The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[Southack]

"Probabilistic arguments are almost impossible to apply to complex natural processes."

That's not what we're doing.

The nuance here is important. We aren't trying to apply probablistic arguments to complex natural processes in the link that I gave to you above in this thread.

Oh no, not to the processes themselves, but to the OUTPUT of those processes (i.e. to the final, fully-sequenced DNA code).

This is entirely different than trying to predict where random processes will go.

What you are talking about, when mentioning that calculating processes is nearly impossible, is very much akin to trying to predict every bounce and direction of every lottery ball while it is in the hopper.

In contrast, what I am talking about (as well as what the URL link that I gave to you above in this thread is referring to) is simply predicting the probability of the final OUTPUT of those lottery balls (i.e. the winning number).

And it is dead easy to predict the probability/odds for that winning lottery number.

That's math. That's what I'm doing. And while I'm telling you that the odds of any one number or sequence of numbers is so and so, you're fumbling around trying to say that we still can't predict each and every bounce, direction, and position of the lottery balls while they are still in the process of bouncing around.

Such is the difference between trying to calculate every nuance of a process versus merely calculating the probability of a specific number or sequence of final output numbers.

[Lev]

Betty, are you referring to me?

[Southack]

"All this system does is try to replicate itself. It exists to make an exact copy of itself. The genetic instructions and code's role is to produce an exact, working duplicate."

More precisely, the cellular system / DNA system will produce WHATEVER the genetic instructions/code/data tell it to produce.

This is why humans can CHANGE the genetic code in DNA to custom tailor different living outputs/results.

If we insert an EXIT SUB genetic marker into the beginning of a gene, then the cellular system will obey our command and turn that gene off by ignoring the execution of subsequent genetic instructions in that part of the DNA.

And the more that we learn and understand about this genetic code, the better medicines (among other things) we will be able to design and produce.

[Right Wing Professor]

Yes, and every last piece of that evidence points to code re-use, not random, unaided "natural" formation of mathematical Base 2 / Base 4 instruction sets. Human programmers re-use Base 2 software code every day. One would expect to see similar genetic code re-use among a broad spread of organisms if indeed DNA had been constructed via some form of consistent Intelligent Intervention. On the other hand, IF genetic code was being formed by random, natural, unaided processes, then one would expect to see entirely unique instruction sets and absolutely no code re-use.

Not if everything evolved from a common ancestor. Nowhere does evolution suggest that life arose independently. Perhaps you didn't understand what gene duplication is; your genome accientally gets a new copy of a gene inserted. Now, with two copies, one can evolve to do one thing, and one to do another, without having changes in the second messing up the functioning of the first.

As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein. Organic chemists can do far better by just changing a few atoms in the chromophore, without messing with the whole protein sequence. Koji Nakanishi can make the same butterfly fly to any color of flower he desires, by a few minor chemical changes in their visual pigment. Yet 'life' took a far more circuitous route.

If life were designed, 'idiotic design' would be a more descriptive term than intelligent design. If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired.

[Southack]

"As for the reuse of code argument, much of the 'code reuse' makes no programming sense. For example, why should almost all higher animals use the same chromophore in all their visual pigments, to span the visual spectrum from the ultraviolet to the far red? It puts enormous constraints on the design of the rest of the protein."

Oh please. Even the latest releases of operating systems (e.g. MS Windows) have code re-used (and some code that is still there but not even in use) from generations ago (e.g. MS DOS).

Lazy programming and lazy code re-use is to be expected.

In a similar manner, entire cities could be designed "better" today than how they "evolved" over time, yet even so, the cities were built, re-used earlier work/code, and were literally micro-designed, rather than truly self-evolved per se.

So even though generations of cars buried in auto junkyards and cities that live even today all appear at first glance to have self - "evolved", a more scientific perusal of the evidence will show that they were all designed, albeit sometimes with rapid advances and at other times with very few design changes over time (Nor will every change have made sense or been the smartest possible thing to do).

And the same thing applies, especially so, for code and code re-use.

Sure, it might appear as though a program has "evolved" over time, but in reality, in every single known example what we see is that intelligent intervention guided each change (even if your stock portfolio of MicroSoft shares has plunged in value).

[Southack]

"Not if everything evolved from a common ancestor. Nowhere does evolution suggest that life arose independently."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't we already identified at least FIVE unique "original" life forms/species that share no common genetic characteristics other than using the same DNA instruction processing system?

No matter, the burden of proof for a truly common ancestor is on Darwinists, and even if such an ancestor can be conclusively shown, it will only make Evolutionary Theory "remotely feasible", not even a shoe-in, in fact, not even the odds-on favorite (as the previously mentioned hurdles, math, etc. will still exist for it).

[Southack]

"If a human genome were a program you'd written, you'd be fired."

The human genome IS a program that we are now writing (OK, re-writing). Fascinating! Man is now able to begin contemplate genetic modifications to himself.

Frankly, I find that our current abilities are not worthy of firing anyone over, and in the future, we will have only ourselves to blame (one presumes) for how we turn out.

