God, Man and Physics

Discovery Institute ^ | 18 February 2002 | David Berlinski

[tortoise]

With that in mind, how *possible* is it for those monkeys to finish the entire play? Or how possible is it for those primordial organisms to evolve into the thousands of Earth species WITHOUT design?

The million monkey theorem and bootstrapping chemistry use very different mathematics for calculating their probability. Not making this distinction is a common fallacy I see used in these arguments. In chemistry, the chemical interactions are not at all random in a mathematical sense, and if they were we wouldn't be able to produce complex chemicals reliably or in quantity. In chemistry, it is very possible to have simple chemical systems spontaneously bootstrap themselves to levels of complexity orders of magnitude greater than when they started. If chemistry was actually mathematically random, then the probability would be vanishingly small that such molecules would spontaneously assemble, never mind do it every time in quantity.

[PatrickHenry]

Your Designer is limited to the kind of thing evolution can do and the platypus is no exception.

Observe Southhack's approach, which I'm weary of pointing out to him: "We can now do some designing, so this is therefore proof (or at least powerful evidence) of ID." Consider how, in the long dreary history of supernaturalism, the alleged "proof" of supernatural creation was the opposite -- that is, we can't possibly do such things, therefore they are a miracle, therefore Zeus (or whatever) rules the sky.

Now, sensing that the game is about to change, because it won't be long before we can produce a self-replicator in the lab, which removes their long-cherished mystery, the supernaturalists are scrambling to change the game. The new line of "reasoning" is the exact opposite of what it has been in the past. Now, they chant: "If we can make designs, this is proof (or at least evidence) of ID. Thus ID is a serious scientific theory." Heads the swamis win; tails the swamis win. Their superstition is invincible.

[Plato says: "Vade's right; I am no exception."]

[spoiler2]

To your #296

It's heartening to see your saplings of more supple thought among the tall oaks of more hardened thinking, such as Southack and others display on this thread.

If God had not created evolution as the main guide and modifier for all life, everything He Created would have long become extinct, due to the constant geological upheaval and changing climatic conditions present on this world of His.

Over millennia, static, unchangeable forms of life would have rendered this planet as barren as it's own moon!

[VadeRetro]

Very good point. The other side has a spin for everything. That's easy when you have a bullet-proof delusional system rather than a theory.

That link I posted in 337 also shows that Plato does have a family history after all, going back maybe 100 million years. It's rather gappy, but there are fossils enough to show that any "special creation" of platypuses was one heck of a long time back. (Let's say it would have been about when Gondwonaland started breaking up.)

[Southack]

"That poison spur you lawyer on is simply a platypus innovation, like its electrosensing muzzle. It's no more impossible than a bee's stinger or rattlesnake's fang, and it's much newer and less efficient than those aforementioned structures."

The innovations that are unique to the entire othy platipus genus are simply my way of showing an example of a big design change with no incremental path. The platipus alone has the electro-sensing bill and poisoned spurs on its feet.

This has nothing to do with claiming that the platipus evolving from something is "impossible" so much as it has to do with being evidence that we have in our possession a species that currently meets the requirements of a big, non-incremental design change which supports what Intelligent Design predicts in a way and a place that Evolutionary Theory does not predict.

[Southack]

"In all of history?! That's a long time. How do you know?"

You're welcome to show evidence to the contrary...

[Southack]

"Your 194 is a strawman of the Occam's Razor dilemma. Occam's Razor is variously stated as "When two or more hypotheses cannot be disproven, choose the simplest."

Post #194 does just what Occam's Razor suggests. It is not a strawman.

[Southack]

"The million monkey theorem and bootstrapping chemistry use very different mathematics for calculating their probability. Not making this distinction is a common fallacy I see used in these arguments."

I love it! You are still in denial! This is great! You're now claiming that the MATH (which at one time you actually promised to produce yourself) is now non-applicable to the chemical data stored in DNA!

Go read Post #310. The MATH shows that DNA sequencing is NOT going to appear randomly even if 17 Billion planets work on the problem for 17 Billion years!

