Turns out Random is Better (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, February 25, 2010, 00:49 (5195 days ago) @ dhw

dhw,-I think maybe the way I structure my thought processes gets in your way here... I'm fully willing to start with a blank slate, but with any endeavor, you have to start with some assumptions. All forms of knowledge-gathering make assumptions (or assert axioms). In dealing with the creator, my view is that it's clear that he has a physical form or not, and anything and everything that we can do hinges upon that. I don't remember the philosopher, but he said that the way we ask the question frames our answer. To me this means constantly finding new ways to ask the same question, in order to gather different perspectives. You've referred to me as wearing "hats" before, maybe this one we should call my "Alice Hat." (As in jumping down different rabbit holes.) -> This brings us to your next line of approach, which I think concerns the existence (not the nature) of God: "If you're making a claim of randomness, you need to be able to demonstrate that the random pattern is truly random or that the creation of life absolutely requires intelligence." You sometimes confuse David's arguments with mine! I make no claims, and I don't need to be able to demonstrate anything. But I'm going to stick up for David here, because if I've understood his arguments correctly, he doesn't believe one can reach the stage of "truly" or "absolutely" which you demand. One can only go so far, and the rest is faith, which he openly acknowledges. You say we need to "quantify the randomness ... which is a job for a mathematician", but unless you know precisely what led to life, including the conditions at the time, you can't do this. You are therefore compelled either to suspend your judgement (agnosticism) or take the leap of faith (design v. chance).
> -I think I just repeated a nearly similar response to David today...-This might help you. I know you're giving the appellation of "absolute" to my search, perhaps a better word that I should have used would be "beyond a reasonable doubt." We are, after all, still going to be talking about interpretations. -> ...My personal preference here would be to say it's a mixture. Randomness is built into the general system (e.g. environmental changes, innovation through chance mutations) but the mechanism allows for adaptation and improvement, which brings in the non-random process of natural selection. What we see after life has started is exactly the same process whether it's been designed or not, so the only point at issue is whether we think the mechanism which allows for heredity, adaptation and improvement could have ORIGINATED by chance. I would argue that here the dilemma is real, and yet again that brings us back to the limits of our credulity, i.e. to personal faith in chance or in a designer.-The only issue I have is that as far as I've seen on the website, the two adversaries are chance v. design, meaning that a distinct line has been drawn. Are we talking degrees or kind? Obviously randomness exists, but I've criticized many times that I think "chance" is a bit of a catch-all strawman, because even on THAT end of the spectrum, there's bits of determinism involved. My criticism still stands that I think in terms of causation, we don't quite know enough to forcefully declare the question is that of a binary nature.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"