The "Threat" of Creationism, by Isaac Asimov

Internet ^ | 1984 | Isaac Asimov

[gomaaa]

Refer to #960.

Natural Selection operates on a competitive basis. If Two species are competing for the same resources and one has a clear advantage, it will gradually force the other to extinction. If there is no real competition, there is no need for any selective pressure and the species doesn't change much. The Nautalis (sp?) has remained largely unchanged for millions of years, since it occupies a specific niche that has so far gone unchallenged in the ocean ecosystem. The general form of the mosquito is succesful and while it HAS evolved countless times from its forbears, it's general structure remains since nothing better has presented itself.

Viruses, as you point out, should evolve quickly, and in fact they do! Every year a new strain of influenza appears that is resistant to antibodies people developed the previous year, so we all go (or SHOULD go) off to get our flu shots. Viruses (Viri?) change all the time, but do not automatically develop into something new, since they occupy a specific ecological niche, that if they were not present would be filled by something else.

The great apes do not need to develop big brains beyond what they have now. They occupy a specific niche in the ecosystem.

I can't count how many times I've heard people indignantly claim that we were not derived from Chimps. We weren't! Chimpanzes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor that may have been more similar to chimps than people, but both species have subsequently evolved into our present forms from that beginning. There is no real reason for chimps to "continue" evolving "up" the ladder. No ladder exists. They are unchallenged in their present ecological niche and as such can remain pretty much as they are until the envionmental situation changes. Survival of the fittest does not mean the smartest. Just who can reproduce the fastest. Chimps have no problems reproducing, hence, let them be chimps!

Evolutionary superiority is a myth. Only reproductive suitability counts.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your posts!

I would think there is a burden to prove that physical laws are deterministic. This was an assumption for centuries, but only an assumption. There has been evidence against it as far back as Newton and the three body problem. Which, by the way, has no solution nor any prospect of solution.

Er, strong determinism is the casual effect of physical laws. And I wouldn’t be so quick to give up on solutions to the three body problem:

A new solution to the three body problem - and more by Bill Casselman

More on the new solution: Montgomery (pdf)

Do you assume that infants are not conscious? How about people born deaf prior to the invention of sign language? If you believe these people are conscious, do you have any evidence other than non-verbal behavior and similarity of brain structure?

Infants and deaf persons are conscious, they have language capability. The one is a blank slate and the other will use difference forms of language.

Here’s an interesting discussion for lurkers: Language, Thought and Consciousness

[js1138]

I think you miss the point of the three body problem. Just because someone has found a quirky stable configuration does not make real world configurations stable or deterministic (by which I mean calcuable and predictable).

You assume most people are conscious because they have language. For those who do not have language, you assume they are conscious because "they have language capability". An interesting assumption, but at least in the case of the deaf, a false one. I specifically asked, in the case of the deaf, how you would classify them if they were not taught language.

This is not a trivial or trick question, because prior the the invention of sign language, "deaf and dumb" people were warehoused with the profoundly retarded.

By the way, are the profoundly retarded conscious?

[js1138]

By golly, this thread is going to hit 1,000. Cheers for Asimov!

Hey, I'm out here trying.

[PatrickHenry]

The big issue is ... who gets post 999? And then 1,000? It's rare to have two gloriously-numbered posts back-to-back.

[js1138]

If you pinged Big Blue, you are likely to get 15 posts back to back.

[Jn316]

Does the Creator take pleasure in fooling us?

>No, but HE loves revealing what we don't see.

Does it amuse Him to watch us go wrong?

>I doubt it.

Is it part of a test to see if human beings will deny their senses and their reason in order to cling to myth?


>This is moronic. HOW COULD IT BE A TEST IF HE ACTUALLY EXISTS?????

Can it be that the Creator is a cruel and malicious prankster, with a vicious and adolescent sense of humor?

>It sounds like he believes but doesn't want to.

[Doctor Stochastic]

K. F. Sundman did publish an analytical solution to the three-body problem in 1906. The European "rocket-scientists" tend to use his formulation for satellite computations where as their American counterparts solve the Newtonian formulas directly. (Both are numerical solutions; both methods are about equal in cost.)

There is no problem solving the three-body problem.

[js1138]

There is no problem solving the three-body problem.

Are you saying that you can determine the absolute stability of any three body system? I will hang my head in shame. I thought it was impossible.

