|
Design vs. Arbitrary (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
OK, so lets assume that chance converges towards certainty and we substitute certainty with a 'target'. This target must be hit by means of a random mechanism (chance).
The probability of attaining 100 amino acids in the correct sequence is in excess of 10^100. Design will achieve this task in one attempt, where as chance, as you have suggested, will hit the target 'eventually'.
Remember, the correct sequence is required before the biological component is functional. i.e the mechnism of chance must hit the target on more than one occasions before a functioning biological cell (which sustains life) is attained.
Hence the difference between probable and improbable. |
That is essentially correct, but you have missed one rather important detail. You see, there is not a single way in which a dna molecule required for a functional organism can be made. In other words, there is not a single target, there is a great amount of multiple targets, and we've hit on one of them. If we would recreate the authentic conditions that were present on the early earth, it is very likely that life would evolve in a totally different way (or maybe it wouldn't evolve at all for that matter), we'd all be totally different creatures who would eat totally different foods and synthesize totally different amino acids. The speed of evolution would also probably be different. Maybe we would still be puddles of organic self-replicating goo, and maybe we would have evolved to the state equivalent to our present state 2 billion years ago. That is the random part of the process. Ultimately, however, natural selection would kick in and direct it, so even though creatures that would appear in the recreated version of evolution would fundamentally most likely be very different from us, their exterior characteristics would converge towards the ones that we can find in existing creatures. In other words, there would still be fish-like, bird-like, etc. creatures, but with a fundamentally different chemistry. One relatively good exampe of that is if you compare the fish, the ichtyosaurus, and the dolphins. They look almost exactly the same, yet their genetic makeup is pretty different. Basically what you got is three different evolutionary pathways to a same form.
I think it was Opus once who posted a nice article that calculated all the numbers and showed how there was infact a likely chance of life evolving on Earth in one way or another, as well as that the one species of bacteria, when presented with a simulated natural selection in a lab evolved into a same new form, but in 30 or so different ways. |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | | A Designer would achieve this if we only saw evidence of Him doing so. Why is there no observed, verifiable evidence of a Designer doing this? |
Well at the moment there isn’t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data. Of course, given time I’m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they’re looking for. ;) |
|
|
| ::TranceVanDyk:: |
| quote: | | Well at the moment there isn’t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data. Of course, given time I’m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they’re looking for. |
im not sure you know what your talking about. philosophically or scientifically. first, u try to take god out of the ID theory when for ID to be true, there has to be the "Designer" god. its like taking Darwin out of Darwinist evolution.
second, there is a huge huge amount of evidence pointing to an intelligent creator. one thing is for certain, chaos cannot create order. if u dont believe there is order in this universe, you are mistaken, because even the most chaotic explosion follows different laws of physics and we can use these laws and mathematics which is the measure of order to estimate or calculate different things, such as the chemistry that made the explosion, and the greatest extent it will go, etc. for there to be order, there has to be an "Orderer" or something to have set this order in place.
one thing also, is the complexity of our world. ever notice how everything, from a blade of grass to the cloud in the sky to an ocean to a volcano all work together in a systematic cycle of the so-called eco-system. every cell in our body has a purpose. u go from a single cell to an extremely complex and organized life form consisting of over a trillion cells all working together and each with a job to do, that work out the life processes of your body. it goes further than that. one cell seems simple, but when u go deeper into it, u find out that it, in itself is extremely complex. with the nucleus of DNA and the production of all the RNA to make different proteins and amino acids, with the golgi bodies, the mitochondria, and cell wall to hold it all together and the cell tags to tell the body its a friendly cell and not a harmful bacteria.
with such organization and complexity, how could such a creation happen to just come about by chance. and this is a just a small example of an incomprehensible creation we live in. |
|
|
| Dervish |
| quote: | Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk::
with such organization and complexity, how could such a creation happen to just come about by chance. and this is a just a small example of an incomprehensible creation we live in. |
Just because something is complex doesn't mean it had to be designed though. An interaction obaying simple laws can be unbeliveably complex. For example the weather system, it just follows its inputs, yet it if you observe it at the highest resolution (single particles even?) the complexity is beyond staggering.
Would say more but no time :)
On a side note Darwin went to one of the unis I'm going to just now (just found out :p ). |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Dear god not another creationist/ID thread. After reading this sentence in the first post i knew we were in for a long ride:
"The idea of 'chance' playing a role in the subsistence and balance of life is quite frankly, repugnant."
I found the idea that George Bush would win re-election for a second term repugnant but I didn't rule the possibility because it was unappealing to my beliefs. Like every creationist who has come before you, you only want to believe things that support your religious beliefs. You're not interested in debating facts; you just want express your beliefs that are based on "common sense" and religion, not science. What's there to debate? Btw, the church found Copernicus's idea of a sun-centered solar system 'repugnant' too, you're following a well travel path.
