26 Sep 04
Originally posted by prnThe difficulties are in the details no doubt about it, and for life it is
Sorry, Kelly. It is a straw-man argument. I'm not saying that [b]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.
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-seco ...[text shortened]... y of the pre-life chemistry obeyed the usual restrictions of chemistry.
Best Regards,
Paul
[/b]
faith that not facts that we are left with when looking at the beginning
of life. This is one place where those that believe in God and those
that do not are on level ground in my opinion. Personally, I believe
life is way to complex to arise out from non-life by some cosmic
accident or event unless there was a plan, a purpose, and a design
behind it all with the abilities to execute and maintain the order
required in the entire universe. I do mean the entire universe too, it
cannot be simply be assumed all things just fell into place at all levels
at the same time for a product such as life to emerge out of some
prehistoric soup, or where ever it is assumed it happened.
Kelly
26 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not find the origin of life irrelevant to our discussion, you may
claim it to be.
I don't only claim this, I also explained why. We can discuss evolution without having a precise explanation of the origin of life, because we can take a starting point (single cell) where we both agree is life (I assume that's something you agree with).
I do not find the origin of life irrelevant to our discussion, you may 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.
Maybe it's me, but I'm not really sure what you want to say with this collection of vague analogies. Are you claiming that the set of rules wherein evolution operates are designed? I have absolutely no opinion where those rules came from, so that's a discussion we can close. But we were talking about evolution, which you said is random and hence not suitable to explain the diverse collection of life we can witness today. I, and others, explained why evolution is not random, a point you still have to adress. So I have to ask again: do you still think evolution is a random process?
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
Oh no, not the battered old 'it's just a theory' argument! It's true, the description of the mechanisms of evolution is a theory, but it is, as is customary in scientific undertakings, based on a large body of observations and facts, which makes it somewhat more then just a matter of faith. Besides, the fun part of theories is that they can be falsified. You just have to present a solid case, based on objective observations, that evolution doesn't exist. And it would be a real bonus if you'd come up with an alternative that explains to vast amount of data that is now explained by evolution.
But since that is quite an undertaking, maybe we should really try to get this randomness issue settled first.
Best regards,
David
27 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by DdVAgain all bold text I wonder why it keeps doing that?
[b]I do not find the origin of life irrelevant to our discussion, you may
claim it to be.
I don't only claim this, I also explained why. We can discuss evolution without having a precise explanation of the origin of life, because we ca ...[text shortened]... get this randomness issue settled first.
Best regards,
David[/b]
Kelly
27 Sep 04
1 edit
I don't only claim this, I also explained why.
I understand your point; I also said why I felt it was avoiding
the issues. You want to jump into the middle or the end of a
process and claim to have understanding of the mechanics,
I'm telling you no. You don't have that ability you have only
something like someone stacking a deck of cards has nothing
more. You can say if this was like this, than that, or possibly
this could have happened.
What you want is akin to telling me about programming in the
language of Perl or C++, you want to tell me how it works
and why, but all you can do is talk about some of the parts
of the coding you understand. You do not know why it does
the things it does, you only see the code behave the way it
does. You have no understanding on why it is different than
maybe programming languages such as basic, or Cobal or
some other language. You don’t have a clue why the code is
there to begin with, which is why your claims of not wanting
to talk about the origins of the code. This is truly important
since if we don’t have an understanding as the to beginning
we really do not have any idea why or how we got to where
we are now.
"...because we can take a starting point (single cell) where we both agree is life (I assume that's something you agree with).
Yes, we can agree a cell has life, we do not agree that life started
from a cell. So stating you think you have some explanation as to
how it could go from point A to point B is purely academic on your
part, if there are no real world examples in life, unless of course you
can show me in a lab some where or in nature the grand jump of life
evolving from a single cell into functional complex living creatures
with various organs doing a variety of jobs keeping some life form
alive. I’m speaking of examples of evolution not the programming of
life through the natural processes we see today in biology.
Are you claiming that the set of rules wherein evolution operates are designed? I have absolutely no opinion where those rules came from, so that's a discussion we can close. But we were talking about evolution, which you said is random and hence not suitable to explain the diverse collection of life we can witness today. I, and others, explained why evolution is not random, a point you still have to adress. So I have to ask again: do you still think evolution is a random process?
Evolution if real is either one of two things, one by design causing the
natural processes, or two not by design simply natural processes. You
want to say you have no opinion on the matter, and I would wonder
why that is? I said it was random, because of all the teaching I have
seen stating it was through random mutations filtered through natural
selection do we see evolution. That randomness is accidental; it is
flukes of chance that goes through a filter of natural selection.
