22 Sep 04
Originally posted by prnI would say accident or random chance would both fit rather nicely.
Looking at the exchange between KellyJay and bbarr, it looks a lot like Kelly is using a very different definition of "accident". Kelly's concept of "accident" appears to be anything that does not involve conscious and intentional design. Is my reading correct?
My impression is that this definition is a lot more demanding than the definition used by most ...[text shortened]... e quantum level, and no one (that I know of) calls them "accidental".
Best Regards,
Paul
I like your use of the casinos because it brings us to this point, the
casinos are there by design, the rules of the games have an
amount of randomness in them; however, they are only going to
be applied within the boundaries of the games and the length of
time people are generally going to play and so on. Are you
suggesting that the house has the odds fixed so that life must win
out because the house always wins, and in the case of life, life must
always become more functionally complex or successful in survival?
Kelly
23 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrHaving a little to do with design I believe the complex nature of
Why not?
life basically suggests to me that accidental changes are not
adequate to achieve the functionally complex living systems we
see today. Kelly
Why not? bbarr
Moving from matter, energy, time and whatever unknown into
functionally complex living systems, then moving into greater
and various other functionally complex living systems; that work in
niches in varieties of environments with other complex living systems.
All of this supposedly started and continues due to the random
mutations of DNA that just happened to fall into place through an
accident in some environment that some how allowed this to not only
occur, but flourish throughout time because of the term natural
election. I don’t think so!
Then we have things to look at within living systems that do not
appear to happen naturally such as how sugars and amino acids are
put together in living systems, if I’m not mistake one is 100%
right-handed, the other 100% left-handed, or how we could get things
like blood clotting. Putting together any functionally complex system is
difficult, saying one just fell into place and continued to become more
functionally complex over time and split into other functionally
complex systems just is incalculable in how we could figure the odds in
it actually happening. There just is to many things working together
with such perfect timing, chance or random mutations seems
insufficient as a cause for it all, let alone a reason for it to continue
and improve.
Kelly
23 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayBut that's a straw man argument; nobody claims complex systems just fall into place. What BBar points out, if I understand it correctly, is that while mutation is random, there is a selective process at work that greatly reduces the potential outcome of genetic changes. The existence of that selective principle makes the odds that complex systems arise as a result of random mutation a lot less likely, because the outcome of random mutation + selection is not random or accidental.
Putting together any functionally complex system is
difficult, saying one just fell into place and continued to become more
functionally complex over time and split into other functionally
complex systems just is incalculable in how we ...[text shortened]... all, let alone a reason for it to continue
and improve.
Kelly
23 Sep 04
3 edits
Originally posted by DdVIt isn't a straw man argument, I'm telling you my argument is
But that's a straw man argument; nobody claims complex systems just fall into place. What BBar points out, if I understand it correctly, is that while mutation is random, there is a selective process at work that greatly reduces the potential ...[text shortened]... utcome of random mutation + selection is not random or accidental.
that we are told to believe or accept that one time functionally
complex living systems given rise from material that was
supposedly previously not functionally complex to the degree
you can have life! Once that so called first falling into place
occurred, we are then supposed to believe that the original DNA
from the first life form, flourished, became greater in number,
split out into more and different living systems each becoming
more functionally complex throughout time.
The so-called selective process does not in any fashion guide any
evolutionary process, it simply suggests only the most fit or better
suited survive. The selective process does not guide how one piece of
the puzzle gets connected to another, it only supposedly says of all
those connected these are more likely to survive. So we are left with
how the genetic code got written, and modified to the degree we can
see jellyfish, crabs, whales, ants, flies, roses, fungus, cows, catfish,
cats, rats, elephants and different sexes so that those sexes
maintained genetic compatibility throughout all of the so-called
evolutionary mutations.
Like I said, having a small amount of knowledge on design this is
quite an undertaking, let alone one that just happens because of
the laws of the universe are forcing the issue to the degree of balance
within living systems we see today.
Kelly
23 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by KellyJay
It isn't a straw man argument, I'm telling you my argument is
that we are told to believe or accept that one time functionally
complex living systems given rise from material that was
supposedly previously not functionally complex to the degree
you can have life! Once that so called first falling into place
occurred, we are then supposed to believe t ...[text shortened]... are forcing the issue to the degree of balance
within living systems we see today.
Kelly
It isn't a straw man argument, I'm telling you my argument is
that we are told to believe or accept that one time functionally
complex living systems given rise from material that was
supposedly previously not functionally complex to the degree
you can have life! Once that so called first falling into place
occurred, we are then supposed to believe that the original DNA
from the first life form, flourished, became greater in number,
split out into more and different living systems each becoming
more functionally complex throughout time.
The first forms of life weren't all that complex, though that depends on how you define life. However, nobody asks you to believe that 'functionally complex living systems' just fell into place. Wherever you draw the line between life and non-life, there were always very simple building blocks from which those first life forms originated.
