root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (07/03/85)
In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > I believe that a world forged entirely by chance > mutations and Darwinian laws would be a world of > unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the law of survival > of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality, > but never perfection. Exactly! Many of the "advanced" lifeforms are such total kludges, but then so what? The system works. If nature DID appear perfect in our eyes then we might well call this proof of creation. > Such a world would resemble a world created by the Federal > Government. Consider the honeycomb, which represents a perfect > solution to a multi-dimentional optimization problem. The hexagonal > shape gives maximum strength for minimal use of material with > no left-over pockets, and the ends dove-tail perfectly; nothing > is wasted. Bees would need engineering degrees with math through > advanced calculus to build such a structure by design. Not necessarily. It doesn't take an engineering degree to build optimal structures. It takes an engineering degree to UNDERSTAND optimal structures, and then only using a method provided by those degrees. Simply because the honeycomb is an optimal structure we cannot conclude that it was therefore designed. You must first show that such structures may be built ONLY through design. > Since they could obviously get by with much less, Darwins laws > would seem to imply that the bees who put the extra time and > effort into perfection would be the ones to perish, while other bees > ate and pro-created more or became better at warfare. The bees didn't put any effort or time into understanding or creating the honeycomb. If they did then that would give the bees intelligence and that would certainly be a non-creationist concept. > Indeed, everywhere you look on this planet, you > see craftsmanship; it is in no wise "scientific" to > ignore something so obvious. And yet, believing that > this planet was "created" doesn't necessitate believing > in a being who is omnipotent; we seem omnipotent to > ants, that is relative. Craftsmanship? If you wish to see such craftsmanship then you will see it.... in everything. Yet an explanation that explains EVERYTHING.... explains nothing. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Money for you from the Buddah"
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/06/85)
In article <356@imsvax.UUCP> ted@imsvax.UUCP (Ted Holden) writes: > > Evolution seems to me to be a fact of life and is >supported by all geological evidence. However, >evolution as we observe it now, runs only downhill in >accordance with the second law of thermodynamics. In >reality, chance mutations, which Darwinists like to >regard as the driving force behind evolution, take only >such forms as Down's syndrome and Tay-Sachs disease. This is an incorrect statement about evolutionary theorists. We like to regard *natural selection* as the driving force of evolution, not mutation. Mutation is best viewed as a source of raw material on which N.S. can act. > I believe that a world forged entirely by chance >mutations and Darwinian laws would be a world of >unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the law of survival >of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality, >but never perfection. Such a world would resemble a >world created by the Federal Government. Consider the Actually, this *is* essentially what we see. With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature), living things do not achieve perfection, only competence. >honeycomb, which represents a perfect solution to a >multi-dimentional optimization problem. The hexagonal >shape gives maximum strength for minimal use of >material with no left-over pockets, and the ends >dove-tail perfectly; nothing is wasted. Bees would >need engineering degrees with math through advanced >calculus to build such a structure by design. Or they could use trial and error, the solution si in fact quite simple, and may be easily arrived at in this way. Lesser solutions may be usable(in fact some bee relatives use such lesser solutions), but in competition with the better solution under conitions of high poulation density, as in a bee hive, the small advantage of optimal efficiency would be prefered once it became available. > Indeed, everywhere you look on this planet, you >see craftsmanship; it is in no wise "scientific" to >ignore something so obvious. And yet, believing that >this planet was "created" doesn't necessitate believing >in a being who is omnipotent; we seem omnipotent to >ants, that is relative. > This is in fact a return to the argument from design. In order to be valid you demonstrate several more points. First you must provide an objective definition of design, not just the gut feeling, "this looks sophisticated therefore it must be designed". Secondly you must show how this proposed definition of design *intrinsically* *implies* a designer. And pleas remember, avoid circularity and begging the question, simply saying "this fits my definition of design and the dictionary defines design in such a way as to imply a designer" is *not* sufficient since you are not using the dictionary definition. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen
dsr@uvacs.UUCP (Dana S. Richards) (07/09/85)
[Evolution is best explained..] > in Immanual Velikovsky's book "Earth in Upheaval", > still available from DoubleDay. ... > Logically, belief in such a thing should mark the > believer as an idiot and yet, such is the power of the > "scientific" establishment in this country, that > they've managed to mark everybody who doesn't believe > in this possibility as idiots and most people believe > them. In particular, they've temporarily managed to > brand the one man, Velikovsky, who ever did come up > with some of the right answers regarding our origins, > as a pseudo-scientist. It's a funny world. > ... > being a Christian. My message to all of you scientists > out there is this: don't try to attack Christianity on > scientific or historical grounds; you are on much > shakier scientific and historical ground than you would > like to imagine. And if you haven't read Velikovsky's > books and David Talbott's "The Saturn Myth", you'd > better. Uniformitarianism is dead. The alternative to Is there (should there be) a net.pseudoscience where it would be appropriate to respond to these comments? There are many serious articles and books that debunk V, though it is hard to understand why so much energy has been expended considering the unsoundness of the claims. There are those that think V has been treated unfairly (see a new book reviewed by Martin Gardner in the new Skeptical Inquirer) but I feel his views have been treated with incredible serious (all things considered). It is a credit that scientists bother to refute pseudoscientists when it is clear that there views are becoming persuasive. As a rule they would prefer to not debunk; the return on the time invested is minimal. Similar comments pertain to rebuttals on this newsgroup. Obviously the majority of the creationist liteature/tactics are indistinguishable from the pseudoscientist's. However there is the added emotional dimension that makes this newsgroup different. And it is always good to hear thoughtful critiques of Science.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/09/85)
