Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   bayesian probability, chaitin descriptions, and evolution
sid
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 45 (102116)
04-23-2004 3:55 AM


[Note: Post #3 below (by me) is probably a clearer presentation of all this. I guess this post was notation-heavy and overly formal, but the ideas are pretty straightforward. If I can get some commentary (e.g. what specifically is so confusing about it) I would appreciate it.]
Let P(X) denote a computable predicate, i.e. a property, i.e. a program i.e. a function that returns true if X has property P and false otherwise. (Note: P *does not* denote "probability" in this thread.)
Let Pi(X) be such a property (denoting for example "X is intelligent").
Let Pn(X) be such a property (denoting for example "X contains natural selection laws")
Let E and B denote specific binary strings.
As binary strings, E and B can be interpreted as programs (decoded for example according to a rudimentary formalism like a Turing Machine or Unlimited Register Machine).
Assume that E is a program that when executed outputs B.
The string E contains any input it uses, i.e. let L(M) be a synonym for E, where M indicates the input of the program and L the code. L could refer to an intitial portion of the binary string E, and M the remainder of the string. (M for example could denote "mutations" and L, "laws"). Basically, everything E relies on as a starting state is contained within it. Any other memory that E modifies at run time is *not* considered part of E, and E does not modify itself. (E is "input-less" as described by G. Chaitin).
The following is according to elementary Bayesian probabability:
if prob(Pi(B)|Pn(E)) > prob(Pi(B)) then
prob(Pi(B) >= prob(Pi(B)|Pn(E))*prob(Pn(E))
IOW, assume that if natural selection has output B, then the probability of B containing intelligence is greater than with just blind chance. Then the probability that B is intelligent assuming we don't know *anything* about E or B is greater than or equal to the probability that B is intelligent assuming E contains natural selection laws *times* the prior probability that E contains natural selection laws.
So, for example, just pick some binary string B at random. Is it intelligent?. That's an example of intelligence occuring by blind chance. Now assume we know that B was generated by natural selection. In that case the probability of B being intelligent could conceivably be higher. But the chance of the thing that generated B containing natural selection has to be factored in. When you do that, you have greater chance of getting intelligence in B through blind chance.
PLEASE someone tell me you understand the above, and furthermore, you understand its significance. I tried this over in talk.origins, and not a single person over there had a clue.
Now, continuing on:
We have said that E and B are binary strings, and furthermore E is an input-less program that outputs B. According to G. Chaitin, E embodies a description of B. Therefore, a description of E cannot be smaller than the smallest description of B. Thus the smallest description of the natural selection laws and mutations which led to the biological world of today cannot be smaller than the smallest description of the biological world.
Furthermore, presumedly E describes itself as well. But it also describes B. So in essence the same description can be used for E and B. So in essence E and B are the same thing. So any time you have a set of conditions E that yields a specific outcome B, E and B are in effect the same thing.
(The following is just some informal ruminations.)
If something E0 caused E, then the same principle applies to E0. Any cause will directly equate in a meaningful sense to the thing it caused. Now, this is not to imply that something *must* have a cause merely because it has some property or the other (e.g. Pi). Rather, the above is relevant only assuming the thing in question *did* have a cause. If something (e.g. "God") has always existed then by definition it doesn't have a cause. Thus G might output E0, although G is a starting state, without cause. (But we know for example that the biological world has not existed forever and thus presumedly had a cause.)
PLEASE someone tell me you understand the above, and furthermore, you understand its significance. I tried this over in talk.origins, and not a single person over there had a clue.
FURTHERMORE, I was wondering if anybody knows who originally came up with all this. I may have put my own spin on it, but I first read about it on the web a few years ago. I have gone looking for it since without success.
---------------------------------------
(The following can be inferred from well-known work of G. Chaitin. I am listing it here for the sake of completeness, but the preceding can be understood without reference to it.)
The probability that E contains natural selection laws, assuming we don't know anything about E, i.e.,
prob(Pn(E)) =
1/2^len(n_min),
where len(n_min) is the number of bits in the shortest input-less program that outputs a string containing natural selection laws.
Furthermore,
prob(Pi(B)) (probability B is intelligent)
= 1/2^len(i_min),
where len(i_min) is the number of bits in the shortest input-less program that outputs a binary string that is intelligent.
Sid
[This message has been edited by sid, 04-24-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Dr Jack, posted 04-26-2004 5:46 AM sid has replied
 Message 22 by Sylas, posted 04-26-2004 7:09 PM sid has replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 2 of 45 (102372)
04-24-2004 4:57 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
I haven't a clue of what Sid is talking about, but I'll toss it into the "Intelligent Design" forum, in case the information theory egg-heads want to work it over.
Adminnemooseus
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-24-2004]

WHERE TO GO TO START A NEW TOPIC (For other than "Welcome, Visitors!", "Suggestions and Questions", "Practice Makes Perfect", and "Short Subjects")
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

  
sid
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 45 (102459)
04-24-2004 6:48 PM


quote:
I haven't a clue of what Sid is talking about
O.K. I'll speak more slowly:
Let
P(X)
denote
a
computable
predicate
.
.
.
Let me try another approach.
I essentially had two main points in my initial post. The first point seemed really obvious to me. It concerned the following Bayesian formulation:
prob(Pi(B)) >= prob(Pi(B)|Pn(E))*prob(Pn(E))
Now the significance to evolution is as follows:
Evolutionists (e.g. Dawkins in *The Blind Watchmaker*) are very careful to say that evolution *does not* equate to blind chance. The reason for this is *not only* because of the small probability of getting life in this scenario. Rather, it is that it would imply that evolutionists have no meaningful information about the causes of life. In that case, evolution wouldn't even be a science. IOW it would be like saying, "We assume that some process E output B (the biological world), we just don't know anything about E whatsoever."
However, evolution does propose some knowledge about E, namely Pn(E) (e.g. "E used natural selection"). But when you factor in the odds of Pn(E) occuring by blind chance (which you must), you have a greater probability of getting intelligence (for example) by blind chance.
In essence, this is just another way of saying you don't get something for nothing.
Some background:
Suppose you pick some binary string B at random. It could happen for example by mere chance that B is the code for a highly accurate simulation of the biological world as it exists today. Or B could be nothing relevant at all, just a string of binary digits.
Assuming you have a meaningful definition of intelligence (Pi), What is the chance that B is intelligent, i.e. prob(Pi(B))? This is an example of intelligence occuring by blind chance.
Now if B has not always existed, then we assume it had a cause. Since B is defined as a binary string, we will assume that some program E output it. If B were not a binary string, we would still assume it had a specific cause, but computability theory tells us that B and its cause E could both be encoded as binary strings (representing programs for example).
(Although we don't really need an absolute measure of prob(Pi(B)), the equation is,
prob(Pi(B)) = 1/2^len(i_min),
where len(i_min) is the number of binary bits in the shortest program that outputs a binary string with intelligence. This equation tells us what the chance is that some arbitrary program will output a binary string with intelligence.)
In any case, we assume that E output B. Other than that, assume we know nothing about E or B. There are things we could be *told* about E which would *increase* the liklihood that B was intelligent (over what you would expect with blind chance). To use an extreme example, suppose someone told us that E was a program that always outputs an intelligent string. Then in that case, the chance of B being intelligent would be 100%.
Assume that Pn(E) is some piece of information we are told about E that increases the liklihood that B is intelligent over what you would expect with blind chance (For example Pn(E) might be "E contains natural selection laws" Or it could be something else.)
So we are stating that: prob(Pi(B)|Pn(E)) > prob(Pi(B)).
IOW - "The probability that B is intelligent, assuming we know that the program that output it has property Pn, is GREATER THAN the probability of B having intelligence by blind chance."
HOWEVER, even if the odds are greater assuming Pn(E), the fact is that Pn(E) has occured by blind chance. When you factor that consideration in you get the following:
prob(Pi(B)) >= prob(Pi(B)|Pn(E))*prob(Pn(E))
which is equivalent to,
prob(Pi(B)) >= prob(Pi(B) and Pn(E))
IOW - There is a greater probability of getting Pi(B) through blind chance than there is of getting Pi(B) *and* Pn(E) together. (This is according to standard Bayesian probability and I guess should be fairly obvious.)
-------------------------------
Now concerning my second point (in my original post):
My point was that the smallest description of anything that could cause the biological world *cannot be smaller* than the smallest possible description of the biological world. Furthermore, if E causes B then there is a meaningful sense in which E and B are the same thing (the latter aspect presented here was demonstrated less successfully.)
