| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Enkidu" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2006 12:07:50 PM |
| Object: |
Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
----------
Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design
- Ian Fisher, Cornelia Dean, New York Times
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Rome -- The Vatican's official newspaper published an article this week
labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that
intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to
evolution.
"If the model proposed by Darwin is not considered sufficient, one should
search for another," Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary
biology at the University of Bologna, wrote in the Jan. 16-17 edition of
the paper, L'Osservatore Romano.
"But it is not correct from a methodological point of view to stray from
the field of science while pretending to do science," he wrote,
describing intelligent design as unscientific. "It only creates confusion
between the scientific plane and those that are philosophical or
religious."
The article was not presented as an official church position. But in the
subtle and purposely ambiguous world of the Vatican, the comments seemed
notable, given their strength on a delicate question much debated under
the new pope, Benedict XVI.
Advocates of teaching evolution hailed the article.
"He is emphasizing that there is no need to see a contradiction between
Catholic teachings and evolution," said Dr. Francisco Ayala, professor of
biology at UC Irvine and a former Dominican priest. "Good for him."
But Robert Crowther, spokesman for the Center for Science and Culture at
the Discovery Institute, a Seattle organization that advocates
intelligent design, dismissed the article, as well as other recent
statements from leading Catholics defending evolution. Drawing attention
to them was little more than trying "to put words in the Vatican's
mouth," he said.
L'Osservatore basically represents the Vatican's views. Not all of its
articles represent official church policy, but it would not be expected
to publish an article that dissented deeply from that policy.
In July, Christoph Schoenborn, an Austrian cardinal close to the pope,
seemed to call into question what has been official church teaching for
years: that Catholicism and evolution are not necessarily at odds.
In an op-ed article in the New York Times, he played down a 1996 letter
in which Pope John Paul II called evolution "more than a hypothesis." He
wrote: "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but
evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense -- an unguided, unplanned process of
random variation and natural selection -- is not."
There is no credible scientific challenge to the idea that evolution
explains the diversity of life on Earth, but advocates of intelligent
design posit that biological life is so complex that it must have been
designed by an intelligent source.
At least twice, Pope Benedict has signaled concern about the issue,
prompting questions about his views. In April, when he was formally
installed as pope, he said human beings "are not some casual and
meaningless product of evolution." In November, he called the creation of
the universe an "intelligent project," wording welcomed by supporters of
intelligent design.
Many Roman Catholic scientists have criticized intelligent design, among
them the Rev. George Coyne, a Jesuit who is director of the Vatican
Observatory.
"Intelligent design isn't science, even though it pretends to be," he
said in November, as quoted by the Italian news service ANSA.
"Intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is
taught, not science."
In October, Schoenborn sought to clarify his remarks, saying he meant to
question not the science of evolution but what he called "evolutionism,"
an attempt to use the theory to refute the hand of God in creation.
"I see no difficulty in joining belief in the creator with the theory of
evolution, but under the prerequisite that the borders of scientific
theory are maintained," he said in a speech.
To Dr. Kenneth Miller, a biology professor at Brown University and a
Catholic, "That is my own view as well."
"As long as science does not pretend it can answer spiritual questions,
it's OK," he said.
Miller, who testified for the plaintiffs in the recent lawsuit in Dover,
Pa., challenging the teaching of intelligent design, said Facchini,
Coyne, and Schoenborn in his later statements were confirming
"traditional Catholic thinking."
In the Osservatore article, Facchini wrote that scientists could not rule
out a divine "superior design" to creation and the history of mankind.
But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a design fashioned through
an evolutionary process.
"God's project of creation can be carried out through secondary causes in
the natural course of events, without having to think of miraculous
interventions that point in this or that direction," he wrote.
On Dec. 20, a federal district judge ruled that schools could not present
intelligent design as an alternative to evolutionary theory.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise
of intelligence.
-- Bertrand Russell
.
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 01:15:08 PM |
|
|
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Not really. Biological evolution as common descent, resulting in
diversity via variation with natural selection, is accepted by the RCC
with the added metaphysical doctrine that the variation and the
factors affecting selection are designed by God. Whether this should
be called "evolution" can be argued. But because the addition is a
metaphysical doctrine, science is silent on it. That's the deal that
science cut with religion at the time of Galileo -- science is silent
on metaphysics.
Atheistic evolution theory adds the equally metaphysical doctrine that
the processes are not designed. Science is silent here, too.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 02:46:21 PM |
|
|
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in
news:goovs1h5k945bgthbto5vqu4tsicftpa88@4ax.com:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Not really. Biological evolution as common descent, resulting in
diversity via variation with natural selection, is accepted by the RCC
with the added metaphysical doctrine that the variation and the
factors affecting selection are designed by God. Whether this should
be called "evolution" can be argued. But because the addition is a
metaphysical doctrine, science is silent on it. That's the deal that
science cut with religion at the time of Galileo -- science is silent
on metaphysics.
Design implies a goal. Evolution by natural selection has no "goal"
beyond seeing this generation's genes are present in the next generation.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
I sit alone on the rock of my own individuality, with the waves of
superstition and religious tyranny surging around me."
-- Josephine K. Henry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 03:24:29 PM |
|
|
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote in
news:goovs1h5k945bgthbto5vqu4tsicftpa88@4ax.com:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Not really. Biological evolution as common descent, resulting in
diversity via variation with natural selection, is accepted by the RCC
with the added metaphysical doctrine that the variation and the
factors affecting selection are designed by God. Whether this should
be called "evolution" can be argued. But because the addition is a
metaphysical doctrine, science is silent on it. That's the deal that
science cut with religion at the time of Galileo -- science is silent
on metaphysics.
Design implies a goal. Evolution by natural selection has no "goal"
beyond seeing this generation's genes are present in the next generation.
