Higher math and Darwin

Gaussian distribution should get bell-shaped curves. New studies of randomness in DNA from many animals now sequenced does not find that result. IT appears evolution is not random:-http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/17/gauss_ghost.thtml

Post reply

2512 views

Gaussian distribution should get bell-shaped curves. New studies of randomness in DNA from many animals now sequenced does not find that result. IT appears evolution is not random:
> 
> http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2010/03/17/gauss_ghost.thtml -But significant variations in individuals, with almost identical DNA, appear to be controlled by areas sulrrounding genes:-
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100318141536.htm -And a review article, once again showing how complex the DNA mechanism is that controls gene edxpression and variability of the expression result. I've wondered all along and proposed that DNA actually drives evolution. This article suggests just that:-http://jbiol.com/content/8/11/95

Post reply

2604 views

Another article on the subject of 'junk DNA' control of variation by controlling gene expression. More evidence that junk is not junk:-http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18680-junk-dna-gets-credit-for-making-us-who-we-are.html

Post reply

2502 views

This looks to be the usual creationist insistence that evolution is down to "chance" and nothing else. The process of "natural selection" is not random, it's a ratchet type process, so non-gaussian distributions are nothing untoward.

--
GPJ

Post reply

2575 views

This looks to be the usual creationist insistence that evolution is down to "chance" and nothing else. The process of "natural selection" is not random, it's a ratchet type process, so non-gaussian distributions are nothing untoward.-George is absolutely correct here. Even my favorite Massimo Pigliucci argues that evolution isn't random--especially when animal behavior can influence evolution. I say now (as I did when I came on this forum) that chance vs. design is a false dilemma.

--
\"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.\"

Post reply

2558 views

GEORGE: This looks to be the usual creationist insistence that evolution is down to "chance" and nothing else. The process of "natural selection" is not random, it's a ratchet type process, so non-gaussian distributions are nothing untoward.-MATT: George is absolutely correct here. Even my favorite Massimo Pigliucci argues that evolution isn't random ... especially when animal behavior can influence evolution. I say now (as I did when I came on this forum) that chance vs. design is a false dilemma.-Round and round we go, though I guess that's the nature of this debate. George may be "absolutely correct", but Matt's conclusion seems to me to highlight the imbalance caused by such a selective argument. Two points, then, in an attempt to redress the balance:
 
TO GEORGE: It has been acknowledged ad nauseam that natural selection is not random, but ... if I may echo you ... this looks to be the usual atheist insistence that evolution is down to "natural selection" and nothing else. The chance argument relates (a) to the origin of the mechanisms that made life and evolution possible, (b) to random mutations, and (c) to random changes in the environment to which the evolutionary mechanisms respond. Natural selection does not create anything new.-TO MATT: the dilemma of chance v. design, as far as I am concerned, relates principally to (a) above. I don't have a problem with the role played by chance once those mechanisms are in place, but we do not have one scrap of evidence that chance is capable of assembling them. Even if we ourselves were to create from scratch life, reproduction, senses, consciousness etc., (and it's a big "if"), we would only have proved that such creation requires intelligence. It might sway the balance of the argument for some of us, as might the discovery of other life forms elsewhere ... particularly if they have evolved as we have ... but the choice between chance and design will still depend on faith and not on fact. I would say, then, that the dilemma is only false to someone who has already made up his mind.

