Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Guyver

Intelligent Design or Natural Evolution

265 posts in this topic

Do you want it to be?

Word games are fine in philosophy, Copa, but are not particularly suited to science.

"Evolutionary theory most often uses species under the concepts of phylogenetic or biological species, but cannot be used without understanding the limitations placed upon those definitions."

Regardless of limitations, there are definitions.

However if, as you are intimating, there are no such thing as species, then how do scientists work their theories? How can scientists propose new theories, or modifications to existing ones, if they have no definition of what they are studying?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Life as we know it is tenacious and opportunistic, two things which haphazardly tossed Scrabble tiles are not, at least not in my experience.

As Goldilocks says, we need something not too hot, not too cold, but just right. The Universe is a big place, just as you say, with hot spots and cold spots separated by enormous distances. What is "the probability" that there are no just right spots?

Well, identically zero, since we are both sitting in one nice, roomy example. But even ex ante, it sounds like we would have expected to find such. There is no reason whatsoever to think that life wouldn't sprout exuberantly in at least some of the unimaginably numerous just right spots. It only takes one.

And so we end up with the usual thing in uniformed probability estimates: depending on the modeling assumptions (the choice of which is unconstrained by anything... constraining..., like measurements), "the probability" subtends a range from virutally certain to vanishingly unlikely.

Yes, "the probability" is in there somewhere, all right.

But enough rationality. I had an epiphany last night. Rube Goldberg was a designer, and since he made his living thereby, he must fairly be accounted an intelligent designer. Thus, the jury-rigged, ad hoc, and totally rear-end-forwards character of every aspect of living beings cannot be held against intelligent design.

Theophany followed. My lord Wotan came to me in a dream and asked, "What kind of horse does the camel most resemble?'

"A horse designed by a committee, my Lord." I laughed.

"Why do you laugh? I chaired that committee."

So, there you have it. The word of one of the many true gods, as revealed to his prophet, according to the ordinary and usual manner in which religious knowledge is acquired.

The experimental record conclusively demonstrates that life arose because of intelligent designers, plural. And could only have arisen in that way. The chances of there having been exactly one designer is so small as to be negligible.

So which set of polytheistic tenets had it right then?!! :P

Good post, as usual EB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Word games are fine in philosophy, Copa, but are not particularly suited to science.

"Evolutionary theory most often uses species under the concepts of phylogenetic or biological species, but cannot be used without understanding the limitations placed upon those definitions."

Regardless of limitations, there are definitions.

However if, as you are intimating, there are no such thing as species, then how do scientists work their theories? How can scientists propose new theories, or modifications to existing ones, if they have no definition of what they are studying?

Right I didn't say there aren't definitions, I said the opposite of that. I also said that to use a concept of species, one must understand the limitations of the concept. Why do you suppose there would be such a limitation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right I didn't say there aren't definitions, I said the opposite of that. I also said that to use a concept of species, one must understand the limitations of the concept. Why do you suppose there would be such a limitation?

I really don't care.

I simply wished to know why the definition for 'species' or 'speciation' would not include some description of the genetic differences between two populations.

Rather than the palaver you have posted to circle around this, rather simple, question you could have just said, "All the theories in Evolutionary Theory which rely on a definition of 'species' or 'speciation' are really just guesswork because we have no idea what a 'species' or 'speciation' really is.", and we wouldn't be posting back and forth like this.

So, if the aspect of these theories that rely on 'species' (or speciation) is not guesswork, then I would like to know what is an acceptable definition for 'species' in a peer-reviewed piece of research, and would that definition have to include some aspect of genetic difference between populations?

Can you answer this question, or questions, or would you like to play musical chairs a little more?

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't care.

I simply wished to know why the definition for 'species' or 'speciation' would not include some description of the genetic differences between two populations.

For the same reason I have been saying, and why you should care to understand your question; species aren't real things.

Rather than the palaver you have posted to circle around this, rather simple, question you could have just said, "All the theories in Evolutionary Theory which rely on a definition of 'species' or 'speciation' are really just guesswork because we have no idea what a 'species' or 'speciation' really is.", and we wouldn't be posting back and forth like this.

