the future, and at some point, the variations in the population of bears will be sufficiently large that the descendants of the mutant bears won't be able to mate with the original polar bears. If that's the case, then the descendants of those original polar bears will not be polar bears.

Finally, back to the original example about intelligent life on a protoplanet, we cannot say with certainty that intelligent life will evolve, or will not evolve. If it does evolve, we can say it did so "by chance".

 

[steenkh]

Einstein was not an atheist. Quite the contrary...

Einstein was a deist, if not an outright atheist. His "god" was nature or the universe itself, not the Christian god. He has even written an entire essay about why he does not believe in a personal god.