Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:20:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@ceid.upatras.gr>, Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net>, dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Neal E. Westfall" wrote:
> You have your axioms, I have mine. The difference is that I think
> I can defend mine, whereas I don't think yours are defensible.
Well, if you want, we can start at the very, very beginning,
and work out the entire basis for a rationalist world view.
We can start with "light bulbs work".
> As you have noted, it was not Biblical doctrine, it was Aritotelian
> philosophy that the Catholic Church had incorporated into its
> doctrine. It's not at all surprising, given human nature, but it
> is regrettable.
There are a number of scriptures which are and aren't considered
part of "The Bible"; the inclusion and exclusion are rather
arbitrary and political, as well.
> > > Why should it hang around?
> >
> > The genes are there; why should they magically disappear, if there's
> > no pressure to remove them from the gene pool? We know for a fact
> > that it is almost impossible to eliminate recessive genes without
> > eugenics or explicit engineering: it's mathematical improbability is
> > so amazingly large that it simply can't happen.
>
> Kind of like the mathematical improbability of evolution is so
> amazingly large that it can't happen either? 8-) Why *should* chance
> favor order rather than disorder?
I think you are mistaken in your assumptions here. "Life", as
such, is *not* anti-entropic, in the larger sense. It increases
order locally ("extropy"), at the expense of higher overall entropy.
> > "A million" is just a convenient handle for "an inconceivably large
> > number"; the premise in the argument is sound: given a source of
> > randomness, eventually, a set number of bits in a specific sequence
> > will happen. If it never happens, then your input wasn't really
> > random. It's basically a premise based on large number theory,
> > combined with the theory of limits. Basically, there is a finite
> > probability of something happening, and an infinity of attempts at
> > a matching value: eventually, it *will* happen.
>
> Yes, but the odds against it for all intents and purposes make it a
> statistical impossibility.
That's wrong. You misapprehend the nature of infinity, and we
have given them an infinite amount of time to complete their
task.
> Moreover, if you think *that* is how life
> arose, why do you use your eyes as though they were designed for seeing
> and that they can give you accurate information? It would be like if
> you were driving in the mountains, and a rock slide occurred blocking
> your road, and some of the rocks just happen to randomly arrange
> themselves into the words "Hello, Earthling". Now, statistically its
> certainly possible, but you would be in error to suppose that some
> kind of meaningful message was being communicated. So why suppose
> that your senses, that arose by chance, convey anything meaningful
> to you? In fact, why suppose that there even *is* a you?
Because it's expedient.
> > The general consensus is that it started with the exchange of
> > linear RNA segments Eucaryotes.
>
> Oh yeah, as if this didn't beg the question!
It doesn't. Perhaps it raises others, but it answers the one you asked.
> > Not really. If something is possible, no matter how improbable,
> > given an infinite amount of time...
>
> You stretch credulity to its limits!
What is one divided by infinity? What is seventy seven divided
by infinity? How many integers are there? How many real numbers
are there? What is the value of the number of integers divided by
the number of real numbers?
All of these questions stretch exactly the same credulity, and
yet they have answers.
> > > Maybe, just maybe, because they don't *want* to believe it to be
> > > unintelligible.
> >
> > Or that you want to believe that it is?
>
> No, I do not want to believe in square circles.
Squaring the circle is possible; it's just not possible using
only geometric constructions. So if you are going to limit
the ways in which you are willing to think, yeah, some things
are going to appear impossible to you, which are perfectly
rational to someone else who doesn't adopt the same arbtrary
boundaries you choose to adopt.
> > > > Why do you say that it's unintelligible?
> > >
> > > Because is isn't. It's like saying water has the power to choose its
> > > own path. Such a notion is completely unintelligible.
> >
> > Entropy chooses water's path. 8-).
>
> As it does the human mind. 8-)
Correct.
> > > Now you're getting the point...
> >
> > I got that point from your first posting.
> >
> > Now you should get mine: it's unreasonable for you to expect
> > everyone to adopt your assumptions, particularly if their
> > asumptions are a subset of yours. 8-).
>
> I'll reiterate mine again: It's unreasonable to adopt a subset
> of assumptions that are the preconditions of intelligibility.
> 8-)
I guess if you insist on defining your assumptions that way,
then you can not be convinced rationally of the rationality of
anyone who does not already hold the same world view you hold,
so there's really no reason to persist, unless you genuinely
believe you can change other people's world views to coincide
with your own.
-- Terry
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3D7E622F.840E002B>