Skip to comments.
The question even Darwin avoided
The Sydney Morning Herald ^
| 12/22/05
| Paul Davies
Posted on 12/22/2005 7:15:18 AM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 421 next last
To: Mind-numbed Robot
I thought he meant Darwin didn't know the answer and therefore it was not part of his theory.
No, it's not part of his theory because the mechanisms of his theory simply don't apply. Darwin's theory -- the theory of evolution -- posits that existing diverse life arose from single common ancestry through a process of natural selection favouring specific heriditable traits that vary based upon individual environmental pressures. Such a process only occurs if you already have a population of existing imperfect replicators (organic life forms). Since the means by which the very first generation of imperfect replicators came to exist must involve at least one step where such imperfect replicators do not exist, Darwin's theory simply does not apply. He didn't leave it out because he "didn't know" (though it is true that no one knew at the time, nor does anyone really have that great an idea now), he left it out because ultimately the means by which the first life forms originated cannot be addressed by the mechanisms of his theory. Moreover, the theory itself is completely independent on how the first generation of life forms came to exist. I can come up with four different hypothetical scenarios by which life came to exist, and any one of them would be completely compatable with evolution occuring afterwards.
Attacking evolution for not addressing the ultimate origin of life is like attacking relativity theory for not explaining where matter originates, or -- for a more distanced analogy -- attacking a cake baking recipie for not explaining where eggs come from. Nonetheless, antievolutionists love to attack evolution for not explaining the ultimate origin of life. The fact that the theory is not meant to explain the ultimate origin of life is not relevant to them; facts are not an important part of their worldview.
341
posted on
12/23/2005 2:56:50 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: conservative blonde
Still not going to support your claim that Darwin rejected evolution? Still going to insist that you "know" that it is right despite abundant evidence that the story is a hoax?
342
posted on
12/23/2005 2:58:55 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: ks_shooter
Is the Theory of Evolution falsifiable? I don't mean proposed neo-Darwinian mechanism of mutation and natural selection. I mean the idea that life arose from non-life
The idea that life arose from non-life is not part of the theory of evolution.
343
posted on
12/23/2005 3:03:03 AM PST
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: adiaireton8
I see you snipped the "favorite argument of college freshmen" part of my post, among many others. I think I've covered the basics. Feel free to re-read the parts you missed.
Whether or not an argument is the favorite of someone does not refute the argument. That's why I ignored that comment.That does not cover why you ignored the explanation. The "Dude, like, what if we don't really exist and stuff" argument is a favorite of freshmen because most folks tire of it by sophomore year.
So either can trust our senses or we cannot. Great. That was real helpful.
If you're asking for clear, concise, authoritative answers from philosophy, I can only advise you to learn to live with disappointment. Or write a screenplay.
As long as you can't scientifically prove that the world wasn't created yesterday, you have no grounds for claiming that you can scientifically prove the truth of the theory of evolution. (I'm not picking on evolution; I'm pointing out the problem with positivistic scientism.)
It is trivial to scientifically prove that the world was not created yesterday. There is abundant evidence that the Earth has existed for billions of years, civilization has existed for thousands, and I have existed for 35. There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that the world was created yesterday. Case closed.
Science cannot prove anything to a point of metaphysical certainty. Science does not deal in metaphysics. It cannot calculate the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin or answer whether reality exists. It cannot, and does not claim to, tell you whether you are actually conscious or living in a perpetual dream state.
All science does is evaluate available evidence. All of the available evidence indicates that the world was has existed for billions of years. No evidence indicates that it was created yesterday.
I cannot prove to a point of metaphysical certainty that you will fall if you jump off of a tall building. But you're not going to test that hypothesis, are you? You don't seem to have the same problem accepting gravity that you have accepting evolution, though they share the common flaw of being derived from observation. That sounds like a personal issue to me.
To: LiteKeeper
Since the stuff I see around me is not necessarily encoded, does this mean my observations do not constitute information?