I of course am speaking as a nontheist, but I understand the RCC
position this way: People can, and have, designed systems that use
evolution -- random variation plus natural selection within a designed
environment -- to achieve goals that the designers have. While within
the system, there is no awareness of this goal, it is nonetheless
"designed in". I think the RCC sees it in an analogous way, with God
as the designer. It would not be obvious to us, the creatures, that
there is a goal behind biological evolution, so it has to be given to
us as Revealed Truth (TM).
http://www.genarts.com/karl/papers/siggraph91.html
"Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics"
This paper has some cool graphics, BTW.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 04:03:18 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:24:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <kdvvs1haj5md7eem2tetduiljcs4vfb1o8@4ax.com>
wrote:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
[snip]
Design implies a goal. Evolution by natural selection has no "goal"
beyond seeing this generation's genes are present in the next generation.
I of course am speaking as a nontheist, but I understand the RCC
position this way: People can, and have, designed systems that use
evolution -- random variation plus natural selection within a designed
environment -- to achieve goals that the designers have. While within
the system, there is no awareness of this goal, it is nonetheless
"designed in". I think the RCC sees it in an analogous way, with God
as the designer. It would not be obvious to us, the creatures, that
there is a goal behind biological evolution, so it has to be given to
us as Revealed Truth (TM).
http://www.genarts.com/karl/papers/siggraph91.html
"Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics"
This paper has some cool graphics, BTW.
I go a bit further than this: all human design is an evolutionary
process. The fundamental aspects of evolution are 1) modifications to
existing systems, modifications that are random with respect to the
unknown, and 2) selection from those modified systems for future work.
Human *design* consists of those very two steps, we change things and
we test them. What makes it apparently, but not actually, different is
that much of the modification and the testing occurs in either an
internal (to the person) model or on paper. But the location of the
test does not change the process.
The only real objection someone can raise to this is that our
modifications are not random in the same way that biological mutations
are random. I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture. The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution. Well, we humans don't have a magical rode to knowledge,
when we are ignorant of the solution the only thing we can do is
randomly try something. A little examination of actual design
processes shows this in action. When the problem is one already solved
we just grab the solution from the toolbox. When it is mostly solved,
we tinker with an existing solution. And when we don't have the answer
we scratch our heads and we just start thinking of things until
something works. We mutate existing solutions, sometime radically if
we can't solve the problem, until we have something. Even then, we
only know if it is works when we send it out to the world to test it.
The Catholic Church, indeed pretty much any g(G)od(s) based religion,
particularly ones that assert an all-powerful godhood, is squeezed
here (just like it is/was squeezed by Newton and by Semmelweis). They
have a serious *theological* problem. On the one hand to deny the
world as it operates is to marginalize and retreat to an form of
insanity. OTOH, to accept evolution is to accept a g(G)od(s) that
operates in and over time. Forget all the Genesis nonsense of the
creationists, that is nothing but postmodern blather. The real
problem is a g(G)od(s) that tries and, seemingly, fails. A g(G)od(s)
that has wiped out most life on Earth more than once. This is, ISTM, a
more subtle version of the Problem of Evil.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 04:35:14 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:24:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <kdvvs1haj5md7eem2tetduiljcs4vfb1o8@4ax.com>
wrote:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
[snip]
Design implies a goal. Evolution by natural selection has no "goal"
beyond seeing this generation's genes are present in the next generation.
I of course am speaking as a nontheist, but I understand the RCC
position this way: People can, and have, designed systems that use
evolution -- random variation plus natural selection within a designed
environment -- to achieve goals that the designers have. While within
the system, there is no awareness of this goal, it is nonetheless
"designed in". I think the RCC sees it in an analogous way, with God
as the designer. It would not be obvious to us, the creatures, that
there is a goal behind biological evolution, so it has to be given to
us as Revealed Truth (TM).
http://www.genarts.com/karl/papers/siggraph91.html
"Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics"
This paper has some cool graphics, BTW.
I go a bit further than this: all human design is an evolutionary
process. The fundamental aspects of evolution are 1) modifications to
existing systems, modifications that are random with respect to the
unknown, and 2) selection from those modified systems for future work.
Human *design* consists of those very two steps, we change things and
we test them. What makes it apparently, but not actually, different is
that much of the modification and the testing occurs in either an
internal (to the person) model or on paper. But the location of the
test does not change the process.
My wife's business is helping people bring laboratory information
systems up, running, and compliant with regulations. Her motto is
"create and adjust". Otherwise, nothing happens.
The only real objection someone can raise to this is that our
modifications are not random in the same way that biological mutations
are random.
There is a another minor objection or at least, whine, which is a
motto of mine: That which explains everything, explains nothing. If
every change is an example of evolution, that is.
I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture.
Good point.
The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution.
It seems also to have a lot to do with the size of the "space" in
which acceptable solutions exist.
Well, we humans don't have a magical rode to knowledge,
That seems to be one of the major debates we have with theists.
when we are ignorant of the solution the only thing we can do is
randomly try something. A little examination of actual design
processes shows this in action. When the problem is one already solved
we just grab the solution from the toolbox. When it is mostly solved,
we tinker with an existing solution. And when we don't have the answer
we scratch our heads and we just start thinking of things until
something works. We mutate existing solutions, sometime radically if
we can't solve the problem, until we have something. Even then, we
only know if it is works when we send it out to the world to test it.
The Catholic Church, indeed pretty much any g(G)od(s) based religion,
particularly ones that assert an all-powerful godhood, is squeezed
here (just like it is/was squeezed by Newton and by Semmelweis). They
have a serious *theological* problem. On the one hand to deny the
world as it operates is to marginalize and retreat to an form of
insanity. OTOH, to accept evolution is to accept a g(G)od(s) that
operates in and over time. Forget all the Genesis nonsense of the
creationists, that is nothing but postmodern blather. The real
problem is a g(G)od(s) that tries and, seemingly, fails. A g(G)od(s)
that has wiped out most life on Earth more than once. This is, ISTM, a
more subtle version of the Problem of Evil.
