Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Keith · 03-02-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"Not logical.

There is a lot you could do with the argument, but arguing that the premise implies the conclusion ain't gonna cut it."

You still don't see the corner you've painted yourself in. If nature is purposeless and shows no intelligent design, it can make no sense to argue over the efficiency of a particular design feature. Only in the context of purpose can it be coherent to speak of optimal or near-optimal design.

If a monkey at a computer is typing gibberish, would you try to evaluate the grammer of the text?

Keith

S2Focus · 03-02-2003, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith

.......

I haven't seen anything that contradicts ID, and I haven't seen any evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creatures, or bats evolved from mice.

Keith

A few questions for Keith:

1) To what order do mice belong?

2) To what order do bats belong?

3) What makes you think that proponents of evolution would claim that there's *any* evidence showing that bats evolved from mice?

Keith · 03-02-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"Obviously, being necessary does not make something a goal. Some chemical processes will not happen without a catalyst, but it is unusual to imply the catalyst is the goal of the process.

The fact that we can observe creatures who have evolved reproducing doesn't make reproduction a goal of evolution. We can observe them sleeping, belching, playing soccer, and doing all sorts of things unrelated to any putative "goal" of evolution."

If the goal of evolutionary processes is survival, it appears that reproduction must also be critical. Reproduction doesn't have to be the ultimate goal, but it does appear to be a general requirement for reaching that goal.

Keith

Keith · 03-02-2003, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick

"The flaws reveal that it didn't get intelligently designed at all; they in fact argue against ID and suggest that mindless evolutionary changes gradually produced a sub-optimal non-designed eye.

Mindless evolutionary changes gradually produced...kind of like the mindless random typing done by a monkey at a computer? Maybe we CAN make some meaningful evaluations of the monkey's grammar or syntax. It just won't be very easy!

Keith

Keith · 03-02-2003, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyKell

"You realize that the evolution of a better eye needs an eye to begin with. Get the algorithm for a human eye and someone will sure get you a better one. You don't just "design" a better eye out of scratch, that's the whole process of natural selection that you are continuously missing. Nature took 4 billion years to run its program to get to what we observe. Of course that doesn't mean that nature is aware of anything. Just like an enzyme that is catalyzing a reaction, it doesn't do it because it wants to, it does it because it's structure dictates its function. Nothing magical"

Get the algorithm for a human eye from where? Nature took 4 billion years to run its program...who is "nature"? Where does "nature" get the programs for its algorithms?

Keith

Salmon of Doubt · 03-02-2003, 12:08 PM

Mindless random mutations won't produce anything useful, UNLESS they are coupled with an environment that detroys harmful mutations, leaving the beneficial ones to reproduce. Until you understand that evolution involves BOTH random processes AND blind destruction of poorly adapted individuals, you won't understand a word we're saying.

Keith · 03-02-2003, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity

"Considering how many hundreds of millions of years it has taken for random mutations to develop the eye (i.e. considering how complex the eye truly is), I don't possess at this time the knowledge of how to write such a program. I can easily demonstrate a simplified proof of concept, however. Clearly random processes are capable of leading to organized, ideal behavior. Why would you assume such a process would fail if we started dealing with the mechanics of the eye rather than navigation?"

I disagree. The fact is, you didn't use a completely random process, you used a process that makes use of randomness but the algorithm itself is not random.

Keith

Keith · 03-02-2003, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lobstrosity

"Why would you assume such a process would fail if we started dealing with the mechanics of the eye rather than navigation?

Here, let me ask you this: why can bees see UV light? Why can eagles see much farther than we can? Why is it that cats can see much better in the dark than humans? Evolution is often economical that way: by and large you evolve what you need."

Either way, navigation or eye design, some kind of ID is being depended upon. Somehow the intelligently designed algorithm has to be available. And why can't God give cats and eagles vastly superior eyesight? Couldn't God have just decided to give what a species will need? Perhaps God is economical in some of the ways you attribute to nature.

Keith

Keith · 03-02-2003, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"(Let's see if I can summarize the converstation in a readable but nonverbose format.)

You are making the claim:

Because indviduals are observed purposefully "gaining an advantage" by reproducing
and Individuals are part of natural populations
Therefore nature has a purposeful goal of improving populations

So I make a claim in the same form to show the absurdity and make a small pun:

Because individuals are observed purposefully scoring goals in soccer
and Individuals are part of natural populations
Therefore nature has a purposeful goal of scoring points in soccer.

I point out that not all individuals reproduce, nor do all individuals play soccer. You have to give a reason why the two statements are logically different.

...

All observed processes are natural ones, but that doesn't make any particular process interchangeble with the term "nature." The statement "this is a process observed in nature" is not equivalent to "nature is an entity that has the result of this process as a goal."

Actually you've mis-characterized my argument, and you know it. I didn't claim that all individuals reproduce, nor have I said that in order for evolution to work, every individual within a given species must reproduce. Let's try a more accurate formulation of my argument:

1. Without reproduction, the ID process of evolution won't work.
2. Every species we observe does reproduce.
3. Given 1&2, nature clearly shows purpose.

Keith

Keith · 03-02-2003, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"Once again, utility to the individual."

How can one know what specific traits will be of optimal utility for any individual?

Keith

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-02-2003, 12:08 PM	#276
Salmon of Doubt Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: UK Posts: 150	Mindless random mutations won't produce anything useful, UNLESS they are coupled with an environment that detroys harmful mutations, leaving the beneficial ones to reproduce. Until you understand that evolution involves BOTH random processes AND blind destruction of poorly adapted individuals, you won't understand a word we're saying.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.