So, if the aspect of these theories that rely on 'species' (or speciation) is not guesswork, then I would like to know what is an acceptable definition for 'species' in a peer-reviewed piece of research, and would that definition have to include some aspect of genetic difference between populations?

Can you answer this question, or questions, or would you like to play musical chairs a little more?

To answer or attempt to answer the question about parts of evolutionary theory being conjecture, we need to use a definition of species. Since you asked the question, I only thought it polite to allow you to pick definition we should be using. Are you saying you don't want to pick one? If we can't use a definition of species (understanding its limitations) then we'll be unable to discuss the science involved.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the same reason I have been saying, and why you should care to understand your question; species aren't real things.

To answer or attempt to answer the question about parts of evolutionary theory being conjecture, we need to use a definition of species. Since you asked the question, I only thought it polite to allow you to pick definition we should be using. Are you saying you don't want to pick one?

You are the Subject Matter Expert, here Copa. If you cannot provide a definition of species that would be acceptable in a peer-reviewed journal, then it seems that no acceptable definition of species exists.

So, those aspects of Evolutionary Theory which are, in whole or part, based on such a definition must be conjecture.

As I argued with Matt.

As conjectural as ... say ... the conjecture that an Intelligent Designer (another 'not real thing') had a hand in the design of living, biological organisms.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are the Subject Matter Expert, here Copa. If you cannot provide a definition of species that would be acceptable in a peer-reviewed journal, then it seems that no acceptable definition of species exists.

So, those aspects of Evolutionary Theory which are, in whole or part, based on such a definition must be conjecture.

As I argued with Matt.

As conjectural as ... say ... the conjecture that an Intelligent Designer (another 'not real thing') had a hand in the design of living, biological organisms.

I didn't say I couldn't provide a definition of species Leo. I asked you to, as you asked the question. This isn't a trick or anything so mundane. If you want to discuss speciation and whether its conjecture, then we need a working definition of species. Since you asked the question, I'm giving you the privilege of defining species. I'm willing to work with whatever definition you wish to provide. I don't believe that is an unreasonable request.

It doesn't have to be anything precise, just give us something to work with.

Edit: I didn't claim to be the subject matter expert on evolution-I know what I know.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say I couldn't provide a definition of species Leo. I asked you to, as you asked the question. This isn't a trick or anything so mundane. If you want to discuss speciation and whether its conjecture, then we need a working definition of species. Since you asked the question, I'm giving you the privilege of defining species. I'm willing to work with whatever definition you wish to provide. I don't believe that is an unreasonable request.

It doesn't have to be anything precise, just give us something to work with.

My inference of conjecture, it seems, remains unopposed.

There is no need for a discussion on speciation, Copa, as the questions I asked do not require such. They were simple questions and simple answers would suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My inference of conjecture, it seems, remains unopposed.

There is no need for a discussion on speciation, Copa, as the questions I asked do not require such. They were simple questions and simple answers would suffice.

This isn't a simple question and doesn't have a simple, yes/no/maybe so answer.

I appreciate that populations have to be genetically different to be classified different species, but how different?

Not some conjecture such as, "As different as they have to be", but a figure. Something testable, repeatable, etc.

That question does require the discussion of speciation, because to 'classify' (an important word and clue here) something as a different species, we need to understand how two populations split to give rise to different 'species'. We'd also need then, a definition of species to use. I am more than willing to discuss this, why are you so unwilling to provide a definition of species? As I said, it can be anything you want, I'll work with whatever you wish to provide. If you don't want an answer (for the sake of your devil's advocacy :lol: ) then why ask the question?

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That question does require the discussion of speciation, because to 'classify' (an important word and clue here) something as a different species, we need to understand how two populations split to give rise to different 'species'.

With respect, Copa, the answer is either known, or it isn't. A discussion on speciation is not required to determine that. If we have to discuss speciation to arrive at an answer, then what have evolutionary scientists been up to all this time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My inference of conjecture, it seems, remains unopposed.

There is no need for a discussion on speciation, Copa, as the questions I asked do not require such. They were simple questions and simple answers would suffice.

The answer is blue! :w00t:

With respect, Copa, the answer is either known, or it isn't. A discussion on speciation is not required to determine that. If we have to discuss speciation to arrive at an answer, then what have evolutionary scientists been up to all this time?

I don't know Leo, discussing speciation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect, Copa, the answer is either known, or it isn't. A discussion on speciation is not required to determine that. If we have to discuss speciation to arrive at an answer, then what have evolutionary scientists been up to all this time?

In an alarming paradox, does playing devil's advocate require one to argue like a creationist? :lol:

You snipped out all that other stuff, asking if you would please provide a definition of species....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Leo, since I see you lurking and not posting a reply-I'm assuming that you're not going to provide a definition of species. We'll deal anyway and hope the game goes on.

Let's consider a thought experiment for your question;

Let's suppose you and I have a time machine and were off to collect historic ancestors in a manner rivaling the Victorian rape of the natural world. The ol' snatch and grab.

back%20to%20the%20future.jpeg

Suppose we dial up our time machine to 10,000 years ago, leap through the space-time continuum and land in the early swing and bustle of the Holocene.

back_to_the_future.jpg

We grab a male and female ancestor and bring them back to the future, where in a bizarre parody of captive breeding programs we have those ancestors mate with modern humans.

I'm sure you can agree, despite any mathematical definitions we might impose on these being's genes and pools they come from, they can mate.

Now, we repeat our foray into history grabbing ancestors every 10,000 years or so and bringing them back to the future. There comes a point in time, when modern people can no longer interbreed with those we have pirated from the past. Let's dub this ancestor, ancestor X. But, it necessarily follows from descent that one of those ancestors we grabbed can interbreed with ancestor X, the ancestor well call P.

If ancestor P were to then take over our experiment, leap-frogging back in time every 10,000 years from their present day they too would find their own distinct ancestor X.

Consider then, the implications of this for the idea of species and your question. At what finite time, do we define a species? At ancestor X? If that is true, then ancestor P (of our species) would be of a different species then our ancestor X. Yet when viewed from ancestor P's time line, ancestor X would necessarily have to be included in the same species.

Edit: Assuming something akin to a biological concept of species.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, Copa, I was having a late lunch and watching a football game.

Why should 'time travel' be taken into account for any definition of species? Defining something based on something else that we can't do seems a little illogical, don't you think?

How could any definition of species rely on an organism interbreeding with another that it is not capable of meeting, let alone attempting to breed with?

Surely definitions of species would rely on the contemporaneous existence of said organisms?

If evolutionary scientists (any biological scientist, in fact) are speculating on what defines a species based, in part, on a mythical ability to travel in time, then I would suggest the whole field needs a bit of a reality check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

since i am depressed right now that is how i feel. and my mom told me she hated me when i was 16, so did my dad the same year.

Sorry to hear that. I too had a difficult upbringing. The fact that you can recognize you're depressed is a good sign. Since you're honest about it - something can be done to fix it. Somtimes, when you feel like you hit bottom, you can embrace the idea that things can only get better. That thought can be freeing. Anyway, hang in there and I hope things improve. Keep looking up. Shrug off the negative and embrace the positive. Good vibes your way Daniel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That said, would you agree with me that if I can show you that Dembski's work doesn't even apply to evolutionary theory then his ideas would be dead in the water?

I appreciate that you've taken the time to at least consider his position, and maybe you grasp it better than I do now. It seemed like others didn't even want to make the attempt, but offered criticisms. I guess I could answer yes to your question except for one aspect. His theories do apply to complex information. That is, information with meaning. So, rather than just being a sum of the parts of simple elements, the workings of the cell display ordered information. So, if you can show me that ordered information like that contained in DNA, or in the amino acid sequences that form protein bases could have arisen through random processes and are therefore not the result of intelligence, then I would agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does that surprise you?

There are 23 characters in "I think therefore I am.", including the spaces and the fullstop.

Given 26 letters in the alphabet, if we take 26 lowercase letters and 26 uppercase letters, plus around 18 punctuation style characters we get 70 characters.

The odds of randomly coming up with the sentence can be calculated as 1 in 7023.

In short - according to your previous figures, there's more chance of finding a planet within the Universe capable of supporting Intelligent Life than there is of randomly throwing scrabble tiles and coming up with that sentence.

That's a nice piece of support to the primary point that I'm trying to make here. Chemical attraction is insufficient as an explanation for the formation of genetic information. Since natural selection works specifically on genetic information, and that information can not have arisen by chance alone; and since all known ordered information is the result of intelligence; the genetic information necessary for living things must have had an intelligent source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My apologies, Copa, I was having a late lunch and watching a football game.

Why should 'time travel' be taken into account for any definition of species? Defining something based on something else that we can't do seems a little illogical, don't you think?

How could any definition of species rely on an organism interbreeding with another that it is not capable of meeting, let alone attempting to breed with?

Surely definitions of species would rely on the contemporaneous existence of said organisms?

If evolutionary scientists (any biological scientist, in fact) are speculating on what defines a species based, in part, on a mythical ability to travel in time, then I would suggest the whole field needs a bit of a reality check.

Why shouldn't time travel be taken into consideration? The point was as I said;

Let's consider a thought experiment for your question;

The premise of the experiment isn't that it can or cannot be done, the premise is the implication it has for the idea or question.

As in the case of biologists, they know that species are not real things, there are only lineages. By that I mean to say descendants from ancestors, whether or not these ancestors interbreed in a population and if that population constitutes a species is rather a basis for the concept of species we are using. Since species are not real things, only human imposed constructs on to nature.

Consider a contemporary example Leo;

I'd like for you to now consider another example I have been using on these forms for a few years now.

(Read on Guyver, I think you'll appreciate this as well)

I'd like you to meet the salamander Ensatina.

klaub73.gif

These little guys live in the lovely land of California (yes I picked this cause all of you Californians reading along!)

Their populations make a ring around the San Joaquin Valley, the middle far to desolate for all but the rarest of circumstantial crossings to occur.

What we find is populations next to each other on the ring, are able to interbreed with one another-Clearly they are of the same species. However, when we get farther apart, interbreed cannot occur. The populations at the end of the ring, are also unable to interbreed with each other.

Here, see it visually;

Ensatina_rassenkreis_3.gif

ensatina.gif

So we have interbreeding all the way around the ring, yet when we get to the red and green in the second picture-We have none. Similarly if you put yellow and pink or red and orange (second picture again) together-We have none.

So where pray tell does one start and the next stop? Or better which is the first of 'male and female' of one and not the next.

That alone should shatter the warm, gooey existentialist tendency you have to lump groups of organisms as species.

And here is the real crazy part!

These salamanders do spatially, what occurs temporally in evolution. That is correct. There is no first person or first two people, because all progeny of their parents are the same 'kind' as their parents and only when looking at the statistical cloud of genes we call a gene pool, over eons, do we see 'finite' bounds to species-Because the 'paradox' created by evolution over time. That same paradox I was referring to above with Sheri and Guyver.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I see why Further BB and Copesetic are taking issue with Dembski's work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity

It would seem you guys are correct about the criticisms and maybe some issues with the math. Like specifically that his original work was a departure from pure number theory (of which he is apparently an expert). But, if you scroll down to the end of the wiki piece, it seems he's done some re-working. Also, others have come across a similar idea - namely; that information is the result of intelligence and not random chance.

As far as his work being peer reviewed; the wiki article makes reference to recent papers that he's published, but doesn't say where they were published. Usually that language is indicative of a peer-reviewed type publication. In any event; they provided a link.

http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdf

Now, as to the point of meaningful information and how it's generated...that is the main idea of his work. I guess we've all heard the hundred monkeys with typewriters argument, and it's a goodie. Though, I may counter that the monkeys actually have intelligence, and are therefore not an example of pure randomness. The monkeys certainly have the ability to pound keys and make letters. From time to time they may even get lucky and put a combination of letters together that make a meaningful word. I would assert that they very little to no chance of formulating this...