Somewhere in the deepest inner sanctums (sancti?) of the Vatican, I
imagine there are people, and even documents, that admit this.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 09:25:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:35:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <lf40t11r0ch4edda4j88o19da6rc0vf2kt@4ax.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:24:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <kdvvs1haj5md7eem2tetduiljcs4vfb1o8@4ax.com>
wrote:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
[snip]
Design implies a goal. Evolution by natural selection has no "goal"
beyond seeing this generation's genes are present in the next generation.
I of course am speaking as a nontheist, but I understand the RCC
position this way: People can, and have, designed systems that use
evolution -- random variation plus natural selection within a designed
environment -- to achieve goals that the designers have. While within
the system, there is no awareness of this goal, it is nonetheless
"designed in". I think the RCC sees it in an analogous way, with God
as the designer. It would not be obvious to us, the creatures, that
there is a goal behind biological evolution, so it has to be given to
us as Revealed Truth (TM).
http://www.genarts.com/karl/papers/siggraph91.html
"Artificial Evolution for Computer Graphics"
This paper has some cool graphics, BTW.
I go a bit further than this: all human design is an evolutionary
process. The fundamental aspects of evolution are 1) modifications to
existing systems, modifications that are random with respect to the
unknown, and 2) selection from those modified systems for future work.
Human *design* consists of those very two steps, we change things and
we test them. What makes it apparently, but not actually, different is
that much of the modification and the testing occurs in either an
internal (to the person) model or on paper. But the location of the
test does not change the process.
My wife's business is helping people bring laboratory information
systems up, running, and compliant with regulations. Her motto is
"create and adjust". Otherwise, nothing happens.
The only real objection someone can raise to this is that our
modifications are not random in the same way that biological mutations
are random.
There is a another minor objection or at least, whine, which is a
motto of mine: That which explains everything, explains nothing. If
every change is an example of evolution, that is.
I don't offer it as an explanation for everything so that is not a
problem. I say that the mechanisms of biological evolution are so
close to those of human design that we should see design as an
instance of design.
I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture.
Good point.
The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution.
It seems also to have a lot to do with the size of the "space" in
which acceptable solutions exist.
Yes, but we don't know that before hand. As long as you got there,
though, think of my claim in the light of the No Free Lunch theorem. I
don't claim that evolution is the best general solution (which is
good, because it is not), I say it is the only general solution
available to us.
Well, we humans don't have a magical rode to knowledge,
That seems to be one of the major debates we have with theists.
Yes, but it is often hidden in the noise.
when we are ignorant of the solution the only thing we can do is
randomly try something. A little examination of actual design
processes shows this in action. When the problem is one already solved
we just grab the solution from the toolbox. When it is mostly solved,
we tinker with an existing solution. And when we don't have the answer
we scratch our heads and we just start thinking of things until
something works. We mutate existing solutions, sometime radically if
we can't solve the problem, until we have something. Even then, we
only know if it is works when we send it out to the world to test it.
The Catholic Church, indeed pretty much any g(G)od(s) based religion,
particularly ones that assert an all-powerful godhood, is squeezed
here (just like it is/was squeezed by Newton and by Semmelweis). They
have a serious *theological* problem. On the one hand to deny the
world as it operates is to marginalize and retreat to an form of
insanity. OTOH, to accept evolution is to accept a g(G)od(s) that
operates in and over time. Forget all the Genesis nonsense of the
creationists, that is nothing but postmodern blather. The real
problem is a g(G)od(s) that tries and, seemingly, fails. A g(G)od(s)
that has wiped out most life on Earth more than once. This is, ISTM, a
more subtle version of the Problem of Evil.
Somewhere in the deepest inner sanctums (sancti?) of the Vatican, I
imagine there are people, and even documents, that admit this.
I am sure that they are well aware of all of the issues. It is a very
big mistake to consider all who disagree with you as idiots and/or
insane.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
20 Jan 2006 02:01:33 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:35:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <lf40t11r0ch4edda4j88o19da6rc0vf2kt@4ax.com>
wrote:
<...>
There is a another minor objection or at least, whine, which is a
motto of mine: That which explains everything, explains nothing. If
every change is an example of evolution, that is.
I don't offer it as an explanation for everything so that is not a
problem. I say that the mechanisms of biological evolution are so
close to those of human design that we should see design as an
instance of design.
Is "we should see design as an instance of design", what you intended
to say?
I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture.
Good point.
The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution.
It seems also to have a lot to do with the size of the "space" in
which acceptable solutions exist.
Yes, but we don't know that before hand. As long as you got there,
though, think of my claim in the light of the No Free Lunch theorem. I
don't claim that evolution is the best general solution (which is
good, because it is not), I say it is the only general solution
available to us.
Where we may differ (and I don't know yet) is on whether the variation
that occurs in all instances of evolution is "random". I say "random"
in quotes because the nature and occurrence of random events is itself
quite debatable. Should the term "evolution" be reserved for
situations in which the variations are random?(see footnote)* IMO,
there can be instances of evolution where the changes that are
subjected to test are themselves selected and brought about by an
intelligence (eg a human). Backing of from this a bit, the experiment
can utilize a random or pseudorandom element in the selection process,
with the space from which the selections come being defined. For
example, the ratio of the area of the wings to the payload can be
allowed to vary at random, but within a constrained range, to
determine what ratio will best withstand various conditions.
*This question is at the heart of the controversy within the RCC on
whether they should agree that evolution occurs in nature.
<...>
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
20 Jan 2006 02:35:31 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:01:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <0gf2t11v2gp5q2gfb7dbndr3iq2fqnq95p@4ax.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:35:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <lf40t11r0ch4edda4j88o19da6rc0vf2kt@4ax.com>
wrote:
<...>
There is a another minor objection or at least, whine, which is a
motto of mine: That which explains everything, explains nothing. If
every change is an example of evolution, that is.
I don't offer it as an explanation for everything so that is not a
problem. I say that the mechanisms of biological evolution are so
close to those of human design that we should see design as an
instance of design.