I know it's not fair, science can build and modify its theories based on facts, experiments, logic, and reality, while you guys are stuck with a 2,000 year old document, that you can only reinterpret in reaction to science. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Well at the moment there isn’t much evidence at all. The design argument heavily relies on complex mathematics and very very limited observable data. |
The only complex math I've seen utilized by IDers derives from 1 or both of the following ideas:
1. Flawed probability arguments attempting to refute the evolutionary mechanism
2. Flawed probability argument from Dembski’s so-called “Explanatory Filter”
And #2 really is just a more complicated though erroneous flavor of #1.
Aside of the basic fact that the arguments on probability are flawed, which I’ve discussed earlier, both ideas above rely on the 2 basic logical fallacies:
1. Argument from incredulity
2. Argument from false dichotomy
Neither support the argument for design, i.e. give POSITIVE, verifiable, testable, and falsifiable evidence for the argument of design in any manner.
Hence my complete and utter skepticism.
| quote: | | Of course, given time I’m sure our young bright scientists will find the evidence they’re looking for. ;) |
So they start with the conclusion of design with absolutely no evidence to support it, hoping to find that evidence to support their a priori conclusion?
Interesting “science” you have there. And they say this is separate from creationism. Silly me. |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
Interesting “science” you have there. And they say this is separate from creationism. Silly me. |
Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels.
By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ? :) |
|
|
| Knight Rider |
| quote: | | That is essentially correct, but you have missed one rather important detail. You see, there is not a single way in which a dna molecule required for a functional organism can be made. In other words, there is not a single target, there is a great amount of multiple targets, and we've hit on one of them. |
The process applies to 'all' targets. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels.
|
So when evolution ceases to be an arbitrary mechanism and has a "design" is when you'll consider it believable? Ummm isn't that pretty much intelligent design? Why would you formulate your beliefs based upon the conclusion of the theory as opposed to the evidence that supports the conclusion?
| quote: |
By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ? :) |
I would say evolutionary process began long before it became a biological process ... stellar evolution for example. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Knight Rider
Not as interesting as yours. The day evolution segregates itself from an arbitrary mechanism, is the day I will consider evolution as a plausible theory. Until then, evolution simply constitues sanguinity at desperate levels. |
That’s the usual sentiment of fundie creationists and IDers who are too intellectually lazy to examine the research themselves. And I’m sorry if you continue to misunderstand evolution, and continue to fail to realize that the mechanism of evolution is anything but arbitrary, but I really don’t know what else to tell you other than try to do a little more reading in the research on the subject from actual scientists. Try to understand what natural selection combined with mutation and isolation really means, and perhaps you’ll one day come to the revelation that chance alone does not constitute evolution in any way, shape, or form. It’s obvious that you’re going to continue to ignore the research and valid points I lay right in your lap. Hopefully one day you’ll find some answers on your own.
| quote: | | By the way, when did evolution as a process begin ? The moment the cell was created, or at some random point in life ? :) |
The short answer is scientists don’t really know. I think it would first come down to the question of what exactly is “life” and how one defines it biologically. I suppose we could use the layman’s definition of “life” more or less as the ability to metabolize, reproduce, and respond to some kind of stimuli. So whenever the first organism was able to demonstrate these properties, we have life. Great. Now in regards to evolution, that organism, or more correctly that population of organisms would have to demonstrate the ability to mutate and naturally select once isolated somehow. Only then would evolution really be considered.
The reason why scientists don’t really know is the same reason why scientists don’t have a very firm account of abiogenesis – we’re talkin’ billions of years here with very small squishy critters that have no fossilization at all. This makes it extremely difficult to surmise any working hypothesis on it, though there are some interesting ideas out there. I think the ones involving symbiotic relationships have the greatest plausibility, but it’s pretty uncertain at this point. In all reality, it may forever be pretty uncertain.
And let’s also keep in mind that the first primitive cells resemble nothing like the cells we see today. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
Btw, related to this issue, here is an interesting simulation of evolution:http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/
I've read about the program in Discover magazine, and there were some interesting situations that arose from the simulation. For example, the "organisms" were given an assignment to evolve into a program that could add two different numbers. Ultimately, those organisms developed more than 20 different ways to do addition. Also, when they were later put through a filter that was supposed to kill organisms who added numbers correctly, some developed a system that recognized the numbers being fed to them by the filter and ignored them, while they were still capable of adding up other numbers. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So when evolution ceases to be an arbitrary mechanism and has a "design" is when you'll consider it believable? Ummm isn't that pretty much intelligent design? Why would you formulate your beliefs based upon the conclusion of the theory as opposed to the evidence that supports the conclusion? |
:stongue:
Kit I'm in trouble! get me out of this thread.
 |
|
|
|
|
