My post wasn't intended to attack probability itself. It was intended to show that the use of probability used in Skinny's post was flawed to the point of making his argument useless. I regret not being able to express this more clearly from the beginning.
I subscribe to the taoist belief. TAOISM is non-theistic. That is, TAOISM postulates or recognizes the existence of a supreme ultimate force that, for want of a better word, is called TAO. TAOISM is a Mystical philosophy. That is, it accepts the direct experience of the supreme ultimate by individuals. There is no personification of a supreme deity in TAOISM except for the pantheistic forms in some versions of the Chinese religion. TAOISM is non-dualistic. Where Western religions postulate a supernatural explanation of the wonders of natural existence, TAOISM rests in awe of natural existence itself. It takes its guidance from the ways or paths in nature -- TAO. It is a mystical religion in contrast to (a) prophetic religions which prescribe certain beliefs and to (b) ritual religions that prescribe fixed routines of religious activity. Lao Tzu declares that no TAO in language is absolute and ridicules Confucian preoccupation with traditional rituals. Sublime religiosity in TAOISM is an attitude of focus and absorption we bring to anything we do. A large part of that attitude is an ironic sense that while acting we do not suppose there is any cosmic plan or purpose justifies what we do (wu-wei = no purpose). TAOISM's implicit nature-worship may be regarded as pantheism and its emphasis on total absorption in one's activities is sometimes confused with Western "mystical experiences." However, TAOISTS seldom cite the resulting heightened state of awareness as proof of any religious doctrine or being. SO I guess what I am saying is the man in the sky idea is stupid but the awareness of forces that shape the universe are not. However I believe that no religion has it 100%
I am having a hard time accepting the deterministic model. Don't get me wrong - I conclude the preponderance of the evidence strongly points to evolution as a causal mechanism. However, I think in this instance, both models above are wrong, as I cannot see that sequential probability is relevant (I acknowledge this is not my area, and I could well be wrong). Skinny's model - counting with replacement, but in sequential order; and your model, counting without replacement, but also in sequence - are not relevant to evolution. A pure randomization model, with replacement, is more appropos to the state of nature...If I have heard him right, skinny is saying the odds of a something as complex as the human brain developing by chance is almost impossibly high. I don't believe your response - posing a sequential order, without replacement - is correct. The random variables involved in evolution - namely, endowment, and it's dependent variable - procreation - are what matter, and not sequential probability. Now, if you are saying that the item of interest to Skinny - our oh so wondrous brains (that have the native ability to fashion the sword, but not the genius to put it down, I always say) - were built under an assumption of development, like constructed homes, step by step, with each step being a causal link to the next step, I could buy the argument of determinism (or non-replacement probability), if I accept the assumption. But I don't see it this way; this seems to me to be Lamarckism. A given "developmental" attribute, positive to both procreative ability, is simply random, and independent of former stages. Actually, it may very well take place in "supersteps," relatively speaking. There is strong evidence that, in fact, it does. Punctuational evolution makes sense when viewed from a perspective of concentrated endowments - paleogeography, paleoeconomics, and so forth. Under such concentrations, the odds of close-kin intercoupling and therefore mutation are significantly higher, and mutations are what allow such epochal shifts and pattern outliers to show themselves in relatively short time periods. Changes within species tend to happen over long spans of time, while "missing link,punctuated" shifts explode on the scene, in short order (again, relative to gradual evolutionary changes). I should add that I do not believe Intelligent Design has any place in the discourse of science, nor should it be publically funded as such. I believe to move further in this direction condemns schoolchildren to a woeful lack of understanding of their world, and I find this tragic.
I made my model under the assumption that numbers 1-10 in Skinny's model were meant to represent individual mutations that had to happen in sequence for some reason or another. Skinny's model assumes that the probability of these mutations occurring is equal to the probability of each individual mutation occurring multiplied together. My model merely intended to show that, assuming each number is a distinct mutation, this is not the case. In other words, assuming Skinny's initial premise that mutations are causally linked, his model is inaccurate (It falls for other reasons if we reject that premise). My model does not attempt to accurately represent evolution in its entirety, since that is a near impossible feat. Looking further on the issue of 'supersteps,' while it is true that they may occur (I am rather unsure myself), Skinny's model works under the assumption that the [insert organ here] required ten mutations in a specific order which all took place at the same time, a SUPER'superstep,' if you will. As far as I know, even punctuated equilibrium doesn't move that quickly. Once again, this isn't my field of study. I probably have made a lot of errors.
OK. I think we're saying the same thing - and the funny thing is, I don't know what the hell I'm talking about (I more consider myself a historical sociologist, for crissakes), so this all could be complete b.s. Admitting that, as I said, I think any model resting on sequence as a necessary condition is flawed, whether presuming probability with or without replacement. And I better see what you are doing - his was an inaccurate probability counting, and you were correct to point out the flaw, assuming his premise of a necessary sequence. If by sequence, any mutation is necessarily removed from the sample space and so your factorial countdown is correct. I didn't think this is what he was saying. Since sequence is a part of the model, it can't be a question of occurring at the same time. As we've acknowledged, in Skinny's model, one happens after the other, in a specified order. However, an explosion of mutations - irrespective of one "line" of multiple, "causally connected" mutations, or a plethora of mutations that have no relation to each other - are more apt to happen under propitious circumstances - such as the paleo-geography of mountain ridges encouraging trade and population aggregations, for example. By the way, if any one is interested: Nearly 30 years ago, I think it was, I read an interesting book, "The European Miracle," that was the first to look at modern European history from this paleo-viewpoint, to my knowledge. I haven't read it yet, though it's on my shelf, but I've heard that Guns, Germs and Steel is in the same line (though I don't know). A look at American History in this light are the opening chapters of A Population History of the United States, by Herbert Klein. I was recently down in Ann Arbor for a month, and got to speak with Professor Klein in a telephone conference, Helluva nice guy, and brilliant man.
True. Change that to "absurdly close together." If he's multiplying probabilities like that, doesn't it imply that not enough time occurs between mutations for the benefit to spread throughout the population?
I normally avoid religious/political debates in this forum, however, intelligence design IS NOT SCIENCE. PERIOD, END OF STORY! The next person who claims that intelligence design is science needs to be forced to study the topic of scientific method every single day for the rest of their life. Now that I got that rant out of the way here are some very important threads that both sides of this argument would do very well to read before making complete fools of them selves about what evolution is and what evolution is not: http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13261 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9484 I think two Science Forum threads above should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to discuss or "debate" this subject. Two articles related to the Catholic Church's view on this matter: http://www.indcatholicnews.com/vatastro259.html http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=674042006 My articles on junk science and pseudoscience: http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200608junkscience.html http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/pseudoscience2004.html It is well past time that "intelligence design" for thrown on the scrap heap of junk science never to be mentioned in the same breath as science ever again. Good night and good luck.
For many of us it isn't about "believing" in something it is about scientific process. Religion is belief in powers beyond the five senses; science is an evaluation of empirical knowledge. In science everything must be based on evidence collected and vetted via scientific method. See: http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm Evolutionary theory is based on the collection and evaluation of empirical knowledge and is accepted by science because it is the best fit for the evidence available. Intelligence design is based upon a set of religious beliefs that have no basis in empirical knowledge rather are based on religious texts passed down through the centuries. If one wants to believe in creationism, fine they have the right to believe this, just as one can choose to believe that the Earth is flat, or that the sun and heavens rotate around the Earth, but these beliefs must not be mistaken for science or empirical knowledge.
Everything in existence is created by another entity.Every "thing" has a creator....as does every creator since something that doesn't exist, cannot create itself. So this leaves us with an infinite line of creating entities (whatever they may be). The real question is.....back in the time before the first entity was created......knowing that you need something to create another entity....how did this line begin? It's worrying because an infinite line of "things" that do actually exist means we shouldn't exist at all as there isn't a point where it all began. Ok now my head hurts
Science disproves itself though. You say that evolution is how we are here, but science also says something cannot be created from nothing. so where did that first "monkey" come from?
READ THE THREADS I PROVIDED! Obviously you didn't read those threads nor understand evolution and biology or you would have never asked that question or made that statement. As I stated earlier I have no intention of debating foolish statements made by those who refuse to read the evidence and links provided to them on this subject. I am in this thread simply to point people on each side of this issue to solid resources that help them better understand what evolution is and is not and why "intelligent design" IS NOT science. It is time to stop the petty faux debates about evolution and it is time to stop trying to claim that intelligence design is a science (IT IS NOT). Pope John Paul II and the Catholic Church acknowledged that evolution is the best available explanation for the existence of life as we know it. The Catholic Church is even teaching it in their schools and has rejected intelligence design as an affront to religion and to science.
The catholic church are hardly in a position to make comments on ID, creationisim or anything. The main problem I have with ID as it is presented at the moment is that it is used in a christian fashion or regarded as a christian/creationisim altenrative. If any religious philosophy deserves to be associated with a scientific conception of how intelligence pervades the cosmos, Taoism and Neoplatonism have a much better claim than Christianity. Creationisim is bullshit but ID is not cretionisim and should not be corrupted by christian dogma, or even tarred with the same brush. My belief is that Energy=Intelligence and everything is made of energy. This is not running counter to evolution and the fact that ID is associated with christian dogma is so damaging to our understanding of the universe as a whole that I get really pissed off by people who say its ID V Evolution.
The fact is that the fundamentalist Christians are using ID as a thinly disguised repackaging of creationism to get it passed off as science and force it to be taught in schools as a science. The only "debate" about the validity of evolution is by those with a fundamentalist religious agenda who want to believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the factual word of God and history of the world. If one wants to believe that evolution is guided by some energy or intelligent being, fine, but that is still a religious belief that should remain out of the science classroom and at most be taught in religious or philosophy classes. ID or more properly called repackaged Creationism is not science. To try to teach it to children as a science or to teach it as anything more than a philosophy is simply wrong and harmful to process of science, which is the search for empirical knowledge based on that which can be proven. Evolution is the basis of modern biology and with out our understanding of evolution we could not move forward with research that helps us cure diseases nor help us better understand the world around us so we that don't kill our planet. For the ID in its commonly promoted context to be correct, the sciences of geology, paleontology, archeology, astronomy and biology would all have to be fundamentally flawed, which would mean that everything we know about just about everything would be fundamentally flawed.
I'm sorry - this is a terrible analogy. You've obviously never studied evolution at all. It's not random at all. Natural selection is a non random process where animals (or plants) with non desirable traits do not survive to pass their genes to their offspring, preserving only desirable traits in the gene pool. New traits are introduced through mutation - these are semi-random (although certain genes are much more likely to mutate than others) but only the best are selected. It's actually an amazing process - so simple yet so powerful. If I weren't an atheist I think I would see it at an example of God's handiwork (much more elegant than simple creation).
Although I agree with you on a number of points I would like to say that the idea of ID is not new, the concept has been hijacked by creationists though, and to say that any version of the bible is the word of god is absolutely bull. The bible has been rewritten so often that very little of factual value remains in it, the king james bible for example was written in 1611, the first bible was written 50-100 years after jesus by people who merely knew him or had heard of him, and edited and rewritten so many times tha no one knows where most of it came from. Unlike the Te-Tao Ching, which was written by Lao-Tse himself. I think science should not turn its back on the Concept of ID just the way its packaged. I agree that it should be taught in philosophy classes and perhaps as a footnote in science classes, I have no problem with evolution and I also believe we should seek understanding of the universe around us, both through science and spirituality. I think that christian fundamentalisim has demonised science so much throughout the ages that science is willing to do the same to the entire concept of god, or a higher power which is a pity as that really is what science is looking for. If you have ever seen the things I have seen, you would perhaps think differently about the entire concept of an intelligent universe.