Post reply

2503 views

GEORGE: This looks to be the usual creationist insistence that evolution is down to "chance" and nothing else. The process of "natural selection" is not random, it's a ratchet type process, so non-gaussian distributions are nothing untoward.
> 
> MATT: George is absolutely correct here. Even my favorite Massimo Pigliucci argues that evolution isn't random ... especially when animal behavior can influence evolution. I say now (as I did when I came on this forum) that chance vs. design is a false dilemma.
> 
> Round and round we go, though I guess that's the nature of this debate. George may be "absolutely correct", but Matt's conclusion seems to me to highlight the imbalance caused by such a selective argument. Two points, then, in an attempt to redress the balance:
> 
> TO GEORGE: It has been acknowledged ad nauseam that natural selection is not random, but ... if I may echo you ... this looks to be the usual atheist insistence that evolution is down to "natural selection" and nothing else. The chance argument relates (a) to the origin of the mechanisms that made life and evolution possible, (b) to random mutations, and (c) to random changes in the environment to which the evolutionary mechanisms respond. Natural selection does not create anything new.
> -It doesn't create anything new--but it is what decides (ultimately) what genes get conserved; if the goal of the original website was to say that because the general trend for complexity is to increase over time--of course this will be the case. If the general tendency is for "fit" genes to carry forward, then what you have is an accumulation. And if these genes accumulate enough--at what point do you say that whatever creature it describes isn't something "new?"-> TO MATT: the dilemma of chance v. design, as far as I am concerned, relates principally to (a) above. I don't have a problem with the role played by chance once those mechanisms are in place, but we do not have one scrap of evidence that chance is capable of assembling them. Even if we ourselves were to create from scratch life, reproduction, senses, consciousness etc., (and it's a big "if"), we would only have proved that such creation requires intelligence. It might sway the balance of the argument for some of us, as might the discovery of other life forms elsewhere ... particularly if they have evolved as we have ... but the choice between chance and design will still depend on faith and not on fact. I would say, then, that the dilemma is only false to someone who has already made up his mind.-I think we have spoken of this before: I still hold that because chance is an intrinsic part of the process, you can't simply create an artificial dividing line delineating the two. You have to be able to separate chance into chance, and design into design--and this simply isn't possible, because what if chance was part of the design in the first place? Why people like Pigliucci stay away from these conversations it is at THIS point that we are really discussing the nature of God without having demonstrated what, exactly--is God?

Post reply

2484 views

MATT: It [natural selection] doesn't create anything new--but it is what decides (ultimately) what genes get conserved. [...] And if these genes accumulate enough--at what point do you say that whatever creature it describes isn't something "new?"-The problem I was discussing here was that creationists and atheists alike misrepresent the theory of evolution to suit their own arguments. Evolution appears to be a mixture of random events (mutations, changes of environment), and non-random natural selection whereby advantageous changes survive. You can't have the one without the other. However, the real point at issue between you and me is the next one :-D HW to MATT: the dilemma of chance v. design, as far as I am concerned, relates principally to (a) above. [(a) = the origin of the mechanisms that made life and evolution possible]. I don't have a problem with the role played by chance once those mechanisms are in place, but we do not have one scrap of evidence that chance is capable of assembling them. -MATT: I think we have spoken of this before: I still hold that because chance is an intrinsic part of the process, you can't simply create an artificial dividing line delineating the two. You have to be able to separate chance into chance, and design into design--and this simply isn't possible, because what if chance was part of the design in the first place? Why people like Pigliucci stay away from these conversations it is at THIS point that we are really discussing the nature of God without having demonstrated what, exactly--is God?-As I tried to make clear above, I have no problem believing that chance is part of the evolutionary pattern. The dividing line comes right at the beginning: Chapter One, in which you seem to take the mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation for granted, and I don't. Once we proceed to Chapter Two, i.e. once the mechanism is in place and evolution gets underway, I agree that we can't draw borderlines. But in Chapter One either you believe in the theory of abiogenesis, or you believe in the theory of design, or you sit on the fence. The nature of God comes later. You only speculate on that if you're prepared to consider the design theory. -*** I shall be away for three days, but will catch up next week.
---

Post reply

2438 views

MATT: It [natural selection] doesn't create anything new--but it is what decides (ultimately) what genes get conserved. [...] And if these genes accumulate enough--at what point do you say that whatever creature it describes isn't something "new?"
> 
> The problem I was discussing here was that creationists and atheists alike misrepresent the theory of evolution to suit their own arguments. Evolution appears to be a mixture of random events (mutations, changes of environment), and non-random natural selection whereby advantageous changes survive. You can't have the one without the other. However, the real point at issue between you and me is the next one:
> 
> DHW to MATT: the dilemma of chance v. design, as far as I am concerned, relates principally to (a) above. [(a) = the origin of the mechanisms that made life and evolution possible]. I don't have a problem with the role played by chance once those mechanisms are in place, but we do not have one scrap of evidence that chance is capable of assembling them. 
> -Neither do we have a scrap of evidence that allows us to conclusively say that it wasn't chance. (Wow, normally you do this to me! David's brought us all sorts of numbers from scientists and educated laymen alike, all purporting to give us the odds of this and odds of that... but the odds are meaningless themselves when we're in the dark about how the processes came to be. It's like Adler's premature conclusions about "The difference of Man." -Again, I'd say we're closer than you think. -> MATT: I think we have spoken of this before: I still hold that because chance is an intrinsic part of the process, you can't simply create an artificial dividing line delineating the two. You have to be able to separate chance into chance, and design into design--and this simply isn't possible, because what if chance was part of the design in the first place? Why people like Pigliucci stay away from these conversations it is at THIS point that we are really discussing the nature of God without having demonstrated what, exactly--is God?
> 
> As I tried to make clear above, I have no problem believing that chance is part of the evolutionary pattern. The dividing line comes right at the beginning: Chapter One, in which you seem to take the mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation for granted, and I don't. Once we proceed to Chapter Two, i.e. once the mechanism is in place and evolution gets underway, I agree that we can't draw borderlines. But in Chapter One either you believe in the theory of abiogenesis, or you believe in the theory of design, or you sit on the fence. The nature of God comes later. You only speculate on that if you're prepared to consider the design theory. 
> -How much of what you know about the current complexity of life are you ascribing to whatever conditions may have existed back whenever the whole thing arose? My largest criticism of David (and ID as a whole) is that they are looking at life as it is now and positing that earliest life had to be at minimum, as complex as what we see now. Ignored, are arguments that suggest that life at the beginning barely resembled the general processes we see now. I've said it before but not this explicitly: I don't think you'll figure out the origin of life by studying life. -> *** I shall be away for three days, but will catch up next week.
> ---