[Southack]

"Observe Southhack's approach ... Now, sensing that the game is about to change, because it won't be long before we can produce a self-replicator in the lab, which removes their long-cherished mystery, the supernaturalists are scrambling to change the game. The new line of "reasoning" is the exact opposite of what it has been in the past. Now, they chant: "If we can make designs, this is proof (or at least evidence) of ID. Thus ID is a serious scientific theory."

Two problems with your rant:
1. I've never said the opposite of what I've been posting on this thread, so there is no "scrambling to change the game." You'll have to deal with my points, including the MATH in Post #310, on their own merits, as I've got no past history that would call into doubt my sincerity of my current postings.
2. If Man can design things and program DNA, then this really is evidence of Intelligent Design.

[cracker]

1. Your response to a reasoned and well-thought out argument is juvenile and idiotic. Please, dance with simpering glee some more, and maybe you can alienate the rest of us. Then, you will both wrong AND alone.

2. It is plain for all to see that you are wilfully avoiding precise definitions. You have confused the definition of "trivial," as has been pointed out to you. You have confused the definitions of "improbable" and "impossible." You have confused "large but finite" with "infinite". This has been pointed out ot you, and you fail to respond or acknowledge. Why?

3. Your typing-monkey link does not disprove the essential argument that any possible but improbable event can occur within a finite time. The length of the finite interval depends on the probability of the event, but as long as the probability is non-zero, the event WILL occur.

4. Your application of Occam's razor is faulty. At the simplest, the tally is thus:
Evolution
1. The observed universe exists.

I.D.
1. The observed universe exists.
2. A designer exists independent of the observed universe.

I am sure you will suggest that additional assumptions must be added to Evolution. They are hairsplitting and arbitrary, as are the obvious additions to ID ("The designer has the ability to create the universe", "The designer wants to influence the universe", etc.). ID cannot overcome this fundamental imbalance in the required assumptions - that is why it fails Occam's razor.

4. Cars are foolish analogies to fossils. Cars do not live. Dinosaurs and whales did. If we found a junkyard composed entirely of '88 Buicks, we would not assume that they were "related" to each other, that some had given birth to others. We know Buicks do not live. Just as similarly, we have no possible mechanism to suppose that Buicks are self-replicating (like nanotech robots might be). Also, we know that plastic and pressed steel do not occur naturally. Thus, a designer is the only hypothesis available. However, we do know that whales reproduce, and that whales occur naturally - thus, we do not need to hypothesize a designer.

5. ID is not genetic engineering. You may say that it is, but it is not. What is the ID explanation for the stunning similarity between human and chimp DNA? What reason does ID give for choosing pigs to clone human-usable organs in, and not housecats or snakes? Why would your fanciful ID geneticist not try to grow replacement tranplant eyes on a fern? And, according to ID, why might some of those choices be better than others?

That's enough for now... Don't forget to visit the Crevo List for all the latest!

[Southack]

"Your typing-monkey link does not disprove the essential argument that any possible but improbable event can occur within a finite time. The length of the finite interval depends on the probability of the event, but as long as the probability is non-zero, the event WILL occur."

That's incorrect. A very low probability event will not occur in a finite period of time. In an infinite amount of time, yes, but not in a finite amount of time. The known universe has been around less than 17 Billion years. This is a finite, not an infinite, amount of time.

The MATH which supports my point and debunks your folklore in listed along with charts, equations, and calculations in the link provided for your convenience in Post #310.

Go forth and read it. You need it.

[Vercingetorix]

"Their superstition is invincible." -- PatrickHenry

Southack's Top Ten Rules for maintaining the Invincible Superstition:

1) Pretend not to comprehend any relevant information.
2) Compartmentalize all facts to prevent comparison.
3) Anything that can be easily understood by someone with a third grade education is automatically nonsense.
4) No lie is too big if it supports the superstition.
5) Keep the mind free of any knowledge of the basic subject matter so as not to lose sight of the superstition.
6) Take everything out of context.
7) The rules of logic and evidence were made to be broken.
8) Never discuss randomness and selection together.
9) Never doubt the superstition.
10) When in doubt, see rule #9.