I’d also like to add here I find the words ‘natural selection’ a
terminology that carries a false meaning. The word selection means
a choice is being made, where none is if there is not design involved.
No choices are truly being made by nature unless one believes nature
to have desires or a will in the matter. Of course once a will is
introduced, we are back to the actions of the divine again.
My beliefs on evolution are that it depends on how you are using the
word. We can use the word evolution to describe improvements of
automobiles over time, or airplanes, or processes of some sort. I
would and have used that word in those terms. I do not use if the
describe the processes of life from a pre-historic past from early single
cell life forms to today’s myriad of life on the planet. I believe that is
a matter of faith, for those that cannot abide in the possibility of a
creator God.
Kelly
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I don't only claim this, I also explained why.
I understand your point; I also said why I felt it was avoiding
the issues. You want to jump into the middle or the end of a
process and claim to have understanding of the mechanics,
I'm telling you no. You don't have that ability you have only
something like someone stacking a deck of cards has nothing
more. You can say if this ...[text shortened]...
a matter of faith, for those that cannot abide in the possibility of a
creator God.
Kelly
[/b]
I understand your point; I also said why I felt it was avoiding
the issues. You want to jump into the middle or the end of a
process and claim to have understanding of the mechanics,
I'm telling you no. You don't have that ability you have only
something like someone stacking a deck of cards has nothing
more. You can say if this was like this, than that, or possibly
this could have happened.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. I'll answer with an analogy too. You don't need to be a linguist to do a thorough study on novel X. Or: you don't have to know how chess pieces are made to analyse a game of chess. Just knowing the rules is enough. Likewise we can discuss the process of biological evolution (as random mutation + selection) without discussing the chemics behind DNA.
Yes, we can agree a cell has life, we do not agree that life started
from a cell. So stating you think you have some explanation as to
how it could go from point A to point B is purely academic on your
part, if there are no real world examples in life, unless of course you
can show me in a lab some where or in nature the grand jump of life
evolving from a single cell into functional complex living creatures
with various organs doing a variety of jobs keeping some life form
alive.
If you think that reproducing it in a lab or observing it in nature is the only way to come to a scientifically valid conclusion, you're seriously misguided about how science works. If you think those observations are what it takes to back up a claim, I doubt you could substantiate you're own claims about design as an explanation for the presence of life on earth. Whatever the case, these are unreasonable demands.
Evolution if real is either one of two things, one by design causing the
natural processes, or two not by design simply natural processes. You
want to say you have no opinion on the matter, and I would wonder
why that is?
I said I have no opinion on how the rules wherein evolution operates came about, which is something different. Maybe I should have been clearer: I have no idea why chemical elements combine, or don't, and I don't know why the laws of physics are what they are. I remain convinced this is not a hindrance to discuss biological evolution.
I said it was random, because of all the teaching I have
seen stating it was through random mutations filtered through natural
selection do we see evolution. That randomness is accidental; it is
flukes of chance that goes through a filter of natural selection.
You, or I, have a very weird idea about the meaning of the words 'random' or 'chance'. I cannot possibly understand how you can maintain that a random sample that is filtered through a proces which eliminates a certain kind of results in a *systematic* way, remains random after the selection. You are, or I am, completely wrong about this. I can't find a way out of this, because what you seem to be calling random is something that comes close to what I would consider a pretty good definition of non-random.
I do not use if the
describe the processes of life from a pre-historic past from early single
cell life forms to today’s myriad of life on the planet. I believe that is
a matter of faith, for those that cannot abide in the possibility of a
creator God.
Well, I fundamentally disagree. I see a qualitative difference between the theory of evolution, developed within the limits set out by scientific practice, and an explanation build on references to what lies, to my agnostic self, in the realm of the unknowable.
David
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by DdVIf mutations are not guided, if there is no purpose behind how they
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I understand your point; I also said why I felt it was avoiding
the issues. You want to jump into the middle or the end of a
process and claim to have understanding of the mechanics,
I'm telling you no. You don't have that ability you have only
something like someone stacking a deck of cards has nothing
more. You ...[text shortened]... build on references to what lies, to my agnostic self, in the realm of the unknowable.
David
happen, if there are chances of something going in direction X or Y,
and nothing pushes it along to X or Y, it simply happens one way or
another, I'd say that is random.
I'll let you describe your version of it, and we can go back to the other
points later. This seems like a basic point we can hash out without to
much difficulty.