>> [Ted Holden] >> I believe that a world forged entirely by chance >> mutations and Darwinian laws would be a world of >> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the law of survival >> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality, >> but never perfection. Such a world would resemble a >> world created by the Federal Government. Consider the > [Stanley Friesen] > Actually, this *is* essentially what we see. > With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature), > living things do not achieve perfection, only competence. It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather subjective in their comments. Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask: what is perfection? Or competence? Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to survive. But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'. ---- What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (07/10/85)
[] Paul Dubois writes: > Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask: what is perfection? Or competence? I think a reasonable working definition of perfection might be: Something is perfect if there is no straightforward way to improve it. Isaac Dimitrovsky allegra!cmcl2!csd2!dimitrov (l in cmcl2 is letter l not number 1) 251 Mercer Street, New York NY 10012 Just because it's a preconceived notion doesn't mean it's wrong!
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/13/85)
> Paul Dubois writes: > > Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask: what is perfection? Or competence? > > [Isaac Dimitrovsky] > I think a reasonable working definition of perfection might be: > Something is perfect if there is no straightforward way to improve it. It seems to me that this simply rephrases the problem in different words without getting us any closer to solving it. I suppose, for example, that an adaptation may be said to be an "improvement", so that the organism possessing the adaptation may be said to be more "perfected" than the one not possessing it. But given the difficulty of assessing whether a given trait is "adaptive" or not, this is a non-trivial exercise. Some of Gould's stuff about the Irish Elk horns being adaptive comes to mind. (To be fair, he seems more recently to have lost some of his enthusiasm for the idea that all structures must be adaptive and therefore useful. Once one reaches this stage, one becomes less subject to the generation of paradigmatic artifacts, less subject to the notion, for instance, that one *must* find a use for a structure because it *must* be a useful adaptation. I am glad to see that Gould has reached that stage, at least partially.) -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (07/16/85)
In article <1266@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >>> [Ted Holden] >>> I believe that a world forged entirely by chance >>> mutations and Darwinian laws would be a world of >>> unbelievable shabbiness, i.e. that the law of survival >>> of the fittest would give you acceptable functionality, >>> but never perfection. Such a world would resemble a >>> world created by the Federal Government. Consider the > >> [Stanley Friesen] >> Actually, this *is* essentially what we see. >> With a very few exceptions(mostly simple in nature), >> living things do not achieve perfection, only competence. > >It may be observed here that Messrs. Holden and Friesen are both rather >subjective in their comments. Simulating Ernest Hua, I ask: what is >perfection? Or competence? > >Presumably competence could be defined for starters as the ability to >survive. But that doesn't mean much; we get the same problems as when >trying to arrive at an independent criterion of 'fitness'. > >---- > >What is really odd about Stanley's reply is that he makes the above >statement, and then later in the same article challenges Ted to >provide some addition criteria for evaluation of 'design'. > I admit this phraseology is rather subject, but I was just responding using Mr Holden's choice of concepts. I will try to make the matter somewhat less subjective. I would start by noting that Mr Holden's concept of "perfection" would imply that the structure/behavior of an organism would be optimal(i.e unimprovable) for its lifestyle and situation. This, then, reduces to simple engineering analysis. My observation above was basically that if you look carefully at the living world you will find suboptimal "design" quite regularly. For instance, a supension style support structure which is excellent for a *horizontal* support being used as a *vertical* support(the Human vertebral column - with all of its "back-problems"). Or look at the *failure* rate among top carnivores, most capture only a small percent of the prey they attempt, far less than any competent Human hunter. Then there is the incredible kludge that is the circuit design of the mammalian brain! It *works*, but it only by dint of what in a human designed system would be considered an incredible series of makeshifts and patches! In the higher mammals the brain is composed of at least three more of less complete sub-"brains" each operating by inhibiting some of the function of the next lower brain. Then there is the side brain(called the cerebellum or little brain) which provides synchronization and stabilization of output signal by *splining* the ouytput of higher centers! Imagine a computer in which the output of the main CPU was only approximately correct and the results are filtered through an output processor which checks the results and corrects "errors", this is essentially what the Cerebellum does! Such examples go no and on, and I hardly think that the idea of "perfection" in the living world can be maintained in the face of such evidence. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen