Jonesy

sometimes you don't need research to come up with very intelligent logical conclusions.

Flynn McKerrow

Answering the question posed in the subject of the OP:

The probability of the evolution of Man is 1. It happened.

MrDarwin

No, it is a sorting process, much as the random action of waves can sort stones into different sizes without any design or intelligence involved.

tronvillain

Thiaooba:
[quote]Actually, the design looks a lot easier than the reproduction. Also, it really depends on what level you're looking at - one could argue that the basic design of the eye is relatively simple, but that it has been constructed in a complex fashion out of complex materials.

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: tronvillain ]</p>

MrDarwin

Okay, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're right. Can you explain what assumptions or calculations Professor Eden made, and how he came to this "logical" conclusion?

Flynn McKerrow

If we were to design an eye, we certainly would do a much better job of it than your creator did with the human eye.

MrDarwin

Hey everybody, let's give Thiaoouba a chance to explain what he's talking about. Maybe he's actually got something here. I'd really like to hear him explain this professor's ideas in detail before we pile onto him.

(edited to correct the guy's name)

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

Jonesy

he used his "intuitive intelligent thinking abilities" which make possible reaching very intelligent conclusions without the need for 'material proof'.

Material proof always comes after intellectual proof. For example, to prove anything, a scientist must first 'intelligently predict' what will happen in a given test. He can prove it to himself intellectually first and then he does the experiment.

In our case, we can prove intellectually to ourselves that an eye has been designed, but we cannot YET go into a lab and build an exact copy.

Oolon Colluphid

What rules? All you need is replicators – things that copy themselves with some degree of fidelity – and a limit on the resources they need in order to replicate. Those of the randomly occurring variants that get the resources best, and so out-replicate the others, will become most numerous; those less good at it will simply leave fewer descendants. Since the abilities are passed on, the world becomes filled with what is good at getting replicated (and by extension, with those that have features which enhance survival and reproduction).

It’s an algorithm. And it doesn’t need setting up, all you need are replicators and limited resources.

Mutations are random. Selection, by definition is the absolute opposite of randomness. Your not knowing this is why I suggest you go learn some really basic biology.

Oolon

tronvillain

I know what he's talking about, but it's not really related to the professor's ideas. He's trying to say that in a deterministic system the state of the world at a later time is completely determined by the state of the world at an earlier time, and that as a result humans were an inevitable product of evolution from the very beginning, and this implies "design."

The problem is that it does not - whatever the initial conditions are something will be produced. By his reasoning, there would be design whatever the state of the world.