Is "we should see design as an instance of design", what you intended
to say?
Argh! I mean we should see design as an instance of evolution.
I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture.
Good point.
The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution.
It seems also to have a lot to do with the size of the "space" in
which acceptable solutions exist.
Yes, but we don't know that before hand. As long as you got there,
though, think of my claim in the light of the No Free Lunch theorem. I
don't claim that evolution is the best general solution (which is
good, because it is not), I say it is the only general solution
available to us.
Where we may differ (and I don't know yet) is on whether the variation
that occurs in all instances of evolution is "random". I say "random"
in quotes because the nature and occurrence of random events is itself
quite debatable.
The mutations in biological evolution are random with respect to the
situation. The mutation rate can change, but the mutation distribution
does not skew to help the organism. This is an experimental result. If
there is a skew in which mutations occur then we have something
significantly different, perhaps sufficiently different to be
considered a different process.
Should the term "evolution" be reserved for
situations in which the variations are random?(see footnote)* IMO,
there can be instances of evolution where the changes that are
subjected to test are themselves selected and brought about by an
intelligence (eg a human).
The question is not which are subjected, but which occur. Take some
bacteria. Make monoclonal colonies. Subject sets of the colonies to
varying strengths of an antibiotic. Some of the colonies will die off,
but some will survive because of a mutation that occurs *after* you
start the test. The distribution of that particular mutation is
random.
Backing of from this a bit, the experiment
can utilize a random or pseudorandom element in the selection process,
with the space from which the selections come being defined.
I am not talking about random in selection, but random in mutation.
For
example, the ratio of the area of the wings to the payload can be
allowed to vary at random, but within a constrained range, to
determine what ratio will best withstand various conditions.
Of course selection is not random. And we humans can know from prior
work that the area of the wing is significant. As such we are not
getting new knowledge from that, we are applying an old solution. How
much to change it we might not know and so would vary it. The use of
both old solutions and random changes is exactly how biology works as
well.
*This question is at the heart of the controversy within the RCC on
whether they should agree that evolution occurs in nature.
There theological issues are quite distinct. Any similar religion will
have to hold that mutations are not actually random just like it is
not actually random the details of where a tornado hits. Those are
theological issues, not scientific ones. In science I can show that X
is random with respect to Y or that it is correlated to Y.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
20 Jan 2006 03:01:21 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 20:01:33 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <0gf2t11v2gp5q2gfb7dbndr3iq2fqnq95p@4ax.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 22:35:14 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <lf40t11r0ch4edda4j88o19da6rc0vf2kt@4ax.com>
wrote:
<...>
There is a another minor objection or at least, whine, which is a
motto of mine: That which explains everything, explains nothing. If
every change is an example of evolution, that is.
I don't offer it as an explanation for everything so that is not a
problem. I say that the mechanisms of biological evolution are so
close to those of human design that we should see design as an
instance of design.
Is "we should see design as an instance of design", what you intended
to say?
Argh! I mean we should see design as an instance of evolution.
I think that, too, is only apparent and not actual. There
are two possible cases: we know something about the solution or we
don't. To the extent that we know something, we are not talking about
design, we are talking about manufacture.
Good point.
The design, the creation of
something new, only comes in those cases where we don't actually know
the solution.
It seems also to have a lot to do with the size of the "space" in
which acceptable solutions exist.
Yes, but we don't know that before hand. As long as you got there,
though, think of my claim in the light of the No Free Lunch theorem. I
don't claim that evolution is the best general solution (which is
good, because it is not), I say it is the only general solution
available to us.
Where we may differ (and I don't know yet) is on whether the variation
that occurs in all instances of evolution is "random". I say "random"
in quotes because the nature and occurrence of random events is itself
quite debatable.
The mutations in biological evolution are random with respect to the
situation. The mutation rate can change, but the mutation distribution
does not skew to help the organism. This is an experimental result. If
there is a skew in which mutations occur then we have something
significantly different, perhaps sufficiently different to be
considered a different process.
Should the term "evolution" be reserved for
situations in which the variations are random?(see footnote)* IMO,
there can be instances of evolution where the changes that are
subjected to test are themselves selected and brought about by an
intelligence (eg a human).
The question is not which are subjected, but which occur. Take some
bacteria. Make monoclonal colonies. Subject sets of the colonies to
varying strengths of an antibiotic. Some of the colonies will die off,
but some will survive because of a mutation that occurs *after* you
start the test. The distribution of that particular mutation is
random.
I like your sense of "random" to include "with respect to the
situation". The variation is not caused by the individual organism's
reaction *as an organism*to a situation. That is all the randomness
that is needed, to be "random". (The variation can be caused by a DNA
codon's being disturbed by, say, a high energy beta-particle.)
I have a minor quibble with the mutation having to occur after the
test starts, at least, as it applies in the natural world. Recently I
heard a biologist say that some fish species might not "be able to
evolve fast enough" to withstand some degree of increase in sea
temperature. But this implies that there is no part of the population
that *now* has a broader tolerance and ability to thrive with that
increase. If there is such a part of the population, they are "ready".
I don't think this quibble applies to the experiment you describe
involving monoclonals, since the indiduals would have to be
genetically identical at the outset.
Backing of from this a bit, the experiment
can utilize a random or pseudorandom element in the selection process,
with the space from which the selections come being defined.
I am not talking about random in selection, but random in mutation.
Agreed.
For
example, the ratio of the area of the wings to the payload can be
allowed to vary at random, but within a constrained range, to
determine what ratio will best withstand various conditions.
Of course selection is not random. And we humans can know from prior
work that the area of the wing is significant. As such we are not
getting new knowledge from that, we are applying an old solution. How
much to change it we might not know and so would vary it. The use of
both old solutions and random changes is exactly how biology works as
well.
*This question is at the heart of the controversy within the RCC on
whether they should agree that evolution occurs in nature.
