dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (03/23/85)
> [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the > mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists. > The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of > the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so > perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental > particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could > never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well, > it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is > even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ- > ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more > perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply. Perhaps you should check your statements before you make them. A S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed, University of Chicago Press, 1966, pp. 37-38: "In past times it was generally assumed that the absence of bone in the Chondrichthyes was a primitive condition and that the sharks represented an evolutionary stage antecedent to that of the bony fishes. This assumption appears, at the present day, to be a highly improbable one. Bone, as we have seen, appears in groups much lower down the evolutionary scale; and if we believe the sharks to be primitive in this regard, we must believe, rather improbably, that bone was evolved a number of times by the vertebrates. Nor are the sharks, as one might expect according to earlier beliefs, an early group geologically. They are, in fact, the last of the major fish groups to appear in the fossil record ... It might be argued that the absence of an earlier record is due to the fact that the ancestral sharks were soft-bodied and not preserved. But the first sharks were far advanced in the evolution of jaws; and it is difficult to believe that the teeth of these supposed earlier forms should have escaped our attention. "The record, in fact, fits in better with the opposite assumption: that the sharks are degenerate rather than primitive in their skeletal characters; that their evolution has paralleled that of various other fish types in a trend toward bone reduction; and that their ancestry is to be sought among primitive bony, jaw-bearing fishes of the general placoderm type. No well-known placoderms can be identified as the actual ancestors of the Chondrichthyes, but we have noted that some of the peculiar petalichthyids appear to show morphologically intermediate stages in skeletal reduction. Increasing knowledge of early Devonian placoderms may some day bridge the gap." Sharks were the *last* major group of fishes to arrive on the evolutionary scene; they haven't been around "so long" as all that. Also, since you have indicated elsewhere your dislike for like my lack of proposed mechanism, I am sure you would abhor the same failing in yourself and will take this opportunity to propose to elucidate for us why the simple sharks should degenerate from more complex ancestors. This is particularly interesting as it apparently occurred whie the teleostean fishes were increasing in complexity, and while my lovely coelacanth ("be still, my heart") was refusing to budge in complexity. Or shall we simply say that "there is nothing to prevent this in evolutionary theory?" Only at the price of the inability to rule out any possible occurrence. And if we do that, we shall only add to the frustrations of those who wish to prevent evolution (as a theory) from being reduced to pure description, and who wish it instead to rise to the stature of a "nomothetic discipline". (Gould's phrase.) > And > the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con- > struction and can remain dormant until food comes along. I doubt a > creationist would admit to any of these comments. Uh ... why do you doubt it? > The GROSS ERROR > here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and > a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than > objective, characterizations. I think we might say that "organization" is a concept susceptible to quantification. Perhaps even perfection is, as well. Since you assert that this is not the case, the burden of proof is certainly on you to show it, however. But the REAL gross error is the assumption that all creationists must argue on the basis of perfection. It is also erroneous to assert that such arguments are always tied to human perfection. They aren't. One instance of the canonical doctrine of perfection in a non-human context is the bombardier beetle. There are others. I may as well raise a related point. You seem to imply that perfection is a concept over which creationists exert a monopoly. This is not true, although the use of the concept by evolutionists perhaps more often focusses on its antithesis, i.e., imperfection. You say "who is to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect?" Who is to say? Well, it's pretty obvious that you are. For clearly you wish to assert the absence of perfection, which cannot be done without some idea of what would constitute such perfection. So you have proceeded to do what you mock, namely, make an estimate of the perfection of the human body. You also say "On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human body?", and then go on to offer a couple of examples of statements you think creationists ought to disagree with, apparently because the rating of is made on the basis of criteria which, it is assumed, creationists will or must deny. So, not only do you do that which you argue against, you miss the point of your OWN argument, which is that you CAN and DO offer criteria for assessment of the character of perfection. Perhaps the criteria are poor - you seem to think so yourself. But they are offered, and therein lies the crux of the matter. If one wishes to say *anything* about perfection, either in favor of its presence OR its absence, one must specify criteria. This is no less true of the evolutionist who wishes to argue that imperfections are evidence of evolution (Gould, for example) than it is true of creationists who argue that perfections are evidence of creation. So obviously, many people (creationists as well as non-creationists) are willing to at least attempt to answer your questions, "Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human body?" I think that you are sticking your head in the sand and saying "this can never be solved, it's too subjective." Maybe, but how do you know? You are arguing based not on what is known, but on what is unknown. Dangerous ground. ---------- > Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by > Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author): "The > probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some > large number). Even if one configuration were formed every second, You mean some small number. > the amount of time for evolution could not possibly account for the > formation of a human body." This has several GROSS ERRORS. First, > no scientist would even consider evolution by body parts. This ar- > gument is made up by the author and is certainly false thus not too > difficult to debunk. Whether it's false or is not difficult to debunk, it does not come from either Gish or Morris; it comes from Empedocles, a pre-Aristotelian Greek philosopher. By the way, this fact refutes the statement made in another article recently that evolution is a relatively new concept: > [Lief Sorensen] > If you think the Creation story will vanish while Evolution prevades, > you have a severely limited knowledge of history -- namely that Creation has > been with us since the beginning of time, while Evolution has only come on > the scene since the 19th century, obviously another passing fad. Sorry, Lief, but it just is not so. (I'm kind of surprised that none of you evolutionists bothered to point this out.) > [Ernest Hua / Keebler] > For the > programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any > language and see that a program can consist of countless variations > containing different configurations of these statements. Is there > a limit to the number of programs that will work? [I am sure that > many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it! You > need a PROGRAMMER to write a program! So there!" Don't waste my > precious reading time because that is completely off the subject. > Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to > the right order of magnitude? I am refering to the number of mole- > cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about > your omniscient God until you prove His existence.] I suggest that it would be difficult to prove the existence of *anything* without talking about it. It would also be difficult to transmit the proof without discussing the entity whose existence was in question. So it would seem you have set up a condition impossible to satisfy. Don't want to hear about X? (Substitute any X.) Fine, I won't talk about X. Nor will I be surprised to hear you say you haven't heard of any proof of X. Of course not. You carefully excluded that possibility at the beginning. ---------- > As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions > that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest. I can > just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place! > The probability of all those trees growing together in one place > is so small that ..." (Just kidding! I know none of you crea- > tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?) No, what I would say is that you have pulled a fast one with your use of the term evolution here. The evolution of a grassland into a forest involves the replacement of pre-existing species by other pre-existing species. Grass does not "evolve" into trees when grassland becomes a forest, any more than the sun evolves into the moon during the night. Surely you're aware of that, but what then is the point of such a statement? Or of this article? You don't check your facts as far as I can tell, and you fail, here as elsewhere, to understand the implications of your own arguments. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | |
hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) (03/26/85)
__________________________________________________________________________ Dear Mr. Dubois, > > { From my article CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART II } > > > > In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the > > mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists. > > > > The complaint has be raised in several forms. The simplest form of > > the argument is like this: "... the probability of an organism, so > > perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental > > particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could > > never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..." Well, > > it sounds good. But, wait! Who is to say that the human being is > > even remotely near perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organ- > > ization of the human body? We might say that the shark is far more > > perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply. > > Perhaps you should check your statements before you make them. > > A S Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed, University of Chicago Press, > 1966, pp. 37-38: > > "In past times it was generally assumed that the absence of bone in > the Chondrichthyes was a primitive condition and that the sharks > represented an evolutionary stage antecedent to that of the bony fishes. > This assumption appears, at the present day, to be a highly improbable > one. Bone, as we have seen, appears in groups much lower down the > evolutionary scale; and if we believe the sharks to be primitive in > this regard, we must believe, rather improbably, that bone was evolved > a number of times by the vertebrates. Nor are the sharks, as one might > expect according to earlier beliefs, an early group geologically. > They are, in fact, the last of the major fish groups to appear in the > fossil record ... It might be argued that the absence of an earlier > record is due to the fact that the ancestral sharks were soft-bodied > and not preserved. But the first sharks were far advanced in the > evolution of jaws; and it is difficult to believe that the teeth of > these supposed earlier forms should have escaped our attention. > "The record, in fact, fits in better with the opposite assumption: > that the sharks are degenerate rather than primitive in their skeletal > characters; that their evolution has paralleled that of various other > fish types in a trend toward bone reduction; and that their ancestry > is to be sought among primitive bony, jaw-bearing fishes of the > general placoderm type. No well-known placoderms can be identified as > the actual ancestors of the Chondrichthyes, but we have noted that some > of the peculiar petalichthyids appear to show morphologically > intermediate stages in skeletal reduction. Increasing knowledge of > early Devonian placoderms may some day bridge the gap." > > Sharks were the *last* major group of fishes to arrive on the > evolutionary scene; they haven't been around "so long" as all that. > Also, since you have indicated elsewhere your dislike for like my lack > of proposed mechanism, I am sure you would abhor the same failing in > yourself and will take this opportunity to propose to elucidate for > us why the simple sharks should degenerate from more complex > ancestors. This is particularly interesting as it apparently occurred > whie the teleostean fishes were increasing in complexity, and while my > lovely coelacanth ("be still, my heart") was refusing to budge in > complexity. Perhaps you would like to tell me how long I meant? (It would be in- teresting, if you can tell me.) Perhaps I neglected to mention that sharks are survived so long, unchanged. Time is not as important as the fact that it remained virtually unaltered from its earliest fossils. You have certainly dragged out a point beyond usefulness. As indicated in my last letter to you, you go too far in taking everything literally. You have missed the point, obviously. The length of your response to a single example is quite contrary to your reputed intelligence. Why don't you try understanding the main thrust of the text, rather than sidetrack- ing on some less-than-relevant point. > Or shall we simply say that "there is nothing to prevent this in > evolutionary theory?" Only at the price of the inability to rule out > any possible occurrence. And if we do that, we shall only add to the > frustrations of those who wish to prevent evolution (as a theory) from > being reduced to pure description, and who wish it instead to rise to > the stature of a "nomothetic discipline". (Gould's phrase.) You are making conjectures, which I don't see justification for. > > And > > the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con- > > struction and can remain dormant until food comes along. I doubt a > > creationist would admit to any of these comments. > > Uh ... why do you doubt it? How many creationists would accept a virus being more organized than he/she is? Better yet, would you? If you understand the main thrust of my point in this article, you would not have wasted your time on these inane sidetracks. > > The GROSS ERROR > > here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and > > a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than > > objective, characterizations. > > I think we might say that "organization" is a concept susceptible to > quantification. Perhaps even perfection is, as well. Since you assert > that this is not the case, the burden of proof is certainly on you to > show it, however. It is precisely the fact that words like "organization" and "perfection" are subjective that make objective arguments based upon these words in- valid. In case you missed it, the first section of this text, which you littered with your sidetracks, is devoted to showing the subjectiveness of these words. > But the REAL gross error is the assumption that all creationists must > argue on the basis of perfection. It certainly would be ... if I did make that assumption. Why don't you show me where I made it ... > It is also erroneous to assert that > such arguments are always tied to human perfection. They aren't. I am refering to commonly raised arguments such as the old "watch- watchmaker" gripe. Although the perfection is generally directed at humans, I have encountered many instances of it being used to refer to life in general. I really doubt that I said it was ALWAYS tied to humans. If I did, I present my apologies. > One > instance of the canonical doctrine of perfection in a non-human context > is the bombardier beetle. There are others. I am not sure, but are you saying that the bombardier beetle is perfect? If you are, tell me what it could possibly do to prevent me from stepping on it. > I may as well raise a related point. You seem to imply that perfection > is a concept over which creationists exert a monopoly. Really?! Where did I do that? I did not claim any such thing. > This is not > true, although the use of the concept by evolutionists perhaps more > often focusses on its antithesis, i.e., imperfection. Here we go again with the "you do it too" argument. > You say "who is > to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect?" Who is to > say? Well, it's pretty obvious that you are. For clearly you wish to > assert the absence of perfection, which cannot be done without some > idea of what would constitute such perfection. So you have proceeded > to do what you mock, namely, make an estimate of the perfection of the > human body. Perhaps you would like to tell me what I had in mind, since you seem to be certain that I do. My main point was to say that "perfection", along with several other words, is highly subjective, and thus does not have a set of standard definitions and qualifications to everyone. I raised examples of different qualifications that would place human beings below other life forms. Creationists generally insist that human beings are far better than all other life forms (do you? I don't know ...), sort of like "the chosen". I am simply saying that there is nothing to jus- tify that claim. I am certainly not saying that there is any absolute concept of perfection as I am proving the opposite. > You also say "On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human > body?", and then go on to offer a couple of examples of statements you > think creationists ought to disagree with, apparently because the > rating of is made on the basis of criteria which, it is assumed, > creationists will or must deny. So, not only do you do that which you > argue against, you miss the point of your OWN argument, which is that > you CAN and DO offer criteria for assessment of the character of > perfection. Perhaps the criteria are poor - you seem to think so > yourself. But they are offered, and therein lies the crux of the > matter. If one wishes to say *anything* about perfection, either in > favor of its presence OR its absence, one must specify criteria. This > is no less true of the evolutionist who wishes to argue that > imperfections are evidence of evolution (Gould, for example) than it is > true of creationists who argue that perfections are evidence of > creation. So obviously, many people (creationists as well as > non-creationists) are willing to at least attempt to answer your > questions, "Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near > perfect? On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human > body?" Your paragraph fumbles around too much, though I think I have already answered the main point. > I think that you are sticking your head in the sand and saying "this > can never be solved, it's too subjective." Maybe, but how do you > know? You are arguing based not on what is known, but on what is > unknown. Dangerous ground. Excuse me?! Are you about to suggest that perfection CAN be defined? If not, what do you mean by "solve"? Solve WHAT? What is this gib- berish thrown in here? What is the "unknown"? > > Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by > > Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author): "The > > probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some > > large number). Even if one configuration were formed every second, > > You mean some small number. I mean some short period of time, for which an example was given. > > the amount of time for evolution could not possibly account for the > > formation of a human body." This has several GROSS ERRORS. First, > > no scientist would even consider evolution by body parts. This ar- > > gument is made up by the author and is certainly false thus not too > > difficult to debunk. > > Whether it's false or is not difficult to debunk, it does not come from > either Gish or Morris; it comes from Empedocles, a pre-Aristotelian > Greek philosopher. > > { some comments concerning another writer. } > > > { me again } > > > > For the > > programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any > > language and see that a program can consist of countless variations > > containing different configurations of these statements. Is there > > a limit to the number of programs that will work? [I am sure that > > many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it! You > > need a PROGRAMMER to write a program! So there!" Don't waste my > > precious reading time because that is completely off the subject. > > Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to > > the right order of magnitude? I am refering to the number of mole- > > cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about > > your omniscient God until you prove His existence.] > > I suggest that it would be difficult to prove the existence of *anything* > without talking about it. It would also be difficult to transmit the > proof without discussing the entity whose existence was in question. > So it would seem you have set up a condition impossible to satisfy. > Don't want to hear about X? (Substitute any X.) Fine, I won't talk about > X. Nor will I be surprised to hear you say you haven't heard of any > proof of X. Of course not. You carefully excluded that possibility at > the beginning. Paul, do you ever try to understand the point? Why do you insist on reading everything literally, except when it is convenient for you to interpret and comprehend? It is not too difficult to see that I will listen to any attempted proofs of God. Otherwise, how the heck am I supposed to get the proof? > > As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions > > that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest. I can > > just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place! > > The probability of all those trees growing together in one place > > is so small that ..." (Just kidding! I know none of you crea- > > tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?) > > No, what I would say is that you have pulled a fast one with your use > of the term evolution here. The evolution of a grassland into a > forest involves the replacement of pre-existing species by other > pre-existing species. Grass does not "evolve" into trees when > grassland becomes a forest, any more than the sun evolves into the > moon during the night. Surely you're aware of that, but what > then is the point of such a statement? I did not state that the grass will transform. I said that the grassland will transform. (No, not magically.) There are several stages that it goes through, some of which are rapid, some of which are slow, all highly dependent upon the life forms available to populate it. Evolution is a view of nature undergoing changes at all levels. It is not restricted to organisms. > Or of this article? You don't check your facts as far as I can tell, > and you fail, here as elsewhere, to understand the implications of your > own arguments. All are explain and refuted above. You fail miserably at understanding the extremely simple idea conveyed in my article. Instead, you chose to sidetrack into god-knows-where. I still believe that you really know when to read literally and when to interprete, though you did not demonstrate that here. __________________________________________________________________________ Keebler { hua@cmu-cs-gandalf.arpa }