"I think therefore I am."

I did an experiment this evening. I set up a table and covered it tighly with a blanket for a substrate so the letters wouldn't bounce off onto the floor. Then I took all the letters from a scrabble game, put them in a container, shook them up and dropped them out on the table. I then analyzed the results of the distributions from four angles, looking for meaningful words. Only accepting letter combinations that made sense reading from left to right with close proximity in letter placement, just like we read. I excluded patterns that would have been words but one of the letters was upside down. I did this several times and analyzed the results. You know how many words I got?

Zip, zero, nada, ziparoo. Now, that's just trying to use random combination to make words. Add the complexity of attempting sentences, or even greater "physiological assembly instructions".... I THINK DEMBSKI HAS A GOOD POINT!!!

Edit for spelling and typos.

Your experiment has no meaning when you are looking at words and DNA/RNA/Proteins/Amino acids. There are no chemical reactions or attractions, there are no intermolecular forces at work with words. I think this is a poorly designed experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Guyver,

Before I start, I'd like to point out a few things.

You can find Dembski's paper here. You will notice, reading his paper, that his argument is a typical creationist argument in that it doesn't actually try to 'prove' intelligent design (despite what his less math oriented colleagues claim). It actually seeks to 'disprove' evolutionary theory, which he then assumes thrusts intelligent design into the lime light. This seems to be par for the course with ID-creationists (henceforth neo-creationists) and creationists.

This is his most up to date release of 'specified complexity', that I am aware of and hasn't taken into account the many criticisms of his poor work.

His paper, as it is now (not as it is claimed), seeks to 'prove' the inability of goal or target seeking behaviors in evolutionary theory and algorithms. Without which, he argues, makes evolution impossible and the de facto form of life a product of intelligence.

The first of many problems with this is that evolutionary biology is an empirical science. As such, it can be neither 'proved' nor 'disproved' via mathematics. Certainly we can use math to test evolutionary theory, but there cannot be a 'proof' for it-In the mathematical sense.

That said, would you agree with me that if I can show you that Dembski's work doesn't even apply to evolutionary theory then his ideas would be dead in the water?

No to mention the way he goes about disproving that these algorithms could not produce the complexity we see in life would also call an intelligence being the culprit into question. If the algorithms could not produce x amount of complexity in n amount of steps, how could anything else? Like I said, it is just nonsense and adds nothing to our understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate that you've taken the time to at least consider his position, and maybe you grasp it better than I do now. It seemed like others didn't even want to make the attempt, but offered criticisms. I guess I could answer yes to your question except for one aspect. His theories do apply to complex information. That is, information with meaning. So, rather than just being a sum of the parts of simple elements, the workings of the cell display ordered information. So, if you can show me that ordered information like that contained in DNA, or in the amino acid sequences that form protein bases could have arisen through random processes and are therefore not the result of intelligence, then I would agree.

We can debate all that later, let's focus on the issue at hand for a moment.

As I said, his argument resets upon the assumption that it actually applies to and disproves evolutionary theory (particularly its ability to build complexity, or complex 'information' if you will).

So let's take a look at his argument (we can skirt the heavy math talk for now and just speak of concepts). Dembski says that target, T, exists within a very large search space, Q. A probability that T can be found, by a blind search (non-goal oriented) is very low. To that, we can all agree. Dembski then goes on to argue that any search for T must be aided by an algorithm which is capable of relaying information about the search space.

Consider the needle in the hay stack. To find the needle, Dembski would argue, we would need an intelligent agent which says "hotter, colder", to find the needle. Otherwise the probability of us blindly searching the hay stack and finding the needle is absurdly low, as to not happen.

All okay so far?

The intelligent agent, as a condition of the program, must necessarily be outside the haystack itself. Otherwise the agent couldn't have all the information necessary to direct the search to its target. Outside of the haystack, Dembski defines as 'high-order information space', M. This space M, would contain all possible searches that could be done.

His conclusion then based on this probability is that for a search to be successful it requires the assistance of intelligent input. Otherwise, it falls into what he calls the "no free lunch regress".

Still doing okay?

Here's the rub. Evolution, is not (and cannot be) a goal seeking search. It is blind and it's products are not predetermined by specified input. Unlike our needle in the haystack, where we specify the search parameters and rely on the intelligent agent to get us to the target (needle).

He then makes his common argument about finding a particular protein of a given length of amino acids and the extremely unlikely chance this could happen by chance. A common one is using Cytochrome C and its chance of being found as something on the order of 10150 (I've debunked that here before, it caused Iamson to stop replying to my posts ;) )

Still okay?

Now this is where his argument falls apart. Evolution, doesn't have the target T (cytochrome C in this example) preloaded in its search query.

So how does evolution get around this problem? By preforming many blind searches, where selection eliminates wrong answers and saves correct ones. Selection then, assists the search, but only insofar as constantly adjusting the parameters of the search. This means then, that the large orders of blind searches leads to 'partially correct' parameters which are quickly amplified and new searches preformed from a new starting point. No intelligence required.

Before you argue, "But cope, were talking proteins and I said DNA", don't forget the central dogma of molecular biology. We're most certainly not talking proteins, but the information which translates to proteins: DNA.

By selecting DNA which has a positive correlation associated with it for the organism, we get a free pass into the next generation.

Got all that? If its not making sense or clear, someone let me know.

Now consider it mathematically with a game. Yes a game. Here is the rules. We have 3 dice, each dice represents a nucleotide. We are going to build a gene and we have two ways of doing so. The first way, we will assume the rules Dembski provides for us. Now, arbitrary rules notwithstanding, I'm going to be the environment and decide that any gene that will be useful to a population must arise within 25 generations-After that cut off, it would simply be too late to be useful in a changed environment. Each roll of the dice, we will consider a generation.

Game 1

To search for a particular gene we are going to do as Dembski suggests and rely upon blind chance alone. The target in this case is, or sequence of our gene is 6/6/6 (that's a 6 on each die).

Throwing one die we have a 1/6 chance to land on a 6 and 5/6 chance to land on anything but 6. Thus we have 6 possible outcomes of our roll. With 2 dice we would have (6*6) 36 potential outcomes and with 3 dice we would have 216 potential outcomes (6*6*6).

Of all outcomes, only one is 6/6/6 so we have chance of 1/216. Certainly not astronomical odds, but considering our limitation of generations, I wouldn't bet on it.

So how many generations would we expect to go through before we reach our target gene?

Its going to get a little more mathy, but I think you'll be able to follow along. If not, just point out where I'm loosing you.

Let's, for arbitrary reasons, call the probability we succeed on the first roll, A. The probability then for succeeding on the second roll would simply be A(1-A). (Follow how we did that?)

So the probability of succeeding in finding the target on the third roll is simply A(1-A)(1-A). See the pattern evolving here?

The fourth roll; A(1-A)(1-A)(1-A) etc. We can rewrite this as A(1-A)3 =A4, where A4 simply denotes the roll.

From this we can derive a simple statistical rule. Since the term (1-A) is simply multiplied to the rule for each additional roll, we can say that the probability to succeed on any roll (An) is simply A(1-A)(n-1).

For example, the probability to find our target gene on the 27th roll (generation) is simply A(1-A)26.

Since, the game must be completed by a certain generation, we have an expectation for completion which we'll arbitrarily call E.

The expectation is simply the sum of all of the probabilities of each round till the game is won. Mathematically that simply means that;

ΣE*A(1-A)(E-1).

Since our expectation has to be a positive real number, we know it can be any number from 0 to infinity. Taking the limit of the above equation we would get;

A*1/A2=E, where is the expected number of generations to find our target.

To solve this, remember that A is the probability of succeeding on the first roll or 1/216. So plugging that into our equation we get E=216.

Obviously then, we wouldn't expect evolution to produce target complexity without the intervention of an intelligent agent. Or would we?

Game 2

In this game we are going to play more akin to how I described evolution above. By using blind trials but saving positive outcomes into the next generation. A positive outcome in this example would be a 6.

So whenever a die is rolled that lands on a 6, that die is saved to the next round (a free pass).

We can then go about calculating the number of rounds or generations we would expect to play to win the game.

Consider when we roll 1 die, we had a 1/6 chance of 6 and a 5/6 chance of not 6. To calculate our expectation, arbitrarily defined as x, we;

Equation 1:

x1 = 1 + 5/6 * x1

1/6*x1 = 1

x1 = 6

With 2 dice we have a 1/36 chance of finishing the game in one step 6/6, a 10/36 chance of rolling one 6 and a 25/36 chance of rolling no 6 at all, thus;

Equation 2:

x2 = 1 + 10/36* x1 + 25/36* x2

11/36*x2 = 1 + 10/36 * 6 (the 6 comes from the above answer to equation 1)

x2= 36/11 * 8/3 = 96/11 or that is we expect on average to play the game 8.72 rounds

So with 3 dice we have a 1/216 chance of finishing the game in one step, a 75/216 chance of rolling a single 6, a 15/216 chance of rolling two 6’s and a 125/216 chance of rolling no 6 at all.

So our equation becomes;

Equation 3:

x3 = 1 + 75/216 * x1 + 15/216 * x2 + 125/216 *x3

91/216*x3 = 1 + 75/216 * 6 + 15/216 * 96/11

x3 = 216/91 * 487/132

x3 = 8766/1001 or 8.76 rounds

We then would most often, win the game. The implication of this then, if you haven't followed it through the two games, is that by adding selection and heredity into the mix evolution by natural selection is capable of generating complex information. And in it does this in a evolutionary timely manner with the assistance of heredity and selection.

In fact, the argument gets worse for Dembski, the more we liken it to the real world. Because in evolution, there are many, many, many simultaneous trials (organisms) each playing the game.

Edited by Copasetic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to mention the way he goes about disproving that these algorithms could not produce the complexity we see in life would also call an intelligence being the culprit into question. If the algorithms could not produce x amount of complexity in n amount of steps, how could anything else? Like I said, it is just nonsense and adds nothing to our understanding.

You beat me too it, in much less words too might I add :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, having read all that...I'm going to ask Tiggs two questions and ask him to respond. I know that he is knowledgeable about computer program languages.

First, what would happen if during the writing of a line of executable programming, you insert a string of jibberish characters?

Second, if you were on the platform that you use to write executable program language, and instead of writing program language you insert all jibberish characters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, what would happen if during the writing of a line of executable programming, you insert a string of jibberish characters?

if its in that line, it would cause the function of that string of code to not work. it wouldnt execute the way it should. thats obvious.

but if the jibberish is in its own line, it may not affect anything, or it would still cause problems and not let other parts of the program to function.

Second, if you were on the platform that you use to write executable program language, and instead of writing program language you insert all jibberish characters?

nothing would probably happen. it wouldnt do anything, as it hasnt been given any usable command in the code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, what would happen if during the writing of a line of executable programming, you insert a string of jibberish characters?

I can tell you this much (since I used to program)... If you add a string of jibberish, the program will most likely not compile. If you add a string of jibberish starting with a certain character, say { then nothing will happen, since whatever follows the { is ignored. (Most programming languages permit you to add comments to the code which arent compiled and dont affect the program). You might, on occasion, end up with jibberish which doesnt keep the program from compiling, but ends up affecting the program. If the end result of the jibberish adds something of value to the program, the programmers will keep it and it will remain in the code, whereas if it causes an obvious bug, or simply crashes the program, the programmers will soon find the bug and eliminate it and it will not appear in later versions of the program.

This is very similar to biology, where the programmers themselves are the enzymes and the program is the organism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.