Awww, that's cute, tophat. I imagine that you think your god is perfect, as well. That brings me back again to my question to you, what blind forces made your god?
S
Discussion of "intelligent design" (uncapitalized, AlanF)
by AuldSoul 153 Replies latest members adult
-
-
AlanF
AuldSoul wrote:
: . . . But, suppose there wasn't a desired result. Suppose the program had no "prime directive," no end point, and was not working toward any particular goal. Suppose, the resulting circuit did not even need to do anything and the process could terminate randomly, at any point. Because this is the situation we find for the "program" (natural selection) that produced the first single-celled organism.
What's your point? We already know that the world of life is far, far more complicated than a simple computer program. We already know that natural selection has no a priori goals, and that my example was, of necessity, extremely simplified. So you're not telling me anything we both don't already know.
: AlanF: Natural selection is a good deal more complicated, since there is no preset template other than the extremely fuzzy "to survive"
: Once again, you haven't proven that single-celled organisms have an extremely fuzzy "preset template" of survival. You have assumed it from the fact that they do survive, but you haven't established it as a natural (as opposed to designed) goal.
Once again you're not understanding what I said. I clearly stated that natural selection has no a priori goals, that when I used the word "goal" in terms of natural selection it was in a non-standard sense, so that I wrote " 'goal' " rather than "goal", and that calling the self-evident tendency of all life forms to survive a 'goal' is simply a manner of speaking. By "template" I simply mean "whatever things tend toward". Perhaps I should have put "preset template" in single quotes, but I thought that my circuit example where there is a real preset template was clear enough, in contrast with natural selection that obviously has no preset template. I even stated that this "fuzzy 'goal'" is only a sort of goal -- obviously using these terms as a manner of speaking, as an 'if you will', 'at some level', 'in some sense' -- and that, however you want to view it, in line with the sense I've conveyed, it exists in place of a preset template. With these hopeful clarifications in mind, please reread what I said:
Natural selection is a good deal more complicated, since there is no preset template other than the extremely fuzzy "to survive", and the conditions under which the selection occurs are constantly changing. As I've said several times, the tendency to survive, which results in the accumulation of better survivors over the long haul, which comes as a result of better survivors reproducing more of their kind, can be called a fuzzy 'goal' in the sense that this result, with hindsight, is a sort of goal. This fuzzy 'goal' exists in place of a preset template. No matter what words you want to use to describe these processes, they go on, and they work.
Bottom line: The tendency of organisms to survive, or to continue to exist, is a self-evident observation and I don't need to prove it. Calling this result a 'goal' -- understood to be only in a manner of speaking, in an a posteriori sense -- is just putting a usable word on the result. If you want to suggest a better word, be my guest.
: For instance, let's take the very first single-celled organism, all by itself, one living cell without any peer in the world.
You're assuming that the first reproducing life form was a cell of some sort. No scientist involved in current origins research would make such an assumption. Indeed, so far as I'm aware, they make no assumptions at all about its form, but leave the question open.
: What factor would possibly compel it to survive, as a goal or preset template, fuzzy in the extreme or otherwise? In a world with no other living organism present, why would there be any external or internal pressure to survive instead of die? It has no desires. It is just a very simple chemical composite, nothing more. It doesn't want anything. What could possibly pressure it into surviving? It seems to me that its survival could only have initially occurred in the complete absence of pressure, any pressure would kill it since it has no reason to live. Which flies in the face (to my way of thinking) of natural selection.