Post reply

2524 views

My largest criticism of David (and ID as a whole) is that they are looking at life as it is now and positing that earliest life had to be at minimum, as complex as what we see now. Ignored, are arguments that suggest that life at the beginning barely resembled the general processes we see now. I've said it before but not this explicitly: I don't think you'll figure out the origin of life by studying life. -So what do we study? We only know the life we know. Life comes from life in our experience. Interested folks have imagined tinier organisms less complex that the existing ones, but it is still based on the paterns we see. Some form of genetics with imbedded information to control and run the mechanisms of life. By definition life is made of organic molecules that can create energy to allow reproduction, by absorbtion of extracellar material. I think your point is specious.

Post reply

2486 views

> My largest criticism of David (and ID as a whole) is that they are looking at life as it is now and positing that earliest life had to be at minimum, as complex as what we see now. Ignored, are arguments that suggest that life at the beginning barely resembled the general processes we see now. I've said it before but not this explicitly: I don't think you'll figure out the origin of life by studying life. 
> 
> So what do we study? -Clearly, something else. -We only know the life we know. Life comes from life in our experience. Interested folks have imagined tinier organisms less complex that the existing ones, but it is still based on the paterns we see. Some form of genetics with imbedded information to control and run the mechanisms of life. By definition life is made of organic molecules that can create energy to allow reproduction, by absorbtion of extracellar material. I think your point is specious.-I'm just getting to the point now where say, one of the earlier papers we discussed... (this year, late last year?) where they created and posited a DNA-like structure that could devolve into what we have now is really starting to sink in. -We have it wrong. Completely. -I'm sure you've encountered this: You've been wailing away at the same problem for days. Everything seems "almost there" but your mind just can't connect the pieces. You shelve the problem for... hell, even nearly a year. You pick it up again and magically the answer stares you in the face. -I recently read an article from Bjarne Stroustrop, the inventor of C++ and in general, a living computer science legend. Commenting on the divide in computer science between academia and industry; one of his key observations is that (parap) "...when under this kind of pressure, academia turns in on itself and reverts to what it does best: pushing out small groups of like-minded individuals studying highly specialized problems." Combined with what you yourself have rightly criticized and our good ol' buddy Kuhn--we-have-it-wrong.-Studying life as it is now provides us with tantalizing clues, but I'm saying that it's essentially served all the purpose its going to serve. I'm utterly convinced of this. Creator or not--there IS a physical nature to how life got here, and outside of the greater debate here, THAT should be our focus.

Post reply

2502 views


> Studying life as it is now provides us with tantalizing clues, but I'm saying that it's essentially served all the purpose its going to serve. I'm utterly convinced of this. Creator or not--there IS a physical nature to how life got here, and outside of the greater debate here, THAT should be our focus.-You are taking us back to Robert Shapiro. Start with some type of inorganic energy producing cycle and then go??? It is the ??? gap that needs work. Good point!

