Taking a risk, perhaps, gambling, no. When the cosmos throws the dice, it is assuming that some combination will come up, and every time it throws the dice, a combination does come up. Gambling would be to try to predict which combination is going to come up, and then there would be the possibility of being wrong and loosing, but the cosmos does not care which combination comes up, it will just keep throwing the dice till the combination that comes up, works. I agree. Moreover, many combinations often use the same mechanism used for other purposes. The "flagellum" is a good example. http://www.bing.com/search?q=flagellum&form=PRUSEN&mkt=en-us&refig=e7dddfbe25f9456d82e6f707fa1f6b8e&ghc=1&qs=PA&pq=flagellum&sc=8-9&sp=2&cvid=e7dddfbe25f9456d82e6f707fa1f6b8eFYI, I don't gambleEvery time you choose to step outside your door and walk (or drive) into the busy world you are taking a calculated gamble. :coolsmirk: Sounds like cosmic gambling to me. :cheese:
One of the worst mistakes of the anti-evolutionists is the claim that evolution is random, it is not, evolution is always responding to the environment in whatever way best suits survival, evolution is anything but random.I agree with your post, but differ on a detail. The process of natural selection is random, but evolution is proof of having escaped this natural testing process. Random DNA mutations are subject to natural selection for a chance to procreate. How many "failed species" (tries) does it take to produce a single viable one? Well since you have seen fit to nit-pick my post, I'll return the favor and do you the courtesy of nit-picking yours. If you will read carefully I did not say that mutations were not random, I specified evolution as not being random. I agree that mutations are random and only a few are beneficial and contribute to the genetic makeup of the organism. It should be noted that some mutations that are neutral at the time of the mutation come into play many generations later when that mutation does pose a benefit to the organism.
One of the worst mistakes of the anti-evolutionists is the claim that evolution is random, it is not, evolution is always responding to the environment in whatever way best suits survival, evolution is anything but random.I agree with your post, but differ on a detail. The process of natural selection is random, but evolution is proof of having escaped this natural testing process. Random DNA mutations are subject to natural selection for a chance to procreate. How many "failed species" (tries) does it take to produce a single viable one? Well since you have seen fit to nit-pick my post, I'll return the favor and do you the courtesy of nit-picking yours. If you will read carefully I did not say that mutations were not random, I specified evolution as not being random. I agree that mutations are random and only a few are beneficial and contribute to the genetic makeup of the organism. It should be noted that some mutations that are neutral at the time of the mutation come into play many generations later when that mutation does pose a benefit to the organism. As I said, I agreed with your post in general. The wording threw me off a little, but you are right, as I basically confirmed in my attempted correction.
The closest thing to dice being thrown are mutations, but even they are created by intrinsic factors, so . . .
Ainât no dice, ainât no god throwing 'em.
Lois
The closest thing to dice being thrown are mutatiins, but even they are created by intrinsic factors, so . . . Ain't no dice, ain't no god throwing 'em. LoisCome to think of it, the universe is a large gaming table and the dice are dodecahedrons, being rolled in an infinite number of tries and therefore any mathematically allowed combination is "inevitable". The result is obvious. The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work.
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I agree completely. Actually there may be only some 32 fundamental laws (restrictive or permissive constants) which control everything that happens in the universe. And then there is Pi, a very interesting non-number, which seems to turn up almost everywhere. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jm7OBEz7JR0
You want to see how complex functions derive from bio-chemistry? Watch this:
Itâs always interesting to me when creationists act as if they know everything. They donât come out and say it of course. But when you can confidently state that something is âirreducably complexâ and that it canât POSSIBLY have evolved naturally, doesnât it follow that you believe that you know everything there is to know about how nature works? Contrast that with the scientific method which proceeds one step at a time. Everything we think we know is tentative because we know that nature is always about a thousand steps ahead of us. Weâre doing good to work out a fraction of her tricks.
Just the term âirreducibly complexâ has that âknow-it-allâ sense built right in. I much prefer terms like âthe simplest partsâ or âfirst principlesâ, then build from there. And Iâm perfectly willing to change those if you show me a simpler part, or a principle that precedes the one I picked.
Disproving Intelligent Design with a Tie Clip]
The idea of irreducible complexity is wrong, as in it is a very bad idea. It isnât science, it is poor theology, and it is sloppy thinking.
Disproving Intelligent Design with a Tie Clip] The idea of irreducible complexity is wrong, as in it is a very bad idea. It isn't science, it is poor theology, and it is sloppy thinking.The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it demands an eternal irreducible complexity to begin with, which then evolved into reducible complex systems. We know this was not the case. We know the beginning was chaotic (infinite and reducible complexity), which evolved into ordered complex systems. The problem with the logic of irreducible complexity existing before the beginning of any kind of complexity, is the fact that it presents a fatal flaw in the argument. It results in a circular argument, with an unprovable assumption of prior irreducible complexity before there was any ordered complexity of any kind. So, if the universe began from an irreducible complexity, what would this initial irreducible complexity be and why would it have to be irreducible?
Disproving Intelligent Design with a Tie Clip] The idea of irreducible complexity is wrong, as in it is a very bad idea. It isn't science, it is poor theology, and it is sloppy thinking.The problem with "irreducible complexity" is that it demands an eternal irreducible complexity to begin with, which then evolved into reducible complex systems. We know this was not the case. We know the beginning was chaotic (infinite and reducible complexity), which evolved into ordered complex systems. The problem with the logic of irreducible complexity existing before the beginning of any kind of complexity, is the fact that it presents a fatal flaw in the argument. It results in a circular argument, with an unprovable assumption of prior irreducible complexity before there was any ordered complexity of any kind. So, if the universe began from an irreducible complexity, what would this initial irreducible complexity be and why would it have to be irreducible? Excellent analysis. I await Adonai's reply.
Just the term "irreducibly complex" has that "know-it-all" sense built right in. I much prefer terms like "the simplest parts" or "first principles", then build from there. And I'm perfectly willing to change those if you show me a simpler part, or a principle that precedes the one I picked.Nice! Never thought of it from that angle.
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I think there is a great chance of "losing." Something always loses as something else gains. Evolution.
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I think there is a great chance of "losing." Something always loses as something else gains. Evolution. How does the Cosmos "Lose", even failure is a learning experience, the Cosmos finds out what doesn't work. Even if the combination comes up again and fails, there is no Losing. When one organism dies and another survives, there is no losing, only if the whole environment dies, is it a loss.
Og: "Dude, where do you think our eyes came from?" Thag: "What? I don't know. Who cares?" Og: "Do you think the Great Spirit really gave them to us so we could hunt and wouldn't get lost, like the shaman says? Or do you think it was something else? Like selection pressure or heredity?" Thag: "One, shut up. Two, I don't know what the nut 'selec'-whatever is. And three, shut up. You're gonna get us killed. There are cat monsters all over here." Og: "But it's. . .Ahhhh! My torso! It's eating my torso!" Thag: "Told you so."God couldn't have created an eye. It's far too complicated for a god who can only do magic tricks. LL
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I think there is a great chance of "losing." Something always loses as something else gains. Evolution. How does the Cosmos "Lose", even failure is a learning experience, the Cosmos finds out what doesn't work. Even if the combination comes up again and fails, there is no Losing. When one organism dies and another survives, there is no losing, only if the whole environment dies, is it a loss. Depends on how you look at it. There is any number of ways evolution can unfold. If it unfolds one way, something is potentially lost. If it unfolds another way, something else is potentially lost. There is no designated way for evolution to unfold. It depends on millions of factors. Lois
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I think there is a great chance of "losing." Something always loses as something else gains. Evolution. How does the Cosmos "Lose", even failure is a learning experience, the Cosmos finds out what doesn't work. Even if the combination comes up again and fails, there is no Losing. When one organism dies and another survives, there is no losing, only if the whole environment dies, is it a loss. Do you believe the Cosmos could or would learn from experiment, or that permissive and restrictive laws were already present causing the failures and successes of the trials? It's strange, sometimes everyone is in agreement in principle but disagree on the philosophical contexts.
The one BIG difference, there is NO gambler rolling the dice.I never said there was a gambler, the Cosmos is rolling the dice but it is not a gambler, rolling the dice is a sure thing, some combination will come up on every roll. A gamble would be if there was a chance of loosing, but the cosmos never looses, it always rolls the dice and a combination comes up. Once in a long while the combination works, and that is all that is necessary, the cosmos has a long time, and many tries to make it work. I think there is a great chance of "losing." Something always loses as something else gains. Evolution. How does the Cosmos "Lose", even failure is a learning experience, the Cosmos finds out what doesn't work. Even if the combination comes up again and fails, there is no Losing. When one organism dies and another survives, there is no losing, only if the whole environment dies, is it a loss. Do you believe the Cosmos could or would learn from experiment, or that permissive and restrictive laws were already present causing the failures and successes of the trials? It's strange, sometimes everyone is in agreement in principle but disagree on the philosophical contexts. Not in terms of the cosmos, but if there were a human observer is what I meant. We do look into how evolution happened, even if it was a miilion years ago. We study fossils, for example. We can make assessments. We know for example that species go extinct. From a human's viewpoint that could be seen as a loss. Within the evolutionary process, itself, though, without an observer, you can make the point that there are no gains or losses, there is only what is. But humans will study the process and come to conclusions about how it worked.