[betty boop]

An excerpt from Evan Harris Walkers’ The Physics of Consciousness (2000):

"First, the word will refers to a state of mind or a capacity of mind. It is in some way associated with conscious experience. The philosophical concept came into existence because we have a direct sense that “free choice” is a human capacity. Second, for will to have any meaning, it must be possible for the mind to affect events – for the mind to control the body. The concept of will is not compatible with the classical conception of physical processes. Classical physics would demand that nature grind out blindly and automatically the consequences of any initial action. Any mind attached to such an automaton would be only a passive observer. Such a mind would not be able to control any aspect of its body’s behavior. It would be a captive bird in the brain cage, and there would be nothing to call “will.” Thus the concept of will demands that before the mind comes into play, before the mind acts on matter, the physical laws must allow – must specify – a range of potentialities as to what the body could do, and the process that selects from that range of possibilities which possibility will happen must be clearly outside of the prescriptions of the physical laws. That is to say, the physical laws must be underconstrained.

"Finally, the concept of will requires that when the mind does interact with the brain, the physical brain and body will then do one of those things that physics permits so that the thing the mind willed becomes the state of the brain and the action of the body."

* * * * * *

Just wanted to point out that there are several concepts in the above passage that are not material things, such as mind, consciousness, will, philosophical concepts, even physical laws. Ordinarily, science does not want to deal with such things (making an exception, of course, for physical laws). However, the “measurement problem” in quantum mechanics, the problem of the QM observer, "who" makes a selection (i.e., exercises choice or will) from a range of potentialities in a state vector -- these are issues the Copenhagen School of QM prefers to leave vague and undefined -- arguably demands that science somehow learn to deal with the problem of mind or consciousness. The "spillover" of quantum theoretical insights into biology promises to be quite interesting, once physicists get "serious" about the problems of consciousness -- assuming, of course, they ever do.

I think it's fair to say that this is physicist Evan Harris Walker’s opinion in the matter, at least. Unlike some, he is entirely unwilling to leave the status of the observer to classification as a “measurement event” or even “kumquat,” as some people are wont to do….

Questions for my old friends PH and Lev: Do the higher primates have this sort of “ineffable,” intangible, yet completely real thing, such that we can say they have mind, consciousness, will? To what extent are the higher primates capable of revising and reshaping their world, at will? If they don’t have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future? If so, what would the precise mechanism need to be to cause this to happen? [“Marrying up...?” :^) ]

[Doctor Stochastic]

Not a cloven loof, one hopes.

[VadeRetro]

If they don’t have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future?

It's happened before, it could happen again. One barrier is that the ones who did it before are still out there, zipping around in their cars and airplanes.

[Doctor Stochastic]

On the other hand, IF genetic code was being formed by random, natural, unaided processes, then one would expect to see entirely unique instruction sets and absolutely no code re-use.

No, not at all. A randomly generated code with mutation and selection would be expected to show a tree-like structure, which is what we generally observe. Each chunk evolves from earlier chunks. Unique instruction sets could be created separately for each organism but would not be evolved that way.

[Poser]

I love Asimov's science fiction. The Foundation Trilogy was the best piece ever written.

[Southack]

"Unique instruction sets could [would] be created separately for each organism but would not be evolved that way."

That's the sentence that disagrees with your earlier point and agrees with my own.

[betty boop]

It's happened before, it could happen again. One barrier is that the ones who did it before are still out there, zipping around in their cars and airplanes.

Yes, VR; and I believe I have two, not just one, guardian angels....

[PatrickHenry]

Do the higher primates have this sort of “ineffable,” intangible, yet completely real thing, such that we can say they have mind, consciousness, will? To what extent are the higher primates capable of revising and reshaping their world, at will? If they don’t have this ability now, do you think it is conceivable that the higher primates will be able to do this in the future? If so, what would the precise mechanism need to be to cause this to happen?

Obviously humans have the characteristics you mention, so you're asking about apes, monkeys, orangs, etc. Frankly, I haven't studied them, nor have I spent any time on the literature, so I really don't know. Like VadeRetro, I suspect that they won't get much better than they already are, because if "smart apes" started to appear, they'd be in big trouble, even more than their "dumb ape" relatives. As for the precise mechanism, you gotta know I can't answer that. I suspect (but don't know and certainly can't prove) that it's a function of both brain size and structure. If you've got it, you're able to be conscious; and if not, then not. All in all, I'm glad to be human, and although I recognize that the apes and I had the same ancestors, I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions.

[Fester Chugabrew]

". . . I don't invite that simian trash to family reunions."

LOL!

[js1138]

We were speaking of Truth, PatrickHenry, not scientific knowledge per se.

People who seek the TRVTH outside the rhelm of verifiable knowledge give me the heebie jeebies, like the folks who flew airplanes into the WTC.

I have a simple way of catagorizing people. There is a scale of good and evil, and people are born somewhere along the line, perhaps shoved this way or that by upbringing or experience. There is a scale for conscience and empathy. Scales for verbal and mathematical reasoning, scales for physical, musical and various other talents -- all of which have an inborn component and a component due to training.

The thing that separates my view of people from the view of the crowd is that I believe that little or nothing of a persons merit on any of these scales is correlated with ideas and beliefs. Nothing that makes a person good or kind or interesting or valuable is at all related to belief in any religious dogma or adherence to a political or philosophical ideology.

For proof, you need go no further than thes threads, where the best people in the world can't agree on anything.

[js1138]

rhelm=realm

[Alamo-Girl]

Excellent excerpt! Excellent presentation! Excellent questions! Thank you, betty boop.

[js1138]

One barrier is that the ones who did it before are still out there, zipping around in their cars and airplanes.

And caging them for medical experiments. There is an article in the current Science News claiming a single mutation 100,000 years ago might have been enough to trip the homonids from being bright apes to being cave painters and tool makers. Some of this kind of speculation is silly, but a big chunk of intelligence and creativity is definitely genetic.