There theological issues are quite distinct. Any similar religion will
have to hold that mutations are not actually random just like it is
not actually random the details of where a tornado hits. Those are
theological issues, not scientific ones. In science I can show that X
is random with respect to Y or that it is correlated to Y.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
21 Jan 2006 12:05:40 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 20 Jan 2006 21:01:21 GMT, in alt.atheism , Jim07D6
<Jim07D6@nospam.net> in <47j2t1568g9d06enme66se23o7mkoc03hf@4ax.com>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> said:
[snip]
The question is not which are subjected, but which occur. Take some
bacteria. Make monoclonal colonies. Subject sets of the colonies to
varying strengths of an antibiotic. Some of the colonies will die off,
but some will survive because of a mutation that occurs *after* you
start the test. The distribution of that particular mutation is
random.
I like your sense of "random" to include "with respect to the
situation". The variation is not caused by the individual organism's
reaction *as an organism*to a situation. That is all the randomness
that is needed, to be "random". (The variation can be caused by a DNA
codon's being disturbed by, say, a high energy beta-particle.)
I have a minor quibble with the mutation having to occur after the
test starts, at least, as it applies in the natural world. Recently I
heard a biologist say that some fish species might not "be able to
evolve fast enough" to withstand some degree of increase in sea
temperature. But this implies that there is no part of the population
that *now* has a broader tolerance and ability to thrive with that
increase. If there is such a part of the population, they are "ready".
I think you have misunderstood me. I was describing a particular
experiment. A big part of experimental design is to simply the
situation so you know what you are testing. I mentioned one of the
classic experiments regarding mutation, one that high schools students
can do today. Start with a single bacteria (actually doable). Bacteria
only have one copy of their DNA, so there is only one version of each
allele (gene variation). Grow colonies from that single bacteria. *For
that experiment* all of the mutations occur after the start. In a more
complex case there is plenty of existent variation as well as that
which occurs during the experiment.
I don't think this quibble applies to the experiment you describe
involving monoclonals, since the indiduals would have to be
genetically identical at the outset.
Yep.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 01:21:33 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:08 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Not really. Biological evolution as common descent, resulting in
diversity via variation with natural selection, is accepted by the RCC
with the added metaphysical doctrine that the variation and the
factors affecting selection are designed by God. Whether this should
be called "evolution" can be argued. But because the addition is a
metaphysical doctrine, science is silent on it. That's the deal that
science cut with religion at the time of Galileo -- science is silent
on metaphysics.
It opens a whole new can of theological worms that paints their deity
in a very unpleasant light.
Atheistic evolution theory adds the equally metaphysical doctrine that
the processes are not designed. Science is silent here, too.
Evolution theory adds no such thing. It just follows where observation
and investigation lead.
And it's not atheistic. Nor is the rest of science.
If ever observation and invesigation suggest a deity did it, then that
will be investigate. But that's a bridge to be crossed if we ever get
there.
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D6" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 01:51:43 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> said:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 19:15:08 GMT, Jim07D6 <Jim07D6@nospam.net> wrote:
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> said:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Not really. Biological evolution as common descent, resulting in
diversity via variation with natural selection, is accepted by the RCC
with the added metaphysical doctrine that the variation and the
factors affecting selection are designed by God. Whether this should
be called "evolution" can be argued. But because the addition is a
metaphysical doctrine, science is silent on it. That's the deal that
science cut with religion at the time of Galileo -- science is silent
on metaphysics.
It opens a whole new can of theological worms that paints their deity
in a very unpleasant light.
I have thought for many years that the RCC version of God is pretty
unpleasant, having major psychological problems and acting them out on
its creation.
Atheistic evolution theory adds the equally metaphysical doctrine that
the processes are not designed. Science is silent here, too.
Evolution theory adds no such thing. It just follows where observation
and investigation lead.
I agree that evolution theory (unqualified as "atheistic" adds no such
thing. That's why I said "atheistic evolution theory". Evolution
theory itself takes no stand on whether there is a god behind it all.
And it's not atheistic. Nor is the rest of science.
I did not mean to imply that evolution theory is "atheistic" and
apologize for this muddiness. I meant it to specify an evolution
theory that is committed to atheism.
If ever observation and invesigation suggest a deity did it, then that
will be investigate. But that's a bridge to be crossed if we ever get
there.
And it is my view that science should be philosophically committed to
*never* entertaining non-natural entities as part of explanations. I
don't count that as being "committed to atheism."
--- Jim07D6
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 09:56:26 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>,
Enkidu <jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> wrote:
Rome -- The Vatican's official newspaper published an article this week
labeling as "correct" the recent decision by a judge in Pennsylvania that
intelligent design should not be taught as a scientific alternative to
evolution.
I'll bet the judge is breathing a sigh of relief. That was too close for
comfort!
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 02:00:13 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 02:47:58 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
Thank God, under our Constitution there was no connection between Church
and State, and that in my action as President of the United States I
recognized no distinction of creeds in my appointments to office.
-- James K. Polk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
19 Jan 2006 03:06:34 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
20 Jan 2006 01:33:08 AM |
|
|
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
20 Jan 2006 11:09:53 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-08B521.23330819012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Actually organisms don't reproduce on their own, all life works only
in some particular set of environmental conditions. Life is always an
ecological issue and a population one. For the purpose of evolution we
don't need the reproduction self-contained, we just to have imperfect
replication.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
Of course airplanes are by intelligent design, that is how we define
the term. The question is not design or evolution, the question is
whether or not design is evolution. It is true, but unimportant, that
*most* changes come from human input. My point is that humans don't
pick changes from a known good set, they have to pick them randomly
with respect to the problem. Let me repeat my reasoning. To the extent
that the solution is already known we are not talking about "design",
we are talking about something closer to manufacture. The question is
how do we come up with new things, new answers to problems. In the
case when we don't have the answer the only option open to us is
something random with respect to the problem. (People are free to
propose some other possibility and give evidence it occurs.) What we
in fact do is make changes to some existing solution. We then test
those solutions, either internally, on paper, or in the world.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
21 Jan 2006 02:59:16 AM |
|
|
In article <j562t1h8crr2et71qh1gdd0e9b0nr73e2v@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-08B521.23330819012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Actually organisms don't reproduce on their own, all life works only
in some particular set of environmental conditions. Life is always an
ecological issue and a population one. For the purpose of evolution we
don't need the reproduction self-contained, we just to have imperfect
replication.
