| ??? 04/23/06 18:49 Read: times |
#114823 - Math and evolution Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Steve M. Taylor said:
I'm surprised the problem is even analytical without overarching assumptions. Its even harder to see anyone here, unless we have many mathematical biologists, being able to make any real inroads to the problem. I had intended to avoid this thread for obvious reasons, however... I'm not a biologist, but I can lay claim to some expertise in mathematics. And my knowledge of the other sciences is sufficient to put two and two together in regards to evolution. Self-organisation can be observed even in mechanical and chemical systems, in mechanical ones, down to simple statistics and in chemical ones to quantum mechanics, without invoking little organising demons or the hand of God. Certainly computer simulations (the only methods fast enough to show test it ) show that it IS possible that evolution does work over the timescales involved, it all comes down to statistics. Bingo. Finite automata, complex systems, statistics. Put it all together with a little chemistry/biology and you've got evolution. Re time scales: evolution proceeds in spurts, depending on circumstances (punctuated equilibrium). The 4.5 E9 years available is more than enough time for biological systems such as humans to have evolved. Like the ID argument, "what use is half an eye ?" is specious. Clearly half an eye is better than no eye at all. The faintest sense of light might confer an advantage to a set of your "random mutations" that will be magnified. True. The ability to detect any light is a reproductive advantage. The main ID argument, "It's too complex to have happened without God's direction", is basically an argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how it could have happened, therefore God did it." Perhaps if they spent more time educating themselves instead of trying to coerce schools into preaching for them, they might be able to understand it. We have good cosmological evidence that the universe emerged in a "big bang" - what happened before that we cannot say. If you wish to invoke your God hypothesis for the instant preceding that, you can do so safe in the knowledge that you have truly entered the realms of untestable theology. Anything else is fairgame for scientific examination. You can speculate on what came "before" the big bang, and some physicists have done so. But the word "before" in this context doesn't have much meaning, and the result is nothing more than speculation. In regard to the "God hypothesis", everything observable in the Universe can be adequately explained without invoking said hypothesis. The sum total of all the evidence supporting the existence of God ("evidence" in either the scientific or legal meaning) is exactly zero. But it is impossible to logically either prove or disprove the hypothesis. Hence the only rational (rational in the literal sense) point of view is agnosticism. Occam's Razor would force one to reject the hypothesis, keeping in mind that rejection is not the same as denial. |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Food for thought | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| i dunno about god | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It comes to my mind that... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| ah well | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Evolution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Reference | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| teps | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Secular humanism | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| timescales | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not any more | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the New Testament and Kurasawa | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maths | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Math | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Science versus faith | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Young Earth | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Figures are way out | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Myth and reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Arcana | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Kamiokande | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Kamiokande | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Get the facts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Facts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| More facts | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| NOT "random" | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Random" in context | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| evolution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| truth by assertion | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Math and evolution | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| How God created me. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| It's just a simulation ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| or like i do | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Maybe he won't do it the same way | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| zero is quite far | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The only thing MEN can do ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Watch the Movie Tron. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| me and steve | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| My stands | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 4000 to 40000 religions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| politicians | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| 01/01/70 00:00 | ||
| Way to find useful info | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Science of DiscWorld | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| proof | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| its called a markov chain | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The fallacy | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| The answer is in the math | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not strictly true | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| reliable sources | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| creation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| OMNIpotence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Who says ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Simplicity. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Unassailable | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Almost, but not quite omnipotent. | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| omnipitant beings are meaningless | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Works for me | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
If we think, every thin is ............ | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| lol | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| That about wraps it up for God. | 01/01/70 00:00 |