Posted on 01/13/2003 10:33:14 AM PST by Heartlander
It's two gross.
Another tidbit: The New Jerusalem
The number 288 is first implied in the description of the Spirit of God (Elohim) hovering over the face of the waters in the story of the acts of creation. Later Jewish mysticism (Lurianic Kabbalah) preceded these 288 to the creation of this world. From an original 320 Lights making the Divine Crown, 288 fell into the demonic mire, and humankind was created in order to redeem these 288 trapped light sparks, raise them to return them to God.
Like in Revelation 7, in the Book of Numbers (7:1-88) there is an exhaustive repetitious count of the 12 tribes. This comes after two realistic-like censuses of the number of members of each tribe (chap. 1 & 2, both adding to 603,550), but then comes the dedication of the Tabernacle, and each leader of the 12 tribes bring an exactly similar offering, made of 24 items (2 silver and one golden vessel, and 21 animal offerings). Thus the dedication of the Tabernacle/Temple is marked by 288 (12x24) offerings, reflecting on the Temple’s role in raising the 288 fallen light sparks, and only then does the Holy Spirit appear there.
Sorry, I don't understand your reply. Looks like we have to go back to definitions to make sure we are not talking apples and oranges. What is random? And can you give me some examples of randomness in nature? Or there is no such thing?
Thanks,
Lev
Random mutation and natural selection of viruses is used as evidence of evolution.
Germinal (sic) mutations can also be caused by viral infection, i.e. it is not limited to chemical mutagens and background radiation.
We know that a virus can cause mutations in the host genome. And those mutations are random.
IMHO, if the viral mutations of DNA were not largely predictable (e.g. not random) - medicine would have great difficulty in treating infections and developing vaccines.
Treatment of infections is a separate issue from DNA mutation. Many infections do not change the host DNA and those that do may or may not have a mutagenic effect that results in heritable changes (most don't) or DNA mutations changes that cause disease (most don't). What's more, predictability of a phenomenon is different from predictability of a mutation. We can predict a rain shower tomorrow but that gives us no information about where each rain drop is going to hit. We can predict the effects of an infection that a virus may have on the host, but such an effect is random.
We can predict that mutations happen and we can even predict the rate/species. We can predict that this results in evolution. But the mutations are random. This doesn't help your case in any way. You are way off with this one.
Yes, but he shouldn't be so proud of himself. You don't have to look too closely to recognize that Conway Morris uses the language of ID, just doesn't call it that and refuses to identify himself as one. That's why his views are called "controversial" and "unorthodox," as you'll note. When ID becomes more acceptable (and it is every year, which is what scares you guys) then he may well come around and admit it.
As for the rest of Aric2000's rantings, it's baloney with an extra dose of belligerence.
Result, Tie at most, you winning it, not quite.
Your argument was that there were no competing theories. I proved that there were. You're back to your word games again.
SoreLoserman.
The theory of evolution requires that the process never be directed and that it have no purpose.
Therefore, evidence of order in biological systems which cannot arise by random chance (a fair toss of the coin) suggests direction or design. The underlying order of biological systems is being aggressively explored in response to von Neumann’s challenge, as Chaitin described in this 1988 article for Scientific American:
At the end of his life John von Neumann challenged mathematicians to find an abstract mathematical theory for the origin and evolution of life. This fundamental problem, like most fundamental problems, is magnificently difficult. Perhaps algorithmic information theory can suggest a way to proceed.
Ultimately, each of us will have a different hope for the results of this effort:
``What appears to be more frightening: a clocklike universe which is totally governed by deterministic laws, or a lawless universe which is totally unpredictable and random?''
Call us when it becomes as popular as Astrology.
We can predict the effects of an infection that a virus may have on the host, but such an effect is random.
Because of the wording of that statement, and my past failures to communicate with you on other threads, I stand down from exploring this any further.
Thank you for the discussion!
Yes, but he shouldn't be so proud of himself. You don't have to look too closely to recognize that Conway Morris uses the language of ID, just doesn't call it that and refuses to identify himself as one.Not only that, but both Morris and Behe write in the English language!
In other news, Both the Republican Pres. Bush and Democratic Gov. Gary Locke spoke Tuesday night, but even though they both spoke the same language, they disagreed with each other. How can that be???
LOL!
If you'd rather not, no problem, you may have more important things to go.
Thanks,
Lev
There are probably other ways of dealing with the existence of deterministic laws (I assume you mean, for example, the laws of physics). It may not be thrilling, but there's also dumb luck, in that we have a universe which is the way it is. [But seriously folks] I suspect that deep down lies a fundamental principle which requires that in order to have a universe, things have to be the way they are. In other words, simple physical necessity. But we haven't begun to figure all of this out yet. It's way to early to give up trying to solve these problems, and (with a shrug) toss it all in the lap of an intelligent designer.
As I asked in prev post: Could you define 'random' and give some examples of randomness in nature?
I answered the question with the authorities I linked at post 411. Randomness is discussed in both links. The first link had an HTML error, so here they are again:
Science at the crossroad between randomness and determinism
If these replies and links do not answer your question, then I must presume a failure to communicate on my part and withdraw from discussing it any further with you.
To get away from this evidence, cosmological scenarios are offered that in one way or another repropose a form of the old principle of plenitude ("everything that can exist, does exist"). The existence is thus postulated of an infinity of chances, among which "our case" becomes an obvious favorable case (today the most popular form is that of multi-universes). What is your view on this?
It is very possible, but it is not physics. It is a metaphysics in which recourse is made to a chance that is so enormously limitless that everything that is possible is real. But in this way it becomes a confrontation between metaphysics in which chance collides with purpose. This latter, however, seems much easier to believe! Physics up to now has been based on measurable "data." Beyond this it is a passage of metaphysics. At this point I compare it with another metaphysics. Those who sustain these viewpoints (like Stephen Hawking, for instance) should realize that this goes beyond physics; otherwise it is exaggerated. Physics, pushed beyond what it can measure, becomes ideology.
So I am not at all surprised at the idea that biological systems may appear to be learning from experience, that DNA might exhibit a simple thought process (which you call an algorithm). To me, learning and evolving are the same process, though the time scales and physical implementation are different.
As tortoise might say, physical implementation is immaterial. Pun intended.
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.