All organisms exist in an environment. By 'reproduce on their own' I
mean that living organisms manage to do it without the aid of some human
or supernatural entity. Aircraft or plans for them cannot do the same
without us.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
Of course airplanes are by intelligent design, that is how we define
the term. The question is not design or evolution, the question is
whether or not design is evolution. It is true, but unimportant, that
*most* changes come from human input. My point is that humans don't
pick changes from a known good set, they have to pick them randomly
with respect to the problem. Let me repeat my reasoning. To the extent
that the solution is already known we are not talking about "design",
we are talking about something closer to manufacture. The question is
how do we come up with new things, new answers to problems. In the
case when we don't have the answer the only option open to us is
something random with respect to the problem. (People are free to
propose some other possibility and give evidence it occurs.) What we
in fact do is make changes to some existing solution. We then test
those solutions, either internally, on paper, or in the world.
In some instances a random approach might work, but when attempting
something new, I think that a systematic approach would be better. Let
me give an example. I am a chemist. Suppose I wanted to synthesize a new
steroid, alkaloid drug, or peptide antibiotic that had never been
synthesized before. How would I go about it?
First I would examine the structure of the target compound. Perhaps the
arrangement of atoms and functional groups might suggest an approach. I
would also go to the literature and see if someone else had synthesized
something similar, and if so, how did they do it. I would also consult
with my colleagues and get their input as to what would be a likely
approach. In the end, I would select one or more likely synthetic
schemes.
I would then go to the lab and try the most likely approach and if it
failed, then the next. If the reaction gave a poor yield, or the product
was contaminated by a side reaction, I would vary reaction conditions,
but in a systematic manner. If, for example, I carried out the first
reaction at a temperature of 60?, I might next try 80, 100, and 120? and
observe the effect. Then if need be, I could vary the concentration of
the various reactants, their relative ratio, solvent, pH, pressure, etc.
The point is that each step would not be a random choice, but carefully
chosen on the basis of experience, or experimental results. I am not a
aeronautical engineer, but I'm sure that a similar approach would be
used in the aircraft industry. First set the goal, then study what is
available, then make systematic modifications testing at each step along
the way and making corrections if need be.
Design evolution for a chemical process or an airplane should be an
orderly process. Biological evolution is not. It is very messy.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
21 Jan 2006 10:00:59 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:59:16 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-3972D4.00591621012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <j562t1h8crr2et71qh1gdd0e9b0nr73e2v@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-08B521.23330819012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Actually organisms don't reproduce on their own, all life works only
in some particular set of environmental conditions. Life is always an
ecological issue and a population one. For the purpose of evolution we
don't need the reproduction self-contained, we just to have imperfect
replication.
All organisms exist in an environment. By 'reproduce on their own' I
mean that living organisms manage to do it without the aid of some human
or supernatural entity. Aircraft or plans for them cannot do the same
without us.
And we can't do it without something else. The reproduction is what
matters, not how many are involved.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
Of course airplanes are by intelligent design, that is how we define
the term. The question is not design or evolution, the question is
whether or not design is evolution. It is true, but unimportant, that
*most* changes come from human input. My point is that humans don't
pick changes from a known good set, they have to pick them randomly
with respect to the problem. Let me repeat my reasoning. To the extent
that the solution is already known we are not talking about "design",
we are talking about something closer to manufacture. The question is
how do we come up with new things, new answers to problems. In the
case when we don't have the answer the only option open to us is
something random with respect to the problem. (People are free to
propose some other possibility and give evidence it occurs.) What we
in fact do is make changes to some existing solution. We then test
those solutions, either internally, on paper, or in the world.
In some instances a random approach might work, but when attempting
something new, I think that a systematic approach would be better. Let
me give an example. I am a chemist. Suppose I wanted to synthesize a new
steroid, alkaloid drug, or peptide antibiotic that had never been
synthesized before. How would I go about it?
Read up on the No Free Lunch theorem. If you don't know the problem
space then there is no systematic approach that provides an advantage.
Now this is a bit of a misdirection since the math standards are not
the real world standards, but it gives us a major insight. What you
describe below is using knowledge of the problem and solution space to
constrain your random selection. Absolutely true, but that is not
making a new answer, that is using an old answer.
(For those who don't know, roughly speaking, the NFL shows that if you
don't know anything about the problem space then all solution
approaches find the answer in the same time on the average. The No
Free Lunch theorem does not reflect the real world in one important
way. In the real world we have one very big piece of knowledge about
the problem space: roughly speaking the next moment is going to be
very much like the last moment. That is, the problem tomorrow is quite
a bit like, but slightly different from, the problem today. In that
kind of situation then evolution (modify and test) does offer the most
efficient path. In addition, since evolution works by modifying
existing known good solutions, and since the solution is the solver,
it gives you a good chance of continuing to work on the problem.)
First I would examine the structure of the target compound. Perhaps the
arrangement of atoms and functional groups might suggest an approach. I
would also go to the literature and see if someone else had synthesized
something similar, and if so, how did they do it. I would also consult
with my colleagues and get their input as to what would be a likely
approach. In the end, I would select one or more likely synthetic
schemes.
You consult with people, for example, but you have already learned
that asking others is a good way to solve a problem. That does not
develop a new solution at all.
I would then go to the lab and try the most likely approach and if it
failed, then the next. If the reaction gave a poor yield, or the product
was contaminated by a side reaction, I would vary reaction conditions,
but in a systematic manner. If, for example, I carried out the first
reaction at a temperature of 60?, I might next try 80, 100, and 120? and
observe the effect. Then if need be, I could vary the concentration of
the various reactants, their relative ratio, solvent, pH, pressure, etc.