I think you've got yourself into a very strange way of thinking about this. Obviously, a bit of chemicals has no real goal, nor is it compelled (when we say "compel" we tend to think of behests and obedience to behests) to do anything. It simply exists and does what basic physical laws and its environment force it to do. But this forcing is not a behest that the bit of chemicals can decide to go along with or not. A hemoglobin molecule does not decide to bind to an oxygen molecule -- it simply does it in accord with whatever physical laws dictate the behavior of molecules. A hemoglobin molecule does not decide to continue to exist (survive, if you will) until it takes up an oxygen molecule -- it simply does it. The first bit of self-reproducing chemicals did not decide to continue to exist (survive, if you will) or to reproduce -- it simply did these things in accord with whatever physical laws dictate the behavior of molecules. Once the self-reproducing molecule came to exist, it continued to exist (survive) at least until it reproduced. That's all there is to it.
Dilaceratus has provided a nice explanation complementary to what I'm trying to say.
: If we humbly admit that life is not necessary (first of all),
Necessary in what sense? I'd go along with something like "not necessary to the functioning of the universe".
: then it seems to me that we must also accept the fact that the occurrence of survival with the first single-celled organism must be explained by something other than necessity. If we say chance, then we have to explain why two single-celled organisms survived, again by chance.
We most certainly do not. Does anyone have to explain why billions of hemoglobin molecules survive long enough to transport oxygen from place to place in our blood? I think not. It just does it. And it does it in accord with physical law -- law in the sense that all molecules act in certain standard ways, even if we have no idea how or why.
: How many times would single-celled organisms have to result before the odds would be in favor of the survival of the FIRST viable single-celled organism.
Who knows? Read dilaceratus' comments again. Since we know virtually nothing about either the conditions under which life purportedly arose, nor any details at all about what actually took place, it is impossible to calculate odds and simply silly to talk about them. This is why talking about natural selection makes sense only in terms of the organisms we can observe, from viruses to whales.
: Survival of this first "species" has a much simpler explanation than that it somehow beat the odds billions of times over and survived, despite having no cause or necessity or desire to account for its own remarkable survival.
And I suppose that "simpler explanation" is "intelligent design".
But I'm sure you already know that this doesn't solve anything. It immediately results in an infinite regression: what intelligent designer designed our own intelligent designer? And back and back and back it goes. Saying arbitrarily, "the buck stops here", as creationists do with God, solves nothing. That is simply a thought-stopping excercise, and a fine example of special pleading.
In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins rightly observes that, if the origin of life from a "pre-biotic soup" is improbable, how much more improbable must be the origin of an intelligent designer grand enough to create life on earth.
: Let's not leap ahead of natural selection to multi-celled organisms, please. Since we agree that macro-evolution and micro-evolution occurs, there is no need to leap to that point. I want to pin down exactly what happened with the very first single-celled organism, the beginning of the program, if you will.
Well, you're way ahead of any origins researchers that I'm aware of. We simply have too little information to go than do other than engage in pure speculation.
AlanF
-
AuldSoul
AlanF: ...that calling the self-evident tendency of all life forms to survive a 'goal' is simply a manner of speaking.
I heartily disagree that this is what the evidence shows. The evidence shows exactly the opposite, the tendency of life forms is to die. Those life forms which survive beat the odds, they survive despite the trend. I will disregard the bulk of your reply sinece it was more of a rant on what ID or Creationists have wrong than it was direct response to anything I wrote.
AlanF: In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins rightly observes that, if the origin of life from a "pre-biotic soup" is improbable, how much more improbable must be the origin of an intelligent designer grand enough to create life on earth.
However, Richard Dawkins left out one vital piece of the contention I am making. The origin of life on earth from a pre-biotic soup is improbable (approaching impossible), however conditions elsewhere very well might have been much more conducive to the origins of life than were conditions on earth. Therefore, while the origin may be explained by a pre-biotic soup somewhere, it is highly improbable that the pre-biotic soup that originated life was an earthly one. Life originating somewhere else makes more sense than does insisting that it originated here.
In 1950, we didn't think we would be capable of mapping the human genome within 100 years. It took us 50 more. Without greatly straining, we can now envision a time when Sci-Fi of Gattica may become reality. We have endured horrible climatic burdens and a couple of near extinctions, but not every planet (especially much older ones) would be as turbulent as ours. How many millenia head start would a planet need to produce life in order to be able to terraform planets and engineer life forms? Humans have already carried simple life forms to other planets.
