5 ms·

No, I don't think. Such order is not probable, given infinite time. That all of this occured randomly, beginning with an explosion (involvng matter which shoul

No, I don't think. Such order is not probable, given infinite time. That all of this occured randomly, beginning with an explosion (involvng matter which should not have existed, by the way), is absurd. People who argue against intelligent design may quibble with the details of a particular religion, but our attempts to scientifically describe creation are so woefully inadequate as to be no more actual science than is religion. Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence.

mackwic 14y ago
It's right, full randomness it's a over-simplification of the system, I was turning my post in a Game theory view, so I didn't look too much into physics problematics. However, I don't see all your point. Are you telling me that modern physics like Superstring theory is some kind of religion ? I fear I can't follow you in this path without further explanation.
- nijk 14y ago
  Superstring is a past fad that was more about circular reasoning that ever got to modelling the universe in a predictive way. So that is a bad example.
Fargren 14y ago
Have you ever seen genetic algorithms at work? Any doubts I had about evolution being a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life vanished when I saw how quickly systems could converge to viable solutions to problems by mixing characteristics from the most pat members of a population.
- andrewflnr 14y ago
  Genetic algorithms only work in an environment designed for supporting the process, including coddling less-fit members of the population. They're barely comparable to real natural selection.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Your objection is barely coherent. A genetic algorithm is an abstraction of the natural process of evolution, and they are very much comparable. In fact, they are rather analogous. To claim that studying genetic algorithms tells us little to nothing about natural selection in nature is preposterous.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      I think he's simply saying that genetic algorithms may be based on nature, but come nowhere close in complexity, as to serve as some sort of rigorous "proof" that our theories are true, as the parent suggested. Put another way, genetic algorithms are derived from our theories about nature, not the other way around. That they can effectively model solution sets to (much simpler) problems that we identify or create, neither proves nor disproves our theories about nature.
      - hackinthebochs 14y ago
        What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. While this doesn't "prove" biological evolution, it shows that there is nothing inherently impossible about greater complexity being derived from lesser complexity. I'd say this is a very important result.
        unclebucknasty 14y ago
        >What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. No. They absolutely do nothing of the sort. Do you truly understand how GAs work? There is nothing "unguided" about them. They are pre-programmed, with crossover functions, fitness measures, etc. As the OP mentioned, they operate within relatively simple, well-defined "environments". They are effectively used as a heuristic tool for searching solution sets to defined problems. Also, no one claimed that it's inherently impossible to derive greater complexity from lesser complexity. That's a straw man. Still, just because it's possible doesn't mean it has actually happened or has any bearing whatsoever on the facts (actual evolution). But, beyond that, GAs are not purposed with "deriving complexity", nor is that a desirable result in their application. The goal is not to produce more complex offspring, but more suitable solutions. In short, your comment is completely misguided.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  Yes, I did research on genetic algorithms with a professor in my college years. Wrote a few myself, played with fitness measurements, crossover methodologies, etc. I found them fascinating as well. The theory of evolution can certainly describe some of what we see, however, it is woefully incomplete in its suggested role in creation theory. And while randomness clearly has a role in nature, it has become the default go-to for too many things which science cannot explain. Notice how the parent just casually tossed out randomness as the "obvious" explanation for such complex behavior, as if it was a foregone conclusion. It's anything but. These are tremendously organized and complex systems (including the creation of the Universe itself), for which the prime driver is supposedly randomness. I just think it funny that people deride religious explanations as utter silliness, while so willingly believing that randomness is responsible for, effectively, everything we see. What is scientific about that? We even suspend basic laws of thermodynamics regarding matter creation to accomodate our random-centric explanations. Better to just say, "we don't know".
  - wglb 14y ago
    I recommend http://www.amazon.com/COMPLEXITY-EMERGING-SCIENCE-ORDER-CHAOS/dp/0671872346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367771719&sr=8-1&keywords=complexity http://www.amazon.com/COMPLEXITY-EMERGING-SCIENCE-ORDER-CHAO... which addresses this question in fascinating detail, and of course http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367771784&sr=1-1&keywords=the+blind+watchmaker http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Un...
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      Thanks for the references. I am somewhat familiar with the second, and I look forward to diving deeper.
hackinthebochs 14y ago
>That all of this occured randomly This is wrong. This isn't just an oversimplification of the process, its a complete misunderstanding. Randomness is a component of evolution, but it is only one factor, and not even the most important one.
- unclebucknasty 14y ago
  You underestimate the supposed role of randomness in evolution and science in general. The universe itself is supposedly the product of a random explosion. Hence, my phrasing, "that all of this occured randomly". From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.
  - hackinthebochs 14y ago
    Your objection to the answers that science offers is completely incoherent. So because science doesn't have an explanation for the origin of the big bang, you consider it on the same level as intelligent design? This is absurdly muddled thinking on your part. Science does have a very thorough and logical explanation for these "insanely intricate and complex life forms" btw. None of this is particularly mysterious now. There are some details that are still being filled in, but to act like we are in complete ignorance of how these life forms could come about is just flat out wrong.
    - unclebucknasty 14y ago
      "Incoherent", yet you were able to offer a rebuttal? You don't see the contadiction there? I think it would have been more accurate to state that you simply disagree. And, "none of this is particularly mysterious now"? Are you kidding me? The origin of life and the known universe, and the spark that sparked the spark are all just mundane, settled science now, eh? I think it's time you held a press conference. In any event, you are making my point with your blind adherence to scientific dogma. First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness. Huge difference and if you look at the OP, that is what is being claimed as if it's scientific fact. And, that is why I take exception. If science doesn't know yet, then fine. But, don't offer up a weak non-answer, base the entirety of its theory on it, then take a giant dump on the heads of those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. So, my point is that there is nothing qualitatively superior about your randomness belief versus one of intelligent design (your knee jerk response notwithstanding). And, I challenge you to prove otherwise. In fact, I (and many respected scientists) believe that the randomness argument is actually far inferior in the face of empirical evidence. It is much more plausible that there is some force behind creation beyond what we understand than it is to believe that fundamental laws of thermodynamics were broken in some random event to create our Universe. So, you know, it's cool to believe what you believe, but let's not act all superior when the whole of your fundamental argument rests on "randomness", which is simply a thinly veiled "I don't know".
gruseom 14y ago
Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence. Your comment reminds me of the line attributed to Chesterton, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else." Edit: a little Googling makes me think this more likely came from Terence McKenna: http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-novelty-theory.html http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-n....
Shorel 14y ago
Well, at least the default de facto answer for unknowns in science is "we don't know yet, but here is a good guess". This is also the meaning of Socrates 'I only know that I know nothing'. Any other default answer is dogmatic and foolish in comparison, and from a Socratic point of view, a sophism.