The point is that each step would not be a random choice, but carefully
chosen on the basis of experience, or experimental results.
Yep, chosen on the basis of experience. IOW using answers you already
have. Biology does that as well. We were not talking about that class
of problem solving though.
I am not a
aeronautical engineer, but I'm sure that a similar approach would be
used in the aircraft industry. First set the goal, then study what is
available, then make systematic modifications testing at each step along
the way and making corrections if need be.
Design evolution for a chemical process or an airplane should be an
orderly process. Biological evolution is not. It is very messy.
*Biology* has both orderly and messy aspects as does all human problem
solving. For the most part both human design and evolution works by
taking known good solutions and trying them out. A very small % of the
work consists of dealing with the unknown. We can box in that with
answers we already know, but at the limit there the path we take is
random.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
22 Jan 2006 02:21:31 AM |
|
|
In article <01m4t1le01eupil712bca18at0bbu6e1r3@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:59:16 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-3972D4.00591621012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <j562t1h8crr2et71qh1gdd0e9b0nr73e2v@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-08B521.23330819012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim
for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Actually organisms don't reproduce on their own, all life works only
in some particular set of environmental conditions. Life is always an
ecological issue and a population one. For the purpose of evolution we
don't need the reproduction self-contained, we just to have imperfect
replication.
All organisms exist in an environment. By 'reproduce on their own' I
mean that living organisms manage to do it without the aid of some human
or supernatural entity. Aircraft or plans for them cannot do the same
without us.
And we can't do it without something else. The reproduction is what
matters, not how many are involved.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
Of course airplanes are by intelligent design, that is how we define
the term. The question is not design or evolution, the question is
whether or not design is evolution. It is true, but unimportant, that
*most* changes come from human input. My point is that humans don't
pick changes from a known good set, they have to pick them randomly
with respect to the problem. Let me repeat my reasoning. To the extent
that the solution is already known we are not talking about "design",
we are talking about something closer to manufacture. The question is
how do we come up with new things, new answers to problems. In the
case when we don't have the answer the only option open to us is
something random with respect to the problem. (People are free to
propose some other possibility and give evidence it occurs.) What we
in fact do is make changes to some existing solution. We then test
those solutions, either internally, on paper, or in the world.
In some instances a random approach might work, but when attempting
something new, I think that a systematic approach would be better. Let
me give an example. I am a chemist. Suppose I wanted to synthesize a new
steroid, alkaloid drug, or peptide antibiotic that had never been
synthesized before. How would I go about it?
Read up on the No Free Lunch theorem. If you don't know the problem
space then there is no systematic approach that provides an advantage.
Now this is a bit of a misdirection since the math standards are not
the real world standards, but it gives us a major insight. What you
describe below is using knowledge of the problem and solution space to
constrain your random selection. Absolutely true, but that is not
making a new answer, that is using an old answer.
I think that I don't understand the example that you used. One designing
a plane today, even a radically new one, would have access and
experience with previous designs and would certainly take advantage of
that knowledge. Perhaps the theorem would apply to the first flying
machine ever built or contemplated. DaVinci had some wild designs, as
did some of those who preceded the Wrights.
(For those who don't know, roughly speaking, the NFL shows that if you
don't know anything about the problem space then all solution
approaches find the answer in the same time on the average. The No
Free Lunch theorem does not reflect the real world in one important
way. In the real world we have one very big piece of knowledge about
the problem space: roughly speaking the next moment is going to be
very much like the last moment. That is, the problem tomorrow is quite
a bit like, but slightly different from, the problem today. In that
kind of situation then evolution (modify and test) does offer the most
efficient path. In addition, since evolution works by modifying
existing known good solutions, and since the solution is the solver,
it gives you a good chance of continuing to work on the problem.
First I would examine the structure of the target compound. Perhaps the
arrangement of atoms and functional groups might suggest an approach. I
would also go to the literature and see if someone else had synthesized
something similar, and if so, how did they do it. I would also consult
with my colleagues and get their input as to what would be a likely
approach. In the end, I would select one or more likely synthetic
schemes.
You consult with people, for example, but you have already learned
that asking others is a good way to solve a problem. That does not
develop a new solution at all.
Not necessarily. I might reject their suggestions and try something else.
I would then go to the lab and try the most likely approach and if it
failed, then the next. If the reaction gave a poor yield, or the product
was contaminated by a side reaction, I would vary reaction conditions,
but in a systematic manner. If, for example, I carried out the first
reaction at a temperature of 60?, I might next try 80, 100, and 120? and
observe the effect. Then if need be, I could vary the concentration of
the various reactants, their relative ratio, solvent, pH, pressure, etc.
The point is that each step would not be a random choice, but carefully
chosen on the basis of experience, or experimental results.
Yep, chosen on the basis of experience. IOW using answers you already
have. Biology does that as well. We were not talking about that class
of problem solving though.
I would not beforehand how these variables would affect the process in
this case, otherwise I wouldn't have to go in the lab and do the
experiments. Sometimes the experiments don't give me the results that I
was expecting so I have to go back and redesign.
I am not a
aeronautical engineer, but I'm sure that a similar approach would be
used in the aircraft industry. First set the goal, then study what is
available, then make systematic modifications testing at each step along
the way and making corrections if need be.
Design evolution for a chemical process or an airplane should be an
orderly process. Biological evolution is not. It is very messy.
*Biology* has both orderly and messy aspects as does all human problem
solving. For the most part both human design and evolution works by
taking known good solutions and trying them out. A very small % of the
work consists of dealing with the unknown. We can box in that with
answers we already know, but at the limit there the path we take is
random.
Biological evolution involves two steps. Mutation is a largely random
process. Selection depends on many environmental constraints such as
availability of food, presence of predators, climate, etc. From a
distance, an ecosystem might appear orderly, but the changes within are
random. On a micro level biology is orderly since the biochemical
processes obey the laws of chemistry and physics.
