Science Thread (now with 100% less religion)
The old science thread seems to have gotten locked, not sure what the rules are but I thought we could try again.
Prett
I believe it was George Berkely who was simply making the argument that when we simulate universes, we may well start with some bits already developed
I, of course, never claimed that.
there is massive historical evidence of evolution in domesticated plants (and to a lesser degree, domesticated animals).
Yes, natural history clearly shows that.
Not sure why you would think I would disagree with any of this.
It might be helpful to address what I actually say, instead of some caricature of my beliefs that you have made up in your head.
I, of course, never claimed that.
Yes, natural history clearly shows that.
Not sure why you would think I would disagree with any of this.
It might be helpful to address what I actually say, instead of some caricature of my beliefs that you have made up in your head.
Because that's historical proof of evolution and you said there was no historical proof of evolution.
Because that's historical proof of evolution and you said there was no historical proof of evolution.
Now I understand the confusion.
In a later post I acknowledged that Natural History could in principle provide evidence for Evolution.
Of course, there is no empirical proof of any sort for Evolutionism (aka Macro-Evolution). (Just as there is no empirical proof of Creationism.)
If anything, DNA proves that all living things are the product of Intelligent Design. Codes don't occur by random processes.
Mutations may be random, but the process by which they are 'selected for' or 'selected against', according to whether they favour survival and reproduction, is not. It has its own logic, which does not require design.
Mutations may be random, but the process by which they are 'selected for' or 'selected against', according to whether they favour survival and reproduction, is not. It has its own logic, which does not require design.
Logic, by definition, requires design.
Please try again with an argument that isn't self-defeating. Thanks.
You can use anything you want to generate the random numbers so no. But thanks for proving you're not even understanding the basics of the conversation.
The very concept of a random number doesn't occur in nature. It exists in a mind. Nature lacks intentionality, which is a necessary requirement for something to be "designed."
An obvious absurdity would be to claim that the carvings of the former President's on Mount Rushmore happened by "accident." They obviously could not have been the result of random erosion.
Even more absurd would be to claim that the real-life people that are merely represented by the carvings on Mount Rushmore are the product of a random, unintended event.
Maybe I'll consider changing my mind if I ever see the following headline:
Tornado Rips Thru Downtown Dallas: Causes Ten Billion Dollars in Improvements!
Now I understand the confusion.
In a later post I acknowledged that Natural History could in principle provide evidence for Evolution.
Of course, there is no empirical proof of any sort for Evolutionism (aka Macro-Evolution). (Just as there is no empirical proof of Creationism.)
Well, there is.
We (humans) developed milk digestion in adulthood genetically very recently (less than 10k years ago), in Scandinavia or near there, which is why populations nearby almost always have that genetical capability, while in Asia (and native Americans and Australians) they mostly don't.
I don't know what else than a 100% genetical acquired trait that not all humans share with massive reproductive repercussions you need to believe evolution (systemic change of the genetic pool in functional ways to survive better following a random mutation which isboro fitness) happens.
Meanwhile some inhabitants of pacific islands can stay underwater 3-5x the time anyone else can (and not because of training: again 100% genetical), and blood cells of tibetans carry oxygen differently than the rest of the world.
The very concept of a random number doesn't occur in nature. It exists in a mind. Nature lacks intentionality, which is a necessary requirement for something to be "designed."
Numbers are a made up human concept, random isn't.
Random is just a definition of something that exists, if something is random then its next state cannot be predicted given it's current state.
You might believe random doesn't exist (ie you believe in perfect material determinism) but try to follow through the corollaries of that.
If all states of nature can be predicted given the present state of nature in all it's aspects (which is what you need in order to claim randomness doesn't exist) with 100% probability, then of course free will doesn't exist at all.
Which might be true but in such a scenario nothing you do has meaning or value, you (and everyone else) exactly do what was predictable you would have done before given external events and the state of the universe as it was.
So we can disregard the universes where perfect determinism is right, because in those, it doesn't matter what you say think or do ever, agency doesn't exist, you never choose anything.
So it's either randomness exists as an inherent feature of the universe or life is worthless and with no meaning
An obvious absurdity would be to claim that the carvings of the former President's on Mount Rushmore happened by "accident." They obviously could not have been the result of random erosion.Even more absurd would be to claim that the real-life people that are merely represented by the carvings on Mount Rushmore are the product of a random, unintended event.Maybe I'll consider c
This is a terrible analogy. The two are not related at all except by your idea of complexity. It should go without saying that evolution involves a process known as natural selection, and this process does not act on rock.
I can see why you are confused about this topic if you believe these two things have anything in common at all besides the fact that they are complex.
The very concept of a random number doesn't occur in nature. It exists in a mind. Nature lacks intentionality, which is a necessary requirement for something to be "designed."
Lol Just start with that then!!! Like you can't say Fermat's Last Theorem proves the existence of god, start off babbling incoherently about modular forms then at step 10 say well everything including FLT requires god and that's the argument! You said "codes can't emerge from random processes".... now you're saying that's because random processes don't exist. Well duh, your claim is now trivial. Of course course random processes can't generate anything if no random process exists. The huge burden on you is to now show that the vast majority of physicists are wrong when they say if you take an electron measure spin in the X direction then y direction, then x direction again repeatedly the result is truly random. You can't obviously but be honest that you're claiming things about stuff you don't understand but you need highly heterodox views to be true to make your trivial non thinking argument.
An obvious absurdity would be to claim that the carvings of the former President's on Mount Rushmore happened by "accident." They obviously could not have been the result of random erosion.
Again, when pushed on why random mutations and selection can't lead to something like DNA, you retreat to random mutations don't exist. So your argument for why random erosion can't result in Mount Rushmore is the same as why random erosion couldn't have caused Niagara falls or the Grand Canyon. The rest of us have perfectly sane explanations for this stuff.
Logic, by definition, requires design.
Please try again with an argument that isn't self-defeating. Thanks.
No, it doesn't. The laws and logic of nature existed by themselves before there were any humans to perceive them or to anthropomorphise the universe by ascribing its workings to projected quasi-human volition.
Again, when pushed on why random mutations and selection can't lead to something like DNA, you retreat to random mutations don't exist. So your argument for why random erosion can't result in Mount Rushmore is the same as why random erosion couldn't have caused Niagara falls or the Grand Canyon. The rest of us have perfectly sane explanations for this stuff.
Presumably the same people who can't wrap their head around how random mutations in the gene pool can lead to non-random evolutionary outcomes through natural selection also can't wrap their head around how some people can be winning poker players, since, after all, everyone is dealt random cards every hand, so one wonders wtf they are doing on a poker forum.