The so-called selective process does not in any fashion guide any
evolutionary process, it simply suggests only the most fit or better
suited survive. The selective process does not guide how one piece of
the puzzle gets connected to another, it only supposedly says of all
those connected these are more likely to survive.
?? If some mechanism selects which combinations are most likely to be continued and selects which ones are not, surely that's a way of guiding a process towards certain outcomes?
So we are left with
how the genetic code got written, and modified to the degree we can
see jellyfish, crabs, whales, ants, flies, roses, fungus, cows, catfish,
cats, rats, elephants and different sexes so that those sexes
maintained genetic compatibility throughout all of the so-called
evolutionary mutations.
Of course I agree that life, whether it reproduces sexually or asexually, is startlingly diverse, but I fail to see how this points to anything else then evolution being quite a wondeful process. If you want to point out it's impossible that a genetic code appeared out of nowhere and just needed some modification to produce all these results, you're right. But once again, nobody claims this. DNA got it's own history.
Like I said, having a small amount of knowledge on design this is
quite an undertaking, let alone one that just happens because of
the laws of the universe are forcing the issue to the degree of balance
within living systems we see today.
Kelly
Considering life today might distort your view a bit of how it came about: you'd have to take into account all failed life forms too. What you say here sounds (to me) like some of the arguments people use to connect the Pyramids of Gizeh to ancient, technologically advanced or even alien civilizations. They claim the Pyramids are too complex, too perfect, too big to be made by people with the knowledge of the ancient Egyptians. But they too don't take the failed and collapsed and less perfect pyramids that predate and lead to the magnificent examples in Gizeh into account.
Best regards,
David
23 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayIn the casino example, the rules are such that a large number of "random" events give the house a small (relative to the number of possible outcomes) but significant edge and that edge results in a consistent income for the casino. Furthermore, although any given 'event' is random, i.e., an "accident", the distribution of those events is not something that most of us would consider to be an accident.
I would say accident or random chance would both fit rather nicely.
... casinos ... Are you suggesting that the house has the odds fixed so that life must win out because the house always wins, and in the case of life, life must always become more functionally complex or successful in survival?
In the case of the "increasing complexity" of life, I am saying that a large number of random walks constrained on one side will necessarily diverge toward the unconstrained side. If this does not seem obvious, then Full House should provide a much better explanation than I can be expected to type here on the spur of the moment.
Best Regards,
Paul
24 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DdVThis subject without a doubt always brings out several points that
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]It isn't a straw man argument, I'm telling you my argument is
that we are told to believe or accept that one time functionally
complex living systems given rise from material that was
supposedly pre ...[text shortened]... nificent examples in Gizeh into account.
Best regards,
David
need to be brought out as their own little thread. This point I'd
like to hit very hard if anyone one else is willing.
The first forms of life weren't all that complex, though that depends on how you define life. However, nobody asks you to believe that 'functionally complex living systems' just fell into place.
There are several things taken for granted in this statement I feel
cannot be.
1. The first life forms weren't all that complex.
This begs several questions for such a small amount of words. Then
there are the points I don't have time to get to right now as well.
These two will be difficult
What was the first life form/forms?
What is life?
These I believe we need to discuss.
What is simple?
What is complex?
What is functionally complex?
After all we can have a something called simple yet it can hold a
huge amount of complexity. A great examples, end games of a
chess game. Since the end result is going to be something we have
to call functionally complex (living systems), even simple parts that
are thrown together create complexity. Putting together a computer
desk isn’t as complex as a living system, yet you could have page
after of page of place screw ‘a’ into slot ‘qq’ and if you don’t get
it right?
2. The next thing, since this too seems to be a point the statement
just assumes is true How did the first life forms, form? If they did
not just fall into place, they were brought together in some fashion
and if falling into place isn't a good description of the event, what
is?
I’m going to have to come back to this and the rest of the thread
later, since my time is very short this week. I just wanted to get this
out since point one can be discussed by just about every chess player
on this site with some level of expertise.
Kelly
24 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayThis subject without a doubt always brings out several points that
This subject without a doubt always brings out several points that
need to be brought out as their own little thread. This point I'd
like to hit very hard if anyone one else is willing.
[b]The first forms of life weren't all that complex, though that depends on how you define life. However, nobody asks you to believe that 'functionally complex livin ...[text shortened]... discussed by just about every chess player
on this site with some level of expertise.
Kelly
need to be brought out as their own little thread. This point I'd
like to hit very hard if anyone one else is willing.
The first forms of life weren't all that complex, though that depends on how you define life. However, nobody asks you to believe that 'functionally complex living systems' just fell into place.
There are several things taken for granted in this statement I feel
cannot be.
1. The first life forms weren't all that complex.
This begs several questions for such a small amount of words. Then
there are the points I don't have time to get to right now as well.
These two will be difficult
What was the first life form/forms?
What is life?
These I believe we need to discuss.
What is simple?
What is complex?