I think that the problem is that the word 'evolution' is used in many
different contexts. I think that it's most basic meaning is change over
time. However the processes involved in each instance might be quite
differnt. Biological evolution is one thing. Design evolution is
something else. People talk about the 'evolution' of art, music,
politics, and just about anything else.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican article backs judge on intelligent design |
22 Jan 2006 11:26:17 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 22 Jan 2006 00:21:31 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-B28F53.00213122012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <01m4t1le01eupil712bca18at0bbu6e1r3@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:59:16 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-3972D4.00591621012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <j562t1h8crr2et71qh1gdd0e9b0nr73e2v@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 23:33:08 -0800, in alt.atheism , johac
<jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> in
<jhachmann-08B521.23330819012006@news.giganews.com> wrote:
In article <opvvs1tt7cet9ebj62gbcvvbdbsgs7mmtd@4ax.com>,
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2006 20:47:58 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns97508234D8AE3255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:btrvs15d44dqakfmi5dbgs7ra9aqga0blh@4ax.com:
On 19 Jan 2006 18:07:50 GMT, in alt.atheism , Enkidu
<jdwnx4702@sneakemail.com> in <Xns9750670685678255229@130.133.1.4>
wrote:
From the article: "But he said Catholic thought did not preclude a
design fashioned through an evolutionary process."
Evolution is the antitheses of design!
Actually, human design *is* an evolutionary process. What is design
but trial and error?
There is no "goal" evolution aims toward. Aircraft designers may aim
for
faster planes. Evolution aims at nothing.
So? Human goals just help determine the selection criteria, they do
not change the process itself.
I think that we are using evolution in two senses here. In biological
evolution organisms are capable of reproducing on their own. Sometimes a
spontaneous mutation occurs and then natural selection kicks in and
permits that mutation of change to be passed on if it is beneficial to
the organism.
Actually organisms don't reproduce on their own, all life works only
in some particular set of environmental conditions. Life is always an
ecological issue and a population one. For the purpose of evolution we
don't need the reproduction self-contained, we just to have imperfect
replication.
All organisms exist in an environment. By 'reproduce on their own' I
mean that living organisms manage to do it without the aid of some human
or supernatural entity. Aircraft or plans for them cannot do the same
without us.
And we can't do it without something else. The reproduction is what
matters, not how many are involved.
Airplanes (or watches, or cars, or washing machines, etc.) or plans for
them do not reproduce. Any changes contemplated to improve the design
must be introduced by man. I would say that aircraft evolution is a
product of 'intelligent design'.
Of course airplanes are by intelligent design, that is how we define
the term. The question is not design or evolution, the question is
whether or not design is evolution. It is true, but unimportant, that
*most* changes come from human input. My point is that humans don't
pick changes from a known good set, they have to pick them randomly
with respect to the problem. Let me repeat my reasoning. To the extent
that the solution is already known we are not talking about "design",
we are talking about something closer to manufacture. The question is
how do we come up with new things, new answers to problems. In the
case when we don't have the answer the only option open to us is
something random with respect to the problem. (People are free to
propose some other possibility and give evidence it occurs.) What we
in fact do is make changes to some existing solution. We then test
those solutions, either internally, on paper, or in the world.
In some instances a random approach might work, but when attempting
something new, I think that a systematic approach would be better. Let
me give an example. I am a chemist. Suppose I wanted to synthesize a new
steroid, alkaloid drug, or peptide antibiotic that had never been
synthesized before. How would I go about it?
Read up on the No Free Lunch theorem. If you don't know the problem
space then there is no systematic approach that provides an advantage.
Now this is a bit of a misdirection since the math standards are not
the real world standards, but it gives us a major insight. What you
describe below is using knowledge of the problem and solution space to
constrain your random selection. Absolutely true, but that is not
making a new answer, that is using an old answer.
I think that I don't understand the example that you used.
I have two choices then. I can attack you or I can admit that I was
probably unclear. Unless you are really interested in an exchange of
insults I will try to do a better job.
One designing
a plane today, even a radically new one, would have access and
experience with previous designs and would certainly take advantage of
that knowledge. Perhaps the theorem would apply to the first flying
machine ever built or contemplated. DaVinci had some wild designs, as
did some of those who preceded the Wrights.
Absolutely. I have tried to make this clear, we make changes to
existing known solutions, using existing known solutions. Neither
humans nor biological replication take fully "random" steps. We know
that wings are probably good for planes so we modify wings. We know
that metals are probably good materials, so we try metals*. Making use
of previous knowledge just constrains the shape of the search
territory, the question still comes how do you find something *new*.
Either you (and Goober explicitly and ID advocates implicitly) assert
that "Intelligence" has some magic** ability to just pick good answers
from the potential solution space or you see that we do that aspect
randomly.
*Here is a way that human design differs from *most* biological
evolution. Human design utilizes cross-fertilization. Plastic and
ceramics, for example, work in some situations for wings. As it
happens there is nothing in the basic *theory* of evolution forbidding
cross-fertilization so this is not a distinction on that level. The
*fact* of biological evolution points to a nested hierarchy as
evidence of common descent. Human design, since it utilizes
cross-fertilization does not show any such tree-like nested hierarchy.
**There is the other option, to show some non-magic ability to pick a
good solution, without testing, from a population of potential
solutions. I don't know of any such proposed answer and my experience
doing design says no such thing exists. Actual design consists of
trying known solutions, then making guesses and testing them.
(For those who don't know, roughly speaking, the NFL shows that if you
don't know anything about the problem space then all solution
approaches find the answer in the same time on the average. The No
Free Lunch theorem does not reflect the real world in one important
way. In the real world we have one very big piece of knowledge about
the problem space: roughly speaking the next moment is going to be
very much like the last moment. That is, the problem tomorrow is quite
a bit like, but slightly different from, the problem today. In that
kind of situation then evolution (modify and test) does offer the most
efficient path. In addition, since | | | | | | | | | |
