Darwinist ignorance, confusion & epigenetics (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 21:45 (5119 days ago) @ David Turell

The moral of the story is, that a seemingly minor change (dropping a number in the thousandths place resulted in a completely different scenario. 
> > 
> > Theory; I don't see where I offered one. The mathematics described by chaos has only been known now for about 40 years.
> 
> I know that and I've read the lay books on it. You use chaos theory to support the idea that chance mutation and Natural Selection (CM&NS) can create very complex organs. That is a theory in itself. -What Chaos Theory delivers is a bound with which we cannot say with certainty that chance alone cannot create life; because we know that extremely complex (and unique) patterns emerge by the process of iteration. I state a conjecture based on fact: You cannot rule out chance at any level of the internal process. Because there is no binary question in this, it isn't chance OR design, this is an artificial distinction. The only binary question is this: "Can we empirically determine the difference between chance and design?" My answer to this question is this: "Not until we know the complete details of the system." Speaking purely as a mathematician, you cannot calculate ANY odds for a system in which you don't know all the moving parts. In a previous discussion I actually entailed EXACTLY the process to be done. I bring this up again because so much of your argument falls back on calculations--that are being done in the absence of all the moving parts.-In the case of the origin of life, you have to be able to create life. Once that's done (and only once that's done) you have the necessary information available to analyze the solution. Going back to Shapiro, there's many educated guesses in this field. Going to the comp/bio group at UNO, "Biology is waiting for its Newton." Those who err for truth will err on the side of caution, unless of course the most abominable thing of all is true: our faith in truth is misguided. -The fact of the matter is, we don't have a full grasp our own biochemistry yet. To me, any claim of intelligence here is bounded by basic epistemological issues. -If you don't have a good definition of intelligence, than you can't reasonably discern chance from intelligence; what if God wants it to look like chance? How would you account for this? If it's like "porno" than philosophical inquiry really ends here as skepticism prevails.

--
\"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.\"