From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Sep 10 14:22:38 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFE8A37B401 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:22:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net (albatross.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D202743E88 for ; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from pool0098.cvx21-bradley.dialup.earthlink.net ([209.179.192.98] helo=mindspring.com) by albatross.prod.itd.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17osSG-0006UV-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:21:53 -0700 Message-ID: <3D7E622F.840E002B@mindspring.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:20:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Neal E. Westfall" Cc: Giorgos Keramidas , Joshua Lee , dave@jetcafe.org, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? References: <20020910084415.Q62741-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "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