Originally posted by jaywill
Thanks for the clarification.
I entered into this discussion most recently, I think, because someone made a sweeping statement that ID was nonsense.
I think that idea itself is nonsense.
The universe is very hostile to life. But we have it here on earth in this little corner of the planet.
Look at a one celled amoeba. Its a tiny creature, s ...[text shortened]... iring something like 1,000 sets 30 volume encyclopedias also probably requires intelligence.
This is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. Because it is seen as unlikely, or as unbelievable, it is decided that it is synonymous with being impossible.
Evolution coupled with natural selection, as pointed out to you many times deals with all of that complexity nicely, indeed the useless DNA and dead proteomic network paths found in every living creature is testament to a lack of design. Design entails top down creation of something, iterative simplification. A bottom up approach, like evolution wth natural selection naturally leads one to such messy yet still functioning networks. Indeed it helps produce more dramatic mutations.
Also, in your constructing sentence argument, there is another problem; to construct such a sentence is not something that requires intelligence. We'll do a thought experiment:
In a "letter world" we have an environment which is hostile to letters such as c,d,f,i,j,m,n,q,v,w,x,y,z. All "animals" (words) in this world would tend not to contain these letters, though exceptions may exist for a little while before dying out. The letters we are left with are the ones in "pleasetakeoutthegarbage" (natural selection has just halved the number of variables), nwo if our environment favours animals who have a mix of vowels and consonants for example, we are starting to get closer and closer to our sentence. As time goes on, the environment is continually "selecting" those words and collections of words which most closely match the one best suited to the environment (Please take out the garbage). As time goes on, the collection of words asymptoticly approaches the required sentence and hey presto, the sentence is written.
The example above is a thought experiment which demonstrates the basic principle, but in a natural system the same holds true, a replicating system, with mutation in an environment will tend towards a form which suits that environment. Since the environment (over generational timescales) changes, we don't arrive at "perfect organisms", though some whose environments have stayed relatively constant have remained well adapted to it, sharks and coelocanths being an example.
Now as a reward for reading all of that, I have one question, you claim to seek truth, and say that science, being based on certin logical assumptions cannot be guaranteed to be approaching it, but in that case, how can you be sure that your argument that it was circular be true? Science does make certain very basic assumptions. It tests these assumptions in its models however. If our base assumptions were way off, our predictions would likely be off, and, like evolution, through a harsh environment of self-criticism, we weed out the false assumption and asymptotically approach the truth. We may never get there, indeed it's quite likely we'll never get there, but we'll make a damn better job of it then anything else out there.
Ultimately, I base my world on the assumption that what I see is really there. You base your world on the assumption that what you
don't see is really there. While either has a certain probability of being the truth, which one do you see as the most rational choice?
What's wrong with evolution?
18 Feb '08 06:00
Back to Top