mackwic 14y ago

It's right, full randomness it's a over-simplification of the system, I was turning my post in a Game theory view, so I didn't look too much into physics problematics. However, I don't see all your point. Are you telling me that modern physics like Superstring theory is some kind of religion ? I fear I can't follow you in this path without further explanation.

nijk 14y ago
Superstring is a past fad that was more about circular reasoning that ever got to modelling the universe in a predictive way. So that is a bad example.

Fargren 14y ago

Have you ever seen genetic algorithms at work? Any doubts I had about evolution being a reasonable explanation for the complexity of life vanished when I saw how quickly systems could converge to viable solutions to problems by mixing characteristics from the most pat members of a population.

andrewflnr 14y ago
Genetic algorithms only work in an environment designed for supporting the process, including coddling less-fit members of the population. They're barely comparable to real natural selection.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Your objection is barely coherent. A genetic algorithm is an abstraction of the natural process of evolution, and they are very much comparable. In fact, they are rather analogous. To claim that studying genetic algorithms tells us little to nothing about natural selection in nature is preposterous.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    I think he's simply saying that genetic algorithms may be based on nature, but come nowhere close in complexity, as to serve as some sort of rigorous "proof" that our theories are true, as the parent suggested. Put another way, genetic algorithms are derived from our theories about nature, not the other way around. That they can effectively model solution sets to (much simpler) problems that we identify or create, neither proves nor disproves our theories about nature.
    - hackinthebochs 14y ago
      What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. While this doesn't "prove" biological evolution, it shows that there is nothing inherently impossible about greater complexity being derived from lesser complexity. I'd say this is a very important result.
      - unclebucknasty 14y ago
        >What genetic algorithms do is validate the process of evolution and deriving complexity through unguided processes. No. They absolutely do nothing of the sort. Do you truly understand how GAs work? There is nothing "unguided" about them. They are pre-programmed, with crossover functions, fitness measures, etc. As the OP mentioned, they operate within relatively simple, well-defined "environments". They are effectively used as a heuristic tool for searching solution sets to defined problems. Also, no one claimed that it's inherently impossible to derive greater complexity from lesser complexity. That's a straw man. Still, just because it's possible doesn't mean it has actually happened or has any bearing whatsoever on the facts (actual evolution). But, beyond that, GAs are not purposed with "deriving complexity", nor is that a desirable result in their application. The goal is not to produce more complex offspring, but more suitable solutions. In short, your comment is completely misguided.
unclebucknasty 14y ago
Yes, I did research on genetic algorithms with a professor in my college years. Wrote a few myself, played with fitness measurements, crossover methodologies, etc. I found them fascinating as well. The theory of evolution can certainly describe some of what we see, however, it is woefully incomplete in its suggested role in creation theory. And while randomness clearly has a role in nature, it has become the default go-to for too many things which science cannot explain. Notice how the parent just casually tossed out randomness as the "obvious" explanation for such complex behavior, as if it was a foregone conclusion. It's anything but. These are tremendously organized and complex systems (including the creation of the Universe itself), for which the prime driver is supposedly randomness. I just think it funny that people deride religious explanations as utter silliness, while so willingly believing that randomness is responsible for, effectively, everything we see. What is scientific about that? We even suspend basic laws of thermodynamics regarding matter creation to accomodate our random-centric explanations. Better to just say, "we don't know".
- wglb 14y ago
  I recommend http://www.amazon.com/COMPLEXITY-EMERGING-SCIENCE-ORDER-CHAOS/dp/0671872346/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1367771719&sr=8-1&keywords=complexity http://www.amazon.com/COMPLEXITY-EMERGING-SCIENCE-ORDER-CHAO... which addresses this question in fascinating detail, and of course http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Universe/dp/0393315703/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367771784&sr=1-1&keywords=the+blind+watchmaker http://www.amazon.com/Blind-Watchmaker-Evidence-Evolution-Un...
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    Thanks for the references. I am somewhat familiar with the second, and I look forward to diving deeper.