Kelly
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by prnI didn't realise that platypi (what to hell is the plural for platypus, I always say platypitoy for the laugh, but I'm guessing that's wrong) were mammals. I thought they laid eggs.
I have no idea where you found that particular bit of misinformation, but the platypus does [b]NOT secrete milk "from hairs". The milk is secreted from glands in the skin and the young of the platypus then lick or suck it off the overlying hair.
Actually, Acolyte was basically on the right track and the monotremes (platypus and echidna), as the most pri ...[text shortened]... s evolved, they exhibit how the milk got to the babies without nipples.
Best Regards,
Paul
[/b]
D
27 Sep 04
Originally posted by druidraviI agree with you mostly, but have to disagree with you on the statement that evolution is a slow process.
Well simple survival of the fittest. In the same species itself this operates.
Suppose you had a monkey with a small modification.Now this mutant monkey the change helps it either to
1. escape enemies better.
2. find its own food better.
3. reproduce at a more optimal rate(if it reproduces more than this finding food becomes tougher and tougher til ...[text shortened]... rs) this species becomes predominent.
That is why evolution is such a slow process.
I read a very interesting book about El Nino last year, and in it, they had an excerpt on how it affects evolution. Basically this biologist was on an island in the pacific back in the day during a harsh el nino, which went on for 3-4 years. This scientist actually witnessed and recorded evolution occurring in sea gulls, although on a small scale.
Basically, there was a large variation in the size of these sea gulls during normal years. That was normal, and the distribution of size was quite even. During El nino (or maybe el nina, sorry details are a bit sketchy), there was less food than normal, and the larger birds of the species began to die off as food became more and more scarce. The overall population of sea gulls after a couple of years, was nearly exclusively the smaller birds. Once the food supplies came back to normal, the population returned to its usual distribution of even numbers of large and small birds.
This can be classed as evolution cos if the lack of food had continued for longer periods of time, then the large bird gene would have been killed off, and then those birds would only be of the small variety.
In response to the debate over higher intelligence or accident, I'd have to go with the former in the non-biblical sense. I see it as mother nature making sure that a happy status quo exists in nature and that those that survive are the ones who have the best chance of ensuring the species survive. Obviously, that whole system is gone a bit doo-lally now that humans think they can control the world.
D
27 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayYou're actually running together two different notions of 'randomness' in this post. The first seems to be this: An event is random if there is no purpose behind it. The second seems to be this: An event is random if it is uncaused, if " nothing pushes it along to X or Y, it simply happens one way or another". In the context of this debate, your first proposed notion of randomness is clearly faulty. It entails that, for instance, the event of it being high-tide at a certain time is random because it isn't purposeful (ie, there is no intelligence guiding the rhythm of the tides). But the event of it being high-tide at a certain time isn't random, as it can be accurately predicted and explained by reference to physical laws of nature. Your second notion of randomness, on the other hand, is irrelevant to the current debate. The evolutionary theoriest doesn't claim that genetic mutations are uncaused. For instance, solar radiation is often cited as a cause of genetic mutation.
If mutations are not guided, if there is no purpose behind how they
happen, if there are chances of something going in direction X or Y,
and nothing pushes it along to X or Y, it simply happens one way or
another, I'd say that is rando ...[text shortened]... asic point we can hash out without to
much difficulty.
Kelly
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrDefine how you view why mutations occur, discussing cause and
You're actually running together two different notions of 'randomness' in this post. The first seems to be this: An event is random if there is no purpose behind it. The second seems to be this: An event is random if it is uncaused, if " nothing pushes it along to X or Y, it simply happens one way or another". In the context of this debate, your firs ...[text shortened]... ions are uncaused. For instance, solar radiation is often cited as a cause of genetic mutation.
effect, randomness, or however you view it please.
We are discussing the DNA code, so whatever event or cause must
affect the DNA in such a way that the change is permanently added
to the genetic code altering how a species develops throughout the
evolutionary time line. If you’re inferring that food supply or some
other event caused some of these mutations or all of them fine spell it
out exactly how the universe caused all of life’s DNA to mutate! I’ll
leave it up to you to show how those mutations did over come the
difficulty in moving from a simpler system into systems much more
complicated, and the highly difficult creation of two sexes and so on
when before everything I suppose was asexual.
Don't forget the end result of these mutations is that complex
functioning organs that were not there in earlier times now show up due
to these continuing mutations. Are we to believe that different sexes,
eyes, blood clotting, eggs, seed, live births, built in methods of ways
the young are feed are simply a result of evolution through mutations?