Post reply

2488 views

I shan't go over the various arguments again, because the point at issue between us was your earlier statement that the chance v. design dilemma was false. I disagreed and still disagree, because in your response of 10 April at 00.58 you haven't actually addressed that issue. No matter what conditions may have been at the beginning, the fact remains that we do have life, and unless you subscribe to BBella's theory (there has always been life), either it originated by accident or by design. What follows on ... namely evolution ... from the origin of the mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation can be made to fit into either pattern, and so I agree that you can't draw any sharp distinction from that point onwards.-In your post to David, you emphasize that "there IS a physical nature to how life got here, and outside of the greater debate here, THAT should be our focus." Unless people believe in magic (some do, but they don't include any of our current contributors), then that has to be an incontrovertible truth, since life on Earth is physical. Even God would have had to use physical matter to create physical life. And scientists are indeed focusing on THAT. But are we incapable of focusing on more than one subject at a time? David has offered us one post after another (e.g. his latest under "Why is a designer so compelling?") detailing the astonishing physical complexities of life. His conclusion that these provide evidence of design is not a distraction from the physical realities of life, or from the quest to discover their origin. Nor is George's conclusion that it's all down to chance and the laws of nature. Maybe, as you say, we won't "figure out the origin of life by studying life". But your argument concerning our ignorance of the conditions and forms that existed then applies to any approach to the subject. However, that shouldn't and fortunately doesn't stop us from studying life, from analysing and marvelling at what that unknown original mechanism has produced, and from speculating about how it could possibly have come into existence.

Post reply

2444 views

I shan't go over the various arguments again, because the point at issue between us was your earlier statement that the chance v. design dilemma was false. I disagreed and still disagree, because in your response of 10 April at 00.58 you haven't actually addressed that issue. No matter what conditions may have been at the beginning, the fact remains that we do have life, and unless you subscribe to BBella's theory (there has always been life), either it originated by accident or by design. What follows on ... namely evolution ... from the origin of the mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation can be made to fit into either pattern, and so I agree that you can't draw any sharp distinction from that point onwards.
> -I don't know another way to say it: If chance becomes part of the process, then you can't separate it from the cause. This is due to a mathematical fact--consider that we look at the entire string of chances that makes life exist. Life is some number in this context. If at any point on the line of its history, one of these events was completely random, than that number is permanently a factor, and its effect is greater and greater over time. If you factor out this number, it ceases to be life. This makes the question harder, because its not chance vs. design, it's "how much is chance, and how much is design?" In a sentence: You're turning a gray question into black and white. -> In your post to David, you emphasize that "there IS a physical nature to how life got here, and outside of the greater debate here, THAT should be our focus." Unless people believe in magic (some do, but they don't include any of our current contributors), then that has to be an incontrovertible truth, since life on Earth is physical. Even God would have had to use physical matter to create physical life. And scientists are indeed focusing on THAT. But are we incapable of focusing on more than one subject at a time? David has offered us one post after another (e.g. his latest under "Why is a designer so compelling?") detailing the astonishing physical complexities of life. His conclusion that these provide evidence of design is not a distraction from the physical realities of life, or from the quest to discover their origin. Nor is George's conclusion that it's all down to chance and the laws of nature. Maybe, as you say, we won't "figure out the origin of life by studying life". But your argument concerning our ignorance of the conditions and forms that existed then applies to any approach to the subject. However, that shouldn't and fortunately doesn't stop us from studying life, from analysing and marvelling at what that unknown original mechanism has produced, and from speculating about how it could possibly have come into existence.-You... put a little bit into my mouth here. In the context of the conversation I'm speaking at large: what part of origin of life research has really come about by studying life itself? I'm not saying that we can't draw inspiration, or use life as a guideline, but the origin of life itself could very well be something entirely different than what we have now. My thought is more of a warning that if we place too much emphasis on life as we know it now, we may completely miss some other, more likely method than what we've seen. The paper I posted some time ago that talked about a "de-evolution" if you will of a codon base is what really got me thinking this direction. -I've said before that a good chunk of my work here is "as a mathematician," and it is in this sense that I view my job as one of pointing out heuristics and feedback on current methods and thinking. I think the approach currently taken in origin of life research is completely wrong. The goal should be to create life--any kind of life, even if it doesn't resemble our own--and then work from THAT point. Marveling about life is contemplative, creating it is actionary.

Post reply

2431 views

Matt has argued that in relation to the origin of life, chance versus design is a false dilemma.-MATT: I don't know another way to say it: If chance becomes part of the process, then you can't separate it from the cause. This is due to a mathematical fact--consider that we look at the entire string of chances that makes life exist. Life is some number in this context. If at any point on the line of its history, one of these events was completely random, than that number is permanently a factor, and its effect is greater and greater over time. If you factor out this number, it ceases to be life. This makes the question harder, because its not chance vs. design, it's "how much is chance, and how much is design?" In a sentence: You're turning a gray question into black and white.-I seem to remember you saying once that mathematicians think differently from everyone else! The point of the chance v. design debate is to ascertain whether there may or may not be/have been a designer. Atheists believe that the original mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation came about by chance. Most theists believe it was designed by God. Black and white. However, even with your scenario, my non-mathematical, agnostic mind has to ask you: "if at any point on the line of its history, one of these events" was designed, doesn't that mean there has to be/have been a designer? The question "how much is chance, and how much is design?" therefore becomes as irrelevant as a girl protesting her innocence because she is only slightly pregnant. If there is ANY design, there is/was a designer. The very real dilemma is therefore still between chance and design, not between proportions of each. -As regards the second half of your post, I'm sorry if I misconstrued your argument concerning research into the origin of life. I hadn't realized that you thought "the goal should be to create life ... any kind of life, even if it doesn't resemble our own ... and then work from THAT point." Perhaps the goal depends on WHY you want to find out what was the origin of life. No matter what approach you use, though, you still won't prove or disprove the existence of a designer (in your scenario, he/she will be human). If the quest is for "the truth", you have argued that we can never know the original conditions or forms, in which case we can never be sure that what we invent/discover will be "the truth" anyway. I'm all in favour of us trying to create life ... and of the similar project of trying to create a brain ... but I still see nothing wrong with also researching into life as we know it, as well as looking for forms that we don't yet know. Until the research is finished (will it ever be?), who can even guess what it might uncover?

Post reply

2443 views

Matt has argued that in relation to the origin of life, chance versus design is a false dilemma.
> 
> MATT: I don't know another way to say it: If chance becomes part of the process, then you can't separate it from the cause. This is due to a mathematical fact--consider that we look at the entire string of chances that makes life exist. Life is some number in this context. If at any point on the line of its history, one of these events was completely random, than that number is permanently a factor, and its effect is greater and greater over time. If you factor out this number, it ceases to be life. This makes the question harder, because its not chance vs. design, it's "how much is chance, and how much is design?" In a sentence: You're turning a gray question into black and white.
> 
> I seem to remember you saying once that mathematicians think differently from everyone else! The point of the chance v. design debate is to ascertain whether there may or may not be/have been a designer. Atheists believe that the original mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation came about by chance. Most theists believe it was designed by God. Black and white. However, even with your scenario, my non-mathematical, agnostic mind has to ask you: "if at any point on the line of its history, one of these events" was designed, doesn't that mean there has to be/have been a designer? The question "how much is chance, and how much is design?" therefore becomes as irrelevant as a girl protesting her innocence because she is only slightly pregnant. If there is ANY design, there is/was a designer. The very real dilemma is therefore still between chance and design, not between proportions of each. 
> 
> As regards the second half of your post, I'm sorry if I misconstrued your argument concerning research into the origin of life. I hadn't realized that you thought "the goal should be to create life ... any kind of life, even if it doesn't resemble our own ... and then work from THAT point." Perhaps the goal depends on WHY you want to find out what was the origin of life. No matter what approach you use, though, you still won't prove or disprove the existence of a designer (in your scenario, he/she will be human). If the quest is for "the truth", you have argued that we can never know the original conditions or forms, in which case we can never be sure that what we invent/discover will be "the truth" anyway. I'm all in favour of us trying to create life ... and of the similar project of trying to create a brain ... but I still see nothing wrong with also researching into life as we know it, as well as looking for forms that we don't yet know. Until the research is finished (will it ever be?), who can even guess what it might uncover?-Time for my "truth hat." In other words, the rare case we see "What Matt really thinks. In this (as in many questions) I'm a fairly staunch perspectivist. First, the question on creating life.-Biology in all its forms has given us--quite clearly--the benchmark by which any artificial creation of life needs to achieve. Studying existing life at this point can fill in some gaps, but it is too... reactionary in its approach. It relies on someone needing to go out and find some bit of life and then to study it. -My computer science background tells me explicitly--to understand something--to truly understand something, you need to build it. Anything less is--in my opinion--incomplete. In my mind the research direction needs to move away from biology in this field and towards experimental chemistry. Too few people work in this area. -Why do I want to know the origin of life? I truthfully submit that I will not know the answer to origins. But I want to know any and all of the potential processes that may have given it to us, in my case because we need the technology. We have a limited life on this planet, and we need to get off of it purely for survival's sake. The power to engineer life is one that will allow us to colonize worlds we would never have dreamed of otherwise. -Philosophically I've had a unique path. I've been a theist, atheist, and now agnostic. And I recognize at each point that I was able to argue convincingly for each position, which informs me that--very likely--there is no true position. There's one painfully honest one. But no one likes to admit they can never know. And in my framework, knowing trumps everything.