345
posted on
12/23/2005 4:43:04 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: bobdsmith
The analogy is simply to make DNA seem more like a computer, and therefore infer that it was designed.
Your're reaching.
To: orionblamblam; Michael_Michaelangelo
Not really. Some virii are quite simple. And simpler-still free-floating RNA chains could be definable as organisms.Only if you pervert the meaning of "organism". And a virus is no more a living creature than the paint on a paintbrush is the "Mona Lisa".
347
posted on
12/23/2005 6:35:20 AM PST
by
AndrewC
(Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
To: Junior
Since the stuff I see around me is not necessarily encoded . . .It is necessarily encoded. Othwise you would not be able to see it.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Explain. I see the rock in my hand because photons of certain wavelengths are reflecting off of it and stimulating certain cells in my eyes. This begins a electro-chemical cascade through my optic nerves to my brain where further electro-chemical cascades in neurons allow me to identify it. There is no magic "code" only electro-magnetism and electro-chemistry involved.
349
posted on
12/23/2005 7:52:49 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Junior
letters and words are "code" - nucleotides(A,C T,G) constitute code
350
posted on
12/23/2005 8:52:11 AM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America)
To: Junior
Code does not have to be "magic." Every rock is designed in such a way as to make its presence available to your reason and senses whenever the the two meet, whether that meeting is physical or imaginary.
To: Coyoteman
Carbon dating has trouble with extremely young samples because of the effects of the atomic testing.Thanks for the info. I was aware that CD had problems with samples from recent times.
My response was meant to be humorous.
Also the range (± or plus/minus if the symbol does not come through collectly) can eat you up quickly. The date is usually figured at two sigma or twice the range in either direction; thus a date of 100 ± 50 has a range of 200 years at the two sigma (95% confidence) level. Once you get a few hundred years old, or if you run lots of samples, this can be less of a problem.
Came through fine. Again, thanks for the info.
To: Fester Chugabrew
You're not showing any necessity for any code in any of this.
353
posted on
12/23/2005 9:11:18 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: LiteKeeper
Those "letters" are simply the first letters of the words we use to denote the chemicals making up the DNA molecule. They are no more a code than the hydrogen atoms in a water molecule.
354
posted on
12/23/2005 9:13:00 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Dimensio
Thanks for the excellent summary and specific distinctions.
355
posted on
12/23/2005 10:33:38 AM PST
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
To: Junior
Then you obviously don't understand DNA nor genetics
356
posted on
12/23/2005 10:44:23 AM PST
by
LiteKeeper
(Beware the secularization of America)
To: NC28203
If they can come up with testable hypotheses, ID will be welcomed. If the creationists can come forward with scientific evidence of life coming forth on this planet over a period of 6 days about 6,000 years ago. I'm sure it will be given consideration in the classroom.
Why do you continue to mis-characterize ID as equivalent to a narrow, fundamentalist interpretation of the first two chapters of Genesis? What you are doing is a trick of every propogandist--create a strawman then beat hell out him and congratulate yourself on a job well-done.
357
posted on
12/23/2005 11:00:48 AM PST
by
attiladhun2
(evolution has both deified and degraded humanity)
To: Junior
You're not showing any necessity for any code in any of this.I don't have to show any "necessity" for code. I need merely take the reasonable position that the human brain is programmed to receive and process information, which if there were no information, there would be no intelligent design. I think science is better off looking for "code" in rocks than it is looking for whatever the opposite of "code" might be.
To: LiteKeeper
I understand them quite well. You obviously read too much into the DNA molecule.
359
posted on
12/23/2005 11:53:53 AM PST
by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: attiladhun2
I did not characterize it that way. I said that if EITHER the ID folks or the creationist folks can come forth with testable hypotheses, then they will be welcome.
I understand that the two are not synonymous, though they do both require supernatural intervention which by definition is not science. Science looks to the natural world to provide explanations. Theology and philosophy are fields to explore the role of the supernatural.
360
posted on
12/23/2005 12:17:50 PM PST
by
NC28203
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 421 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson