demagogue on 27/5/2009 at 03:12
Natural selection does a perfectly fine job of "designing" algorithms in nature.
The slam dunk argument is always asking someone to actually give content to the design, why it turned out X and not Y. Natural selection can do that; alternative agencies can't. That's really the nub of it.
Big Bang -> photons & other particles -> hydrogen -> helium -> stars -> novae -> the other elements, nebula -> new stars, planets with water in a habital zone -> amino acids, RNA, DNA, prokaryots -> atmosphere from CO2 to O2 -> cambrian explosion -> lungfish -> monkeys -> people -> you
Airtight.
Quote Posted by Vivian
By the way, the egg came first. And the egg was laid by something that was very closely related to a chicken but not quite a chicken yet.
Haha, I (almost) said exactly this in a recent exchange..
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Her: The chicken of course.
Me: The egg of course. Why chicken?
Her: Because in Genesis, it says the animals were directly created by God. There is no mention of birth. What's your argument for egg?
Me: (stunned and not wanting to deal with the argument) ... Uh, nevermind.
But I wanted to say, the egg. And what laid the egg? Something very much like a chicken, but not a chicken. One of the last changes (I read) was losing a few vertibre on the tail. So what we call "chicken" is probably some kind of longer-tailed-chicken-like-mutant.
Fafhrd on 27/5/2009 at 03:12
Quote Posted by Chade
Tell your friend to stop using word-play to make arguments about the fundamental forces of nature.
And the next time you see him reading something by Behe, smack him upside the head. The friend, that is. Though if you can find Behe and smack him, that'd be aces too.
Adam Nuhfer on 27/5/2009 at 14:00
Quote Posted by Nicker
His latest talking point is that algorithms, expressed in DNA, are "empirical proof" of an external, pre-existing intelligence, which designed them.
Nature does not need us or an algorithm to exist/function. Math is nothing more than a form of computational communication we use to describe the world around us. By using numbers the Fibonacci sequence helped to explain natures use of repeating patterns. It offers no proof of intelligent design no more than the sequence of DNA does.
We as a species tend to use emotional thought processes over logic processes. We like to think we use logic in the majority of our thought processes. In reality we use emotion and claim it to be logic. When questioned for proof, we go for the logic to help prove our emotional thoughts as logical. We all do it every day.
Religion. It can be intelligent design or creation by a divine entity. It's not a form of logic but a form of emotional [faith based] beliefs. In the old days people just followed the teaching of the church with little question. With a better understanding of how the world works around us most folks just aren't giving into blind faith. They want proof. The faithful have stepped up to the plate with science/math as their new tool to foster their own agenda.
If you wish to debate with him, get him away from religion and over to the math issue since he mentioned algorithms. Go after him regarding the concept of zero. How it can represent nothing at all in this instance then in another instance represent something.
DDL on 27/5/2009 at 14:36
An argument I hear a lot is that "you cannot spontaneously generate order from chaos", with the consequent "DNA/proteins/whathaveyou are highly ordered, thus cannot have spontaneously arisen, thus must have been created."
Which always nicely avoids the entire issue of selection.
A random number generator spews out 10 digit figures. Any that are not a multiple of a prime are much more likely to be killed and eaten by a grue.
End result, you have a collection of numbers that all follow a particular rule, but that have arisen from chaos.
All evolution (by natural selection -don't forget that bit) is is...that, over a very very long time.