[Doctor Stochastic]

I'm not sure what you mean by absolute stability. I can compute the evolution of a three body system from initial conditions. Cal Tech did a big Solar System computation extending over about 4,000,000 years.

Of course, it does get more difficult to simulate the system for longer times.

[js1138]

4,000,000 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was impossible, due to the "butterfly effect", to carry this calculation out indefinitely. I thought errors in precision would eventually accumulate and become overwhelming.

I only brought it up because I was challenged on the issue of determinism. I argued that determinism in the physical world was just an assumption and had not been demonstrated, even in classical physics.

If it is impossible to specify critical parameters to the necessary precision in the Newtonian world, it is impossible to demonstrate hard determinism, even in theory.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post!

On the three body problem, I withdraw while you explore the subject with Doctor Stochastic.

You assume most people are conscious because they have language. For those who do not have language, you assume they are conscious because "they have language capability". An interesting assumption, but at least in the case of the deaf, a false one. I specifically asked, in the case of the deaf, how you would classify them if they were not taught language. This is not a trivial or trick question, because prior the the invention of sign language, "deaf and dumb" people were warehoused with the profoundly retarded. By the way, are the profoundly retarded conscious?

The profoundly retarded are conscious in my view - as are the ones who have never attained the ability to communicate.

In my view the brain is a transmitter/receiver for the spirit and not the spirit itself. Thus, in the same way a broken radio does not mean that the "signal" is impaired - a broken body or brain does not mean the spirit is impaired.

In fact, I would not at all be surprised to discover that the very ones we consider to be mentally retarded in this physical realm are not far better developed in the spiritual realm - simply because their worldview might not be as tainted by physical experiences.

[js1138]

In my view the brain is a transmitter/receiver for the spirit and not the spirit itself.

So is it the physical form of the brain that gives it that capacity, or is it simply axiomatic that humans are different from other animals?

Are apes having sign language conscious? Chomsky says no, and his views are golden on this forum. ;^)

Is there some test, even a hypothetical one, that could settle the issue?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your post! Your questions are excellent!

So is it the physical form of the brain that gives it that capacity, or is it simply axiomatic that humans are different from other animals?

I'm not sure what the physical difference would be, though I suspect there is a difference (possibly in frequency calibration) that allows the human to transmit/receive the neshama as well as the nephesh.

Are apes having sign language conscious?

I don't believe so. Apes learning sign language is much like mice learning mazes or dogs learning tricks. If any animal shows willfulness, to me it would be cats. (LOL!) The others display a learned response.

Is there some test, even a hypothetical one, that could settle the issue?

Again, I am not certain. I suspect the Penrose/Hameroff model is the best one currently proposed to broach the subject (the OR theory.) But there are others, and a great website to track the development of hypotheses is PSYCHE An Interdisciplinary Journal of Research on Consciousness

[balrog666]

You've totally missed the point. I'm not offering an alternative theory to Darwin. I'm saying that the current theory is passe, and not worth the paper it's written on.

No scientific theory is passe until it has been surpassed by a better one with more explanatory or predictive capability.

And no such scientific theory has been proposed to supplant the Theory of Evolution.

Darwins theory has so many holes in it, it can barely be considered science anymore.

Except to educated people and scientists, of course.

[balrog666]

I'm simply stating that evolution, when we actually figure out what's going on is going look far different than what Darwin proposed.

Why? What evidence supports such an assertion now?

And, if so, don't you think it will be biological scientists who will reach such conclusions?

[js1138]

If any animal shows willfulness, to me it would be cats.

I agree on cats, but I assume you've never owned hounds. Or apes.

I'm to have to agree to disagree with you on the privileged nature of humans. My own experience with animals and with retarded humans leads me to believe firmly that brain structure is destiny. Just as I see a (usually) gradual sloping off of our ability to see the future, I see a gradual sloping off of consciousness, consistent with brain size, structure and health. Language does appear to be a giant step, perhaps one that looks like a cliff to you, but I'm betting it will be accounted for by brain structure -- something that we can see, study, and eventually emulate in A.I.

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's correct. However, cannot carry these out indefinitely. Two problems, one due to the Lyapanov exponent causing indefinite error growth (what I think you mean) and another to the impossibility of getting initial contidions exactly due to Brownian motion. (Not to mention QM uncertainties.)

I would claim that classical physics isn't deterministic, primarily because tiny measuring instruments undergo Brownian motion limiting their precision. QM non-determinism is of a different kind.