I don't see how anyone to tell you the truth that looks at the shear
complexity of life and evolution, and can believe that is how it really
happened. If you have ever written any computer code, or designed
something functionally complex you have to see the difficulties that
are there. Timing issues, such as getting things to operate when they
are supposed to, and not when they are not supposed to. Then we
acquiring support from body parts or more outstanding completely
different bodies to help out with various other issues. Utilizing
resources at just the right levels without robbing another system of
something it requires. The balance and preciseness of living systems
is incredible, and we also find that many independent living creatures
work together after a fashion in niches keeping an ecosystem
functioning.
Kelly
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by KellyJayActually, I'm not really interested in debating evolutionary theory with you. I was just pointing out that you were running together two inconsistent notions of 'randomness', neither of which have anything to do with evolutionary theory.
Define how you view why mutations occur, discussing cause and
effect, randomness, or however you view it please.
We are discussing the DNA code, so whatever event or cause must
affect the DNA in such a way that the change is permanently added
to the genetic code altering how a species develops throughout the
evolutionary time line. If you’re inferrin ...[text shortened]... reatures
work together after a fashion in niches keeping an ecosystem
functioning.
Kelly
Cheers!
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrFine, then define the notion as it should be. If you can correct me
Actually, I'm not really interested in debating evolutionary theory with you. I was just pointing out that you were running together two inconsistent notions of 'randomness', neither of which have anything to do with evolutionary theory.
Cheers!
I'll learn something new. I hope you plan on defining the term
correctly after saying I'm not doing it right. We do not have to
get into a debate on evolution for that point to be cleared up.
Kelly
28 Sep 04
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThere are two different notions of randomness that appear in common parlance. The first is epistemological, the other metaphysical. The epistemological notion is the one in use when somebody claims that a coin toss is random. What is meant is that the causal forces acting on the coin are too complex (under normal circumstances) to accurately characterize or model, and hence we cannot predict faithfully the outcome of a coin toss. The reason this is an epistemological notion is that it relates to our knowledge (or lack thereof) of the relevant causal forces. However, this epistemological notion does not entail that coin tosses are uncaused. If we had complete knowledge of the causal factors operative on a tossed coin, we could accurately predict the outcome. The second notion is metaphysical, and according to it an event is random if it is uncaused, that is, if there are no causes that were sufficient to bring about the event in question. This is the notion at play in some of the more interesting puzzles in quantum physics. For instance, physicists claim that which determinate eigenstate a quantum system resolves into (e.g., spin-up or spin-down in the famous Bell experiments) when observed by a classical system is random in this sense. The notion appropriate for this conversation is the first, epistemological notion.
Fine, then define the notion as it should be. If you can correct me
I'll learn something new. I hope you plan on defining the term
correctly after saying I'm not doing it right. We do not have to
get into a debate on evolution for that point to be cleared up.
Kelly
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by RagnorakPlatypuses (seemingly the best choice for a plural -- platypi is definitely right out and the next best choice might be platypodes, but I can't really recommend that either) do lay eggs, but they also produce milk. The monotremes (platypuses and echidnas) are a comparatively primitive (i.e., not innovative) branch of the mammals from a very early stage -- even earlier than the marsupials. What we think of as prototypical mammals, the placentals, are a fairly derived class, at several innovative removes from the base class. There are several other branches, some extinct, that also fall into the class mammalia.
I didn't realise that platypi (what to hell is the plural for platypus, I always say platypitoy for the laugh, but I'm guessing that's wrong) were mammals. I thought they laid eggs.
D
Best Regards,
Paul
28 Sep 04
Originally posted by bbarrI'll leave the word evolution out of this discussion, we can simply deal
There are two different notions of randomness that appear in common parlance. The first is epistemological, the other metaphysical. The epistemological notion is the one in use when somebody claims that a coin toss is random. What is meant is that the causal forces acting on the coin are too complex (under normal circumstances) to accurately characterize or ...[text shortened]... his sense. The notion appropriate for this conversation is the first, epistemological notion.
with mutations which is a known phenomenon.
You are stating randomness isn't a factor in mutations due to the
fact that there are forces at play which are to varied, complex, or
unknown but do exist? So ultimately our limited grasp of these forces
which all actively help decide the outcome of each and every
mutation within living systems, forces the mutations to occur in a
predetermined manner? Much like gravity forces objects to the
ground by the force it exerts upon them.
Kelly