5 ms·

Are they random, though? What does "random" even mean? How intelligent is evolution? Is it stupid and random? Does it have the same level of direction as a sin

Are they random, though? What does "random" even mean? How intelligent is evolution? Is it stupid and random? Does it have the same level of direction as a single-celled organism? As an insect? As a mammal? That's still an open question. There's a spectrum of hypothesis. To give a few: - They are guided by an intelligent creator - They are random and stupid - There is intelligence built into the system which results in mechanisms like changing mutation rates during periods of crisis, sexual selection / reproduction, genetic crosstalk, DNA encoding, etc. It makes a big difference. We can compare different optimization algorithms we run on computers (various gradient descent, simulated annealing, genetic algorithms, etc), as well as different encodings we run those over. The results aren't the same. That has profound implication philosophically, theologically, and scientifically. The oversimplified school version is not helpful in that it potentially leads to the wrong conclusions.

otherme123 3y ago
In science we work with the best we can. At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors. This paper is good, but it doesn't add any breakthrough to what we know: virus-like particles taking DNA from one individual to another, ocasionaly jumping between species. At random. Also, in science, we work from null hypothesis and build on it. You can't work towards an hypothesis like "there is a supra-inteligence". You work from "there's nothing", analyze what you see and propose the simplest and more probable explanation. At the current state proposing a supra-inteligence raises more scientific questions than answers. All the scientific evidence we have at this moment points toward blind, random, stupid and un-directed evolution as the best explanation, thus we should ethically teach that. If you want to hypothesize otherwise, bring proof and observations that can't be explained with the current model. Philosophically and specially theologically you can say whatever you want, as long as the framework is internally consistent. For example, the "We live in a simulation" hypothesis is quite consistent, but we can't prove it, for or against. Nobody stops you from researching about inteligent creators, inteligent DNA, etc. But you shouldn't teach your hypothesis, like we don't talk kids about the "simulation hypothesis" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis> or "zoo hypothesis"<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis>.
- frognumber 3y ago
  > At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors You're deeply misunderstanding what I wrote, in part by confusing "intelligence" for "sentience." My washing machine has "intelligence," as per the sticker on the front. So does an ant. Intelligence is a complex and often emergent phenomenon, and a colony of ants has /much/ more intelligence than a single ant. Evolution very obviously has some intelligence (and much more than my toaster). The key question is what type and how much. That has _deep_ implications, including for fields like evolutionary psychology. And I do teach kids about the simulation hypothesis and similar. They're useful philosophical explorations. Why don't you? Do you think your child will break if exposed to different ideas and perspectives? I haven't found that to be the case.

otherme123 3y ago

In science we work with the best we can. At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors. This paper is good, but it doesn't add any breakthrough to what we know: virus-like particles taking DNA from one individual to another, ocasionaly jumping between species. At random. Also, in science, we work from null hypothesis and build on it. You can't work towards an hypothesis like "there is a supra-inteligence". You work from "there's nothing", analyze what you see and propose the simplest and more probable explanation. At the current state proposing a supra-inteligence raises more scientific questions than answers. All the scientific evidence we have at this moment points toward blind, random, stupid and un-directed evolution as the best explanation, thus we should ethically teach that. If you want to hypothesize otherwise, bring proof and observations that can't be explained with the current model. Philosophically and specially theologically you can say whatever you want, as long as the framework is internally consistent. For example, the "We live in a simulation" hypothesis is quite consistent, but we can't prove it, for or against. Nobody stops you from researching about inteligent creators, inteligent DNA, etc. But you shouldn't teach your hypothesis, like we don't talk kids about the "simulation hypothesis" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis> or "zoo hypothesis"<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoo_hypothesis>.

frognumber 3y ago
> At this point we have zero proof of inteligent DNA, omniscient creators or directors You're deeply misunderstanding what I wrote, in part by confusing "intelligence" for "sentience." My washing machine has "intelligence," as per the sticker on the front. So does an ant. Intelligence is a complex and often emergent phenomenon, and a colony of ants has /much/ more intelligence than a single ant. Evolution very obviously has some intelligence (and much more than my toaster). The key question is what type and how much. That has _deep_ implications, including for fields like evolutionary psychology. And I do teach kids about the simulation hypothesis and similar. They're useful philosophical explorations. Why don't you? Do you think your child will break if exposed to different ideas and perspectives? I haven't found that to be the case.