[cracker]

The known universe has been around less than 17 Billion years. This is a finite, not an infinite, amount of time.

That just means that 17 billion years is not a sufficiently long finite period of time. What about 17 billion billion billion years?

In fact, the article says that the number of combinations is like 10^62. SO, how about a finite period of 10^70 years? That is a long time. But it is not infinite.

[Southack]

"4. Your application of Occam's razor is faulty. At the simplest, the tally is thus:
Evolution
1. The observed universe exists.

I.D.
1. The observed universe exists.
2. A designer exists independent of the observed universe."

First, it wasn't my idea to use Occam's Razor. I only illustrated in Post #194 how Occam's Razor would appear if one insisted upon applying Occam's Razor to choose between Evolution and Intelligent Design.

With that said, most Evolutionists insist that for Evolution to occur in an appropriate environment, one must have Natural Selection and Random Mutations.

You seem to have ommitted those items from your version of Occam's exercise, however. Do you honestly hold that you can have Evolution without Natural Selection and Random Mutations, or did you merely omit them so that you could force-fit Occam's Razor to unscientifically support your pre-disposed "answer"?

[Southack]

You seem a bit confused in Post #352. Can you substantiate your 10 claims, or are those merely careless claims that you feel free to toss around whenever you've been trounced in a debate?

If not, then please, substantiate your ten individual claims in that post.

[Southack]

"Cars are foolish analogies to fossils. Cars do not live."

Why is that scientifically important when discussing "design"?

Please, be specific when you answer that question.

[Southack]

"ID is not genetic engineering. You may say that it is, but it is not. What is the ID explanation for the stunning similarity between human and chimp DNA? What reason does ID give for choosing pigs to clone human-usable organs in, and not housecats or snakes? Why would your fanciful ID geneticist not try to grow replacement tranplant eyes on a fern? And, according to ID, why might some of those choices be better than others?"

1.The question is not whether ID is genetic engineering, but rather whether you can have genetic engineering without intelligent design.

2.Similarity between the DNA code for chimps and humans is analogous to the stunning similarity in code between Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Word. One expects to see similarities between designs whenever code re-use is present. In DNA, this code re-use is observed in shared genes. In computer code, this re-use is observed in Objects, API's, DLL's, and subroutines.

3.Why would an intelligent designer use one animal over another life form for various new processes? Because it is intelligent to use that which offers the easiest, quickest, cheapest, and most predictable desired output.

[cracker]

You seem to have ommitted those items from your version of Occam's exercise, however. Do you honestly hold that you can have Evolution without Natural Selection and Random Mutations, or did you merely omit them so that you could force-fit Occam's Razor to unscientifically support your pre-disposed "answer"?

Natural Selection occurs and is observerd. Therefore it is part of the observable universe and is covered in both sets of assumptions. Mutation is also observed, and is covered in both sets of assumptions.

You are splitting hairs. As noted, there are also a few more assumptions I could add to ID in equally arbitrary fashion: that the Designer can create the universe, that the designer can change the universe, that the designer can cause the 'spark of life', that the designer can create species, that the designer created billions of independent separate speices, etc.... There, now that's three more for ID. But this is again, hair splitting.

Your whole defense of ID has been "well, ID can explain everything just as well as evolution." Except that ID ends up explaining that the world looks exactly like evolution predicts. It offers no additional explanatory power, and still requires that fundamental super-natural assumption of a designer.

I ask again - what does ID predict that is different from what evolution predicts? How would you falsify ID?

[BMCDA]

A very low probability event will not occur in a finite period of time. In an infinite amount of time, yes, but not in a finite amount of time.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[cracker]

"Cars are foolish analogies to fossils. Cars do not live."

Why is that scientifically important when discussing "design"?

Please, be specific when you answer that question.

I will respond to you if you acknowledge the rest of that argument regarding self-replication and alternative natural explanations.