AlanF: Necessary in what sense?
In any sense. Life is ultimately unnecessary in every respect, from a purely physical standpoint.
Also, it does not tend to survive, it survives despite its tendency to die. Next we can get into the coding, TGAC and UGAC. You, being an MIT grad, will probably enjoy my take on that.
AlanF: Well, you're way ahead of any origins researchers that I'm aware of.
I disagree that it is pure speculation. There are enough knowns to rule out plenty of possibilities and to weight several theoretical probabilities. Either way, the overriding point is that it is not the tendency of life to survive, it is the tendency of life to die. The same goes for species, extinction is the norm, the usual.
Which leaves the question of why the first specimen of the first species beat the odds and survived long enough to replicate, then why did those two specimen beat the incredible odds against them and replicate, and so on. The first species should not have survived. The tendency is very much against that having happened.
AlanF: I even stated that this "fuzzy 'goal'" is only a sort of goal -- obviously using these terms as a manner of speaking, as an 'if you will', 'at some level', 'in some sense' -- and that, however you want to view it, in line with the sense I've conveyed, it exists in place of a preset template.
I have already stated my reasons for disagreeing in this post. However, to continue down this line I will need to have something more clearly defined than an 'if you will', 'at some level', or 'in some sense' because the facts do not match the assertion. Natural selection needs a sort of goal, but nothing at all indicates that natural selection has a sort of goal. It doesn't have survival as a goal. We have survival as a goal, we see survival as a good thing and death as a bad thing.
We impute motive to a process we observe, it has no motive, no template, no goal, fuzzy or otherwise. It doesn't care. And the tendency of the process is NOT survival, the tendency is death and extinction. Natural selection doesn't care if we survive or not, or if anything living survives or not. I think some politicians are like that, too.
-
dilaceratus
AuldSoul:
AlanF: ...that calling the self-evident tendency of all life forms to survive a 'goal' is simply a manner of speaking.
I heartily disagree that this is what the evidence shows. The evidence shows exactly the opposite, the tendency of life forms is to die.
AuldSoul: Either way, the overriding point is that it is not the tendency of life to survive, it is the tendency of life to die. The same goes for species, extinction is the norm, the usual.
Life forms aren't dead. Previous life forms are dead. Life is only recognizable in comparison to death. You are arguing against a definition-- actually, several of them. Where you're getting all balled up is in confusing individuals with species. An individual may have an economic advantage in survival; a species does not. (Altruism among individuals can be explained through genetic relationships.)
AuldSoul: The origin of life on earth from a pre-biotic soup is improbable (approaching impossible), however conditions elsewhere very well might have been much more conducive to the origins of life than were conditions on earth. Therefore, while the origin may be explained by a pre-biotic soup somewhere, it is highly improbable that the pre-biotic soup that originated life was an earthly one. Life originating somewhere else makes more sense than does insisting that it originated here.
This is nonsense. Life is unlikely anywhere. Earth is not special.
Simple probability math: From a randomly shuffled deck of 52 standard playing cards, you are dealt the top five cards. What are the odds you will have received those particular five cards? One in 52 * 51 * 50 *49 * 48, or One in 311,875,200. Those odds suck, but are meaningless, since you did, in fact, receive those five specific cards. It is the act of dealing which is the important factor.
This is self-replication.AuldSoul: The first species should not have survived.
The first collection of self-replicating chemicals, you mean. This is not a question of survival at all. All of these imprecise and non-standard definitions are the root of these strange ideas.
And anyway, the first, second, or three hundred and eleven millionth collection of self-replicating chemicals did continue to self-replicate. After that, given time and mutation, complexity will arise. -
proplog2
Alan & OldSoul:
You are both very lose in defining your terms so far.
