3 ms·

You're suggesting that there exists an intelligent designer, someone or something that created 'options', as you put it, which then go through the process of na

by Sandman 16y ago

You're suggesting that there exists an intelligent designer, someone or something that created 'options', as you put it, which then go through the process of natural selection. I, on the other hand, propose that there was no intelligent design, that all the 'options' were created simply through the workings of the laws of nature. Now, somebody might say - but who, then, created these laws, who said that they're going to work the way they do? And that's just the thing - nobody did. It's just the way (our) universe works. No intelligent designer decreed that the speed of light in vacuum will be 299,792,458 metres per second, it's simply one of the laws of physics.

hasenj 16y ago
I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious. It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a simple way that even the deaf and blind nature can do it. I'm pointing out a fatal flaw in a key element of this supposed automatic mechanism. "We'll find another way" is not really a good answer; not a very scientific one, anyway.
- ErrantX 16y ago
  The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. There is no "obvious flaw" in mutation, not if you understand how it works. It is easy to describe how a complex system works once you discover it The same can equally be said of the intelligent design theory.
  - hasenj 16y ago
    I'm not trying to promote the ID "theory" or anything like that. Can't we just focus on the question instead of questioning my motives? > The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. This is exactly what I mean by hand waving. So there's a humongous timescale involved, so what? That doesn't constitute any form of evidence. Unless you're saying it's not really testable because we can't simulate millions of years in a lab. In that case, well, you'd be confirming my point. Again, the design is quite obvious, while the "mutation" proposition is not plausible, and remains unproven. And no, I don't identify myself as a proponent of "The Intelligent Design Theory". I don't claim to have the definitive answer and I don't feel the need to propose an alternative to neo-darwinism.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      No, I was saying that the apparent problems you see in mutation is due to the fact that you don't seem to be considering the huge time-scale involved. Saying "design is obvious" is all very well but I see lots of flaws with that? Who's right? :)
      - hasenj 16y ago
        It seems you don't understand what I'm talking about. Having a long time is only useful if mutations can produce good "patches". If you can't prove that they can, then all the time in the world won't do you any good. It's like you're saying: A & B & C & D, therefor Z I'm pointing out that A is false. You're objecting by pointing out that B is true. I'm saying "who cares"? When one of your basic premises doesn't hold, it doesn't matter if all the other ones hold.
        ErrantX 16y ago
        I'm somewhat confused by your argument (actually; entirely confused). Perhaps a quick refresher of Evolution is useful. Basically there is a wide misconception that mutation and NS is Evolution. This is something of a well taught fallacy. Evolution consists of three parts - Variation, Mechanism and Outcome. The first of these, Variation, relates to the physical phenomena that cause changes in organisms. One of these is mutation; which is a random action at the gene level causing something different to occur in the organism. There are several other things that can cause variation in an organism. The second is Mechanism; which is the process by which individual variations take effect across a "population". This is, in effect, the guts of evolution - and one of the main parts of that is Natural selection (which is an easy theory to comprehend). The thing to remember about NS is that this is a very very slow process; if one variation is favoured this is not a process that occurs from one generation to the next. NS works best in larger populations - so the progress of multiple variations through the population can take hundreds, or thousands, of generations. The final part of Evolution is the outcome of the progress of variations across a species; this is more about the phenomena we observe (i.e. that we are adapted to our environment, or that two species "co-operate" at a very basic level). This is the guts of your particular problem. Mutation is a pretty provable phenomena because, well, we see mutation all the time! Your original post made this note: If you have a really good team of tester and code reviewers, but no one submits any patch (or, no one makes any change), then the software will not evolve on its own. It will not get better just because there are a lot of people to test it. It needs other people to make changes/submit patches. Consider a more "true to life" version of your example; a program exists that can compile and produce a version of itself as well as doing some other specific task. People download V1 of this program that, say, flashes a pixel on your screen. As the program compiles itself a random "mutation" may occur in the code - adding, removing or changing something. Programs that don't work are discarded (naturally) and those that do something extra or cool are favoured. Over the course of millions of generations you will end up with a number of highly evolved programs - for example a network scanner, a web browser and a word pad. Your mistake is in assuming a system that requires an intelligent input. You seem to be suggesting that it is unlikely for mutation to create useful variations; this is also a fallacy because mutation is random. So despite being unlikely it is not impossible; please remember we are not talking about a mutation that suddenly means the offspring grows a lung - that is a common misconception. We are already highly evolved over millions of generations - so it is a lot harder to observe directly in current organisms. But we can observe it in bacteria who adapt to new situations through mutation. That is the basis of the whole shebang. The theory of evolution has survived this challenge a number of times without being proven fallacious.
- maushu 16y ago
  You are currently watching the end result of a really long time frame of evolution. Lots of species died (that we probably will never know about), some evolutions were dead ends and lots of stuff has gone wrong. All of this to reach this point.
  - hasenj 16y ago
    This is what I call hand-waving.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      No, it's called a theory - one slowly being backed with empirical evidence. Rather than call it bunk why not suggest an alternate theory and try to match that with empirical evidence.

by Sandman 16y ago

hasenj 16y ago

I'm not trying to come up with any alternative to anything; just pointing out the obvious problems with "mutations" that everyone seems to ignore. The design is obvious. It doesn't need any proof. No one even denies it. Even the most hard-core atheists I've come across use the word "design" a lot when talking about the human body or even any biological structure. They just propose that it can be automated in such a simple way that even the deaf and blind nature can do it. I'm pointing out a fatal flaw in a key element of this supposed automatic mechanism. "We'll find another way" is not really a good answer; not a very scientific one, anyway.