hackinthebochs 14y ago

>That all of this occured randomly This is wrong. This isn't just an oversimplification of the process, its a complete misunderstanding. Randomness is a component of evolution, but it is only one factor, and not even the most important one.

unclebucknasty 14y ago
You underestimate the supposed role of randomness in evolution and science in general. The universe itself is supposedly the product of a random explosion. Hence, my phrasing, "that all of this occured randomly". From there, life sprang up and evolved into these insanely intricate and complex life forms and systems. Give me a break. If people choose to reject religious explanations, then OK. But, it's a bit rich to pretend that science has much better answers to the really hard questions at this point.
- hackinthebochs 14y ago
  Your objection to the answers that science offers is completely incoherent. So because science doesn't have an explanation for the origin of the big bang, you consider it on the same level as intelligent design? This is absurdly muddled thinking on your part. Science does have a very thorough and logical explanation for these "insanely intricate and complex life forms" btw. None of this is particularly mysterious now. There are some details that are still being filled in, but to act like we are in complete ignorance of how these life forms could come about is just flat out wrong.
  - unclebucknasty 14y ago
    "Incoherent", yet you were able to offer a rebuttal? You don't see the contadiction there? I think it would have been more accurate to state that you simply disagree. And, "none of this is particularly mysterious now"? Are you kidding me? The origin of life and the known universe, and the spark that sparked the spark are all just mundane, settled science now, eh? I think it's time you held a press conference. In any event, you are making my point with your blind adherence to scientific dogma. First, science doesn't offer "no answer", it offers that it knows the answer and that the answer is randomness. Huge difference and if you look at the OP, that is what is being claimed as if it's scientific fact. And, that is why I take exception. If science doesn't know yet, then fine. But, don't offer up a weak non-answer, base the entirety of its theory on it, then take a giant dump on the heads of those who point out that the emperor has no clothes. So, my point is that there is nothing qualitatively superior about your randomness belief versus one of intelligent design (your knee jerk response notwithstanding). And, I challenge you to prove otherwise. In fact, I (and many respected scientists) believe that the randomness argument is actually far inferior in the face of empirical evidence. It is much more plausible that there is some force behind creation beyond what we understand than it is to believe that fundamental laws of thermodynamics were broken in some random event to create our Universe. So, you know, it's cool to believe what you believe, but let's not act all superior when the whole of your fundamental argument rests on "randomness", which is simply a thinly veiled "I don't know".

gruseom 14y ago

Randomness is one such "scientific" explanation. In fact, it is the religion of science, serving as the de facto answer for unknowns regarding creation and existence. Your comment reminds me of the line attributed to Chesterton, "Give us one free miracle and we'll explain everything else." Edit: a little Googling makes me think this more likely came from Terence McKenna: http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-novelty-theory.html http://www.personaproductions.com/2011/02/terence-mckennas-n....

Shorel 14y ago

Well, at least the default de facto answer for unknowns in science is "we don't know yet, but here is a good guess". This is also the meaning of Socrates 'I only know that I know nothing'. Any other default answer is dogmatic and foolish in comparison, and from a Socratic point of view, a sophism.