What is "mind"? Is that what you mean by "intelligent"?
Is mind based selection different from "natural" selection?
Does mind have to be conscious? Does the selection from many possibilities have to be a deliberative process?
Can cellular automata ie. Wolfram - shed any light on this process?
What is the significance of "survival"? Is survival the ability to confer the ability to reproduce to descendents? Do you need to define "life"?
How did you get sidetracked with teleology?
While there may not be a "purpose" can there still be a direction? Events need antecedent events which in turn produce other events. Does this sequence generate a direction? Can you have direction without "intelligence"?
I think AlanF. made an important point that since no one "really" knows how life got started there is no accurate way of determining the probability of that event. If some intelligent agent did it - she isn't telling us how.
I have read widely in this field and so I am naturally impatient to see progress. It is painful to watch someone try to reinvent the "wheel". Science is a community activity. There are excellent books on this subject. Why not pick one that is definitive and use it as a text for discussion. There ARE professionals that devote their whole lives to this field.
Is something going to take shape here pretty soon or is this more or less a way to pass the time.
-
proplog2
Diliceratus:
I hope my post doesn't seem too redundant. I got several phone calls before I was able to press the submit button. I see you too are frustrated with the definition problems.
But definition is half the problem.
-
proplog2
Narkissos:
Or as the general semantics crowd say "The map is not the territory".
That's why agreed on definitions are very important. The first question in a discussion like this is What do you mean? The next question is How do you know?
-
ackack
AuldSoul, a lot of what you've written is a weak sort of the argument from personal incredulity. Survival is the ability to pass on one's genes to the successive generation.
ackack
-
Midget-Sasquatch
Dilaceratus
While I see your point that the Earth is probably not all that special, I don't think we should discount AuldSoul's ideas altogether. True, there's so little that we know, and as AlanF acknowledged, it would all be speculative, but we can at least make some tentative suggestions with some empirical basis. For example, I agree with you on how likely it would have been for self-replicating molecules to arise and gain some complexity. There's empirical evidence from experiments with self catalyzing RNA for this. And once the first bacterium is on the scene, with all the needed machinery, the rest is easy. However there are some very large innovations that would need to come about for us to get from a basic self-replicating strand of RNA to even the simplest prokaryote. Selective pressures are powerful but how did the very first ribosome (or its analogue) come about? How did the primary metabolic pathways become established?
Now also consider the trace element molybdenum. Its a key part of several enzymatic reactions and its much rarer on Earth compared to other elements, like say tungsten (which chemically behaves very much like molybdenum). You'd figure that the more abundant elements would have been more available and hence likelier to be incorporated into the arising life. Isn't it conceivable that there are other earthlike locales in the cosmos, but with greater concentrations of molybdenum? And as AuldSoul said, with environmental conditions more conducive to the formation of key metabolic and cellular machinery? Not hard proof, I know, but at interesting detail that at least hints at life possibly arising elsewhere.
-
dilaceratus
Midget-Sasquatch: Isn't it conceivable that there are other earthlike locales in the cosmos, but with greater concentrations of molybdenum?
And as conceivable that there are not. Historically it would be nice to know, however, short of some compellingly impossible issue, I don't see how it makes any practical difference where the original self-replicating features occurred. There are good fossil and genetic reasons to believe that life on earth began simply, and became complex. Everything before that is speculation, but the least convoluted explanation is the most likely. Why not the fairly mainstream notion of icy comets filled with space sugars smashing into earth with titanic force, and leave out the other worlds entirely? There is at least a real possibility of something like that happening, and we can investigate the potential results of such an impact. Speculation isn't necessarily harmful, but I don't see the inter-galactic search for Planet Molybdenum offering much new data any time soon.
Even if it were possible to recreate in a lab a working model of abiogenesis, there would be no reason to think that it had any relation to the actual historical process. It would merely prove that there was one way it could have happened.