What is functionally complex?
After all we can have a something called simple yet it can hold a
huge amount of complexity. A great examples, end games of a
chess game. Since the end result is going to be something we have
to call functionally complex (living systems), even simple parts that
are thrown together create complexity. Putting together a computer
desk isn’t as complex as a living system, yet you could have page
after of page of place screw ‘a’ into slot ‘qq’ and if you don’t get
it right?
2. The next thing, since this too seems to be a point the statement
just assumes is true How did the first life forms, form? If they did
not just fall into place, they were brought together in some fashion
and if falling into place isn't a good description of the event, what
is?
I’m going to have to come back to this and the rest of the thread
later, since my time is very short this week. I just wanted to get this
out since point one can be discussed by just about every chess player
on this site with some level of expertise.
Kelly
24 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJaySorry, Kelly. It is a straw-man argument. I'm not saying that you are intentionally misrepresenting anything, but any time you are not arguing against the real proposals of your opponents, the argument is a straw-man argument.
It isn't a straw man argument, I'm telling you my argument is
that we are told to believe or accept that one time functionally
complex living systems given rise from material that was
supposedly previously not functionally complex to the degree
you can have life!
I don't know who told you to believe that, but it either was not a real scientist or the person was giving the 15-second version of the theory with no details at all. NOBODY (in the scientific community) believes that life just "happened one day". Nobody has a really convincing theory of just how life did arise, but quite a few people are working on the question.
I can easily enough imagine someone glossing over the details, which are pretty much unkown, but of the several (sometimes wildly speculative) hypotheses I know of for abiogenesis, none assume that it was simply a huge and totally accidental leap. All of them are looking for precursors to life and operating on the assumption that the increasing complexity of the pre-life chemistry obeyed the usual restrictions of chemistry.
Best Regards,
Paul
24 Sep 04
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayThese questions do warrant further investigation, but I'd rather stick to our initial disagreement before exploring those. For our discussion, I hope it suffices that I point you to prn's post, who says what I was thinking of in a much clearer way.
This subject without a doubt always brings out several points that
need to be brought out as their own little thread. This point I'd
like to hit very hard if anyone one else is willing.
The first forms of life weren't all that compl ...[text shortened]... chess player
on this site with some level of expertise.
Kelly
An exact definition of life or a clear and complete description of the origin of life are irrelevant to explore our disagreement. We can just take a single cell organism - while complex in itself, a quite simple organism compared to, say, human beings - as point of departure, and see where we get from there. I'd say straight up to all past and present life, thanks to evolution. What do you think?
Even more precise, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but our disagreement was about the randomness of evolution, which you used as an argument to reject evolution. I and others argued that this is a misunderstanding about the nature of evolution. Mutations might be random, but because of selection, evolution is not. You claimed that this is wrong, but I haven't read any arguments to back up that claim. Pointing to the complexity of life as proof of the unlikeliness of evolution leads us in a circle, because that's based on the assumption that evolution is random, which is what we seem to disagree upon. Before starting on new questions, I'd rather explore this first.
Best regards,
David
25 Sep 04
Originally posted by DdVI'm in the middle of my work week which are 12 hour days. As soon as I get free I'll come back to this.
These questions do warrant further investigation, but I'd rather stick to our initial disagreement before exploring those. For our discussion, I hope it suffices that I point you to prn's post, who says what I was thinking of in a much clearer way.
An exact definition of life or a clear and complete description of the origin of life are irrelevant to explor ...[text shortened]... pon. Before starting on new questions, I'd rather explore this first.
Best regards,
David
Kelly
25 Sep 04
Originally posted by elvendreamgirlPersonally, I only let people see mine for money.
Men's nipples make me laugh. I can't help it. There is just something so funny about them. I mean, we all get so titilated (pun intended) by women's nipples, and yet there are men's nipples just out there for anyone to see.
26 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DdVI do not find the origin of life irrelevant to our discussion, you may
These questions do warrant further investigation, but I'd rather stick to our initial disagreement before exploring those. For our discussion, I hope it suffices that I point you to prn's post, who says what I was thinking of in a much cleare ...[text shortened]... estions, I'd rather explore this first.
Best regards,
David
claim it to be. I simply view saying that if we start with some life
form and talk about how that life form is 'THIS CLOSE' to being like
another life form, we only need to tweak it here or there to get from
life form A to life form B. That is like a card shark stacking a deck
of cards to arrange it so he cannot lose. Not much different than some
one writing a computer program, if you tweak the program here and
there after awhile you can turn a simple print statement into a
computer chess program. The truth of the matter is even our program
languages need to be designed before we ever get to the point we
can ever write a simple print statement.
I agree a cell is not simple; it is simpler compared to a human being
correct. Moving from a single cell, in some prehistoric environment
to where we can now find humans and all other life forms I'd say isn't
reality, it is a matter of faith. Nothing on that scale has ever been
witnessed or recorded; only theorized.
Kelly