ErrantX 16y ago
The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. There is no "obvious flaw" in mutation, not if you understand how it works. It is easy to describe how a complex system works once you discover it The same can equally be said of the intelligent design theory.
- hasenj 16y ago
  I'm not trying to promote the ID "theory" or anything like that. Can't we just focus on the question instead of questioning my motives? > The problem is you are not considering the timescale - which is over millions of years. This is exactly what I mean by hand waving. So there's a humongous timescale involved, so what? That doesn't constitute any form of evidence. Unless you're saying it's not really testable because we can't simulate millions of years in a lab. In that case, well, you'd be confirming my point. Again, the design is quite obvious, while the "mutation" proposition is not plausible, and remains unproven. And no, I don't identify myself as a proponent of "The Intelligent Design Theory". I don't claim to have the definitive answer and I don't feel the need to propose an alternative to neo-darwinism.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    No, I was saying that the apparent problems you see in mutation is due to the fact that you don't seem to be considering the huge time-scale involved. Saying "design is obvious" is all very well but I see lots of flaws with that? Who's right? :)
    - hasenj 16y ago
      It seems you don't understand what I'm talking about. Having a long time is only useful if mutations can produce good "patches". If you can't prove that they can, then all the time in the world won't do you any good. It's like you're saying: A & B & C & D, therefor Z I'm pointing out that A is false. You're objecting by pointing out that B is true. I'm saying "who cares"? When one of your basic premises doesn't hold, it doesn't matter if all the other ones hold.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        I'm somewhat confused by your argument (actually; entirely confused). Perhaps a quick refresher of Evolution is useful. Basically there is a wide misconception that mutation and NS is Evolution. This is something of a well taught fallacy. Evolution consists of three parts - Variation, Mechanism and Outcome. The first of these, Variation, relates to the physical phenomena that cause changes in organisms. One of these is mutation; which is a random action at the gene level causing something different to occur in the organism. There are several other things that can cause variation in an organism. The second is Mechanism; which is the process by which individual variations take effect across a "population". This is, in effect, the guts of evolution - and one of the main parts of that is Natural selection (which is an easy theory to comprehend). The thing to remember about NS is that this is a very very slow process; if one variation is favoured this is not a process that occurs from one generation to the next. NS works best in larger populations - so the progress of multiple variations through the population can take hundreds, or thousands, of generations. The final part of Evolution is the outcome of the progress of variations across a species; this is more about the phenomena we observe (i.e. that we are adapted to our environment, or that two species "co-operate" at a very basic level). This is the guts of your particular problem. Mutation is a pretty provable phenomena because, well, we see mutation all the time! Your original post made this note: If you have a really good team of tester and code reviewers, but no one submits any patch (or, no one makes any change), then the software will not evolve on its own. It will not get better just because there are a lot of people to test it. It needs other people to make changes/submit patches. Consider a more "true to life" version of your example; a program exists that can compile and produce a version of itself as well as doing some other specific task. People download V1 of this program that, say, flashes a pixel on your screen. As the program compiles itself a random "mutation" may occur in the code - adding, removing or changing something. Programs that don't work are discarded (naturally) and those that do something extra or cool are favoured. Over the course of millions of generations you will end up with a number of highly evolved programs - for example a network scanner, a web browser and a word pad. Your mistake is in assuming a system that requires an intelligent input. You seem to be suggesting that it is unlikely for mutation to create useful variations; this is also a fallacy because mutation is random. So despite being unlikely it is not impossible; please remember we are not talking about a mutation that suddenly means the offspring grows a lung - that is a common misconception. We are already highly evolved over millions of generations - so it is a lot harder to observe directly in current organisms. But we can observe it in bacteria who adapt to new situations through mutation. That is the basis of the whole shebang. The theory of evolution has survived this challenge a number of times without being proven fallacious.
maushu 16y ago
You are currently watching the end result of a really long time frame of evolution. Lots of species died (that we probably will never know about), some evolutions were dead ends and lots of stuff has gone wrong. All of this to reach this point.
- hasenj 16y ago
  This is what I call hand-waving.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    No, it's called a theory - one slowly being backed with empirical evidence. Rather than call it bunk why not suggest an alternate theory and try to match that with empirical evidence.