Post reply

2462 views

MATT: Why do I want to know the origin of life? I truthfully submit that I will not know the answer to origins. But I want to know any and all of the potential processes that may have given it to us, in my case because we need the technology. We have a limited life on this planet, and we need to get off of it purely for survival's sake. The power to engineer life is one that will allow us to colonize worlds we would never have dreamed of otherwise. -You wrote in an earlier post that "the goal should be to create life ... any kind of life, even if it doesn't resemble our own ... and then work from THAT point." If your motive is to prepare us for mass evacuation, I'd have thought that when the time came, we would need to know how to adapt our own form of life to different conditions rather than how to engineer different forms! If we can't reproduce ourselves normally on Planet Z, there seems to be little point in going there, but if it can sustain us, it should be able to sustain other forms of earthly life as well. I suspect that logistics may turn out to be more of a problem than "engineering life". -Earlier you say that "to truly understand something, you need to build it". Others might say you need to truly understand something before you can build it.-MATT: Philosophically I've had a unique path. I've been a theist, atheist, and now agnostic. And I recognize at each point that I was able to argue convincingly for each position, which informs me that--very likely--there is no true position. There's one painfully honest one. But no one likes to admit they can never know. And in my framework, knowing trumps everything.-There does have to be an ultimate truth, but like you I've been through the three ...isms and am no nearer knowing what that truth is. I don't find it painful any more, though, and have no qualms about admitting my ignorance. I'm only roused when I'm confronted by intolerance and arrogance, but generally so far we've been fortunate to escape this on our forum. I should add that for me personally, the exchanges with yourself, David, George, BBella and others who have come and gone have been a genuine education, but I don't expect my hand will ever hold the trump card of "knowing".

Post reply

2523 views


> There does have to be an ultimate truth, but like you I've been through the three ...isms and am no nearer knowing what that truth is. I don't find it painful any more, though, and have no qualms about admitting my ignorance. I'm only roused when I'm confronted by intolerance and arrogance, but generally so far we've been fortunate to escape this on our forum. I should add that for me personally, the exchanges with yourself, David, George, BBella and others who have come and gone have been a genuine education, but I don't expect my hand will ever hold the trump card of "knowing".-Nor can you expect to. I'll still stick with Adler. There can be proof'beyond a reasonable doubt'. I'm already there, and I think it is reasonable for each person to have such a point.

Post reply

2478 views


> I seem to remember you saying once that mathematicians think differently from everyone else! The point of the chance v. design debate is to ascertain whether there may or may not be/have been a designer. Atheists believe that the original mechanism for life, reproduction, adaptability and innovation came about by chance. Most theists believe it was designed by God. Black and white. However, even with your scenario, my non-mathematical, agnostic mind has to ask you: "if at any point on the line of its history, one of these events" was designed, doesn't that mean there has to be/have been a designer? The question "how much is chance, and how much is design?" therefore becomes as irrelevant as a girl protesting her innocence because she is only slightly pregnant. If there is ANY design, there is/was a designer. The very real dilemma is therefore still between chance and design, not between proportions of each. -My thesis has ALWAYS been, without Matt's math niceties: the more complicated the mechanisms of life's controls become in our research findings, the less likely chance did it. Life IS complicated, and more so every day as new research appears. This article explains:-http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html

Post reply

2504 views


> My thesis has ALWAYS been, without Matt's math niceties: the more complicated the mechanisms of life's controls become in our research findings, the less likely chance did it. Life IS complicated, and more so every day as new research appears. This article explains:
> 
> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100331/full/464664a.html-Paul Davies in his new book suggests that we may be the only life in the universe. My thought and his: it could be so complex, it has only happened once.--http://www.physorg.com/news190541045.html

Post reply

2501 views

Couldn't get in to read this, (site's broken or down) but the Google tags said 
"The Procrustean by Rob, Political Blogs, Conservative Bloggers, The Republican Blogspot, Political Blogging, and More."-How does his ideology impact his views? Why should I trust his opinion more than PETA, my old biochem profs, or IPCC? Anyone posting "science" in a political blog can be automatically discounted. -Anyways, probability distributions are intimately tied with the very specific sets of data they are supposed to explain--and with the same data points you can try different distributions just as another experiment. So, even if what he's showing isn't Gaussian, it means nothing if a verifiable correlation cannot be found to explain it.

Post reply

2460 views

RSS Feed of thread

AgnosticWeb.com

Higher math and Darwin (Introduction)