Let me make an emphatic point here:
If we assume that the biological world has a finite description, then we must assume that a finite mechanism could have created it. To use a simple-minded example, if B is some astronomically large binary string encoding the most accurate simulation conceiveable of the biological world, then here is the pseudocode for a program that could have created it: "output B".
This is such a self-evident truism that it seems incredible how it could have ever eluded the comprehension of say, a Bill Dembski. But Dembski, certainly in his earlier work, would make unqualified assertions about mechanisms not being able to design things, or not being able to create life or intelligence or whatever. In subsequent work of his, Dembski is always careful to qualify such assertions (e.g. "any proposed natural mechanism", etc.) without to my knowledge ever explicitly admitting the obvious, i.e. mechanisms *can* design things, etc.
Which brings us to evolution. Assume we model evolution as a set of mutations M and some set of rudimentary laws L that govern which mutations get accepted, rejected whatever (where both L and M can also be imagined as potentially encoded together in a program E.) There is no reason to assume that such a mechanism couldn't produce life. Someone might object that L is too simple to create life. However, the fact remains that M is random, and as such it can be *anything*, including an extremely unlikely string that together with L results in life as we know it. For example, suppose L equated to, "just flip every 0 in M to 1 and every 1 to 0". There is still obviously a value for M that will result in the biological world. (Note: I am assuming for example, that since mutations are random, you could hypothetically have, say 10^30 or so mutations happen overnight for no apparent reason resulting in the biological world.) It all comes down to, given L, how unlikely is a string of mutations that will result in the biological world as we know it? (The first point in this post, concerning Bayesian probability, answered that question indirectly.) If L is small enough, getting an M that results in the biological world would be tantamount to divine creation, i.e. an extremely unlikely event. However, the larger, more complex (and more "intelligent") L becomes the closer you approach L being considered an act of divine creation.
In any case, if B is the biological world today, then there is a set of laws L and a mutation string M that together will generate B, i.e. L(M) -> B (where -> signifies output not inference). Or, if we treat L and M as encoded in a program E, then E->B. According to algorithmic information theory E is a description of B. Therefore, E cannot be smaller than the smallest description of B. Furthermore, (and the following is proved by others) the smallest description of E cannot be smaller than the smallest description of B. So the smallest description of the mutations and laws that resulted in biological world cannot be smaller for example than the code of the most accurate concievable simulation of the biological world.
Another assertion was made about E and B, namely that E and B were virtually the same thing. The argument I gave for this was less successul. It was a claim made by whoever came up with all this first, and I have been working from memory. So if anybody is familiar with these ideas, knows who came up with it, or at least comprehends it (and why that's so difficult I'm not clear) I would appreciate hearing from you.
[This message has been edited by sid, 04-24-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2004 10:44 AM sid has replied

  
sid
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 45 (102646)
04-25-2004 8:23 PM


I think it is ridiculous that my post would not elicit one meaningful reply.
Even the forum administrator is ignorant of something as basic as algorithmic information theory.
This forum is a complete joke - an army of uninformed dilettantes, and arm-chair philosophers.

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 9:07 PM sid has not replied
 Message 7 by crashfrog, posted 04-26-2004 3:05 AM sid has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 45 (102655)
04-25-2004 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by sid
04-25-2004 8:23 PM


or perhaps you are not able to explain it. you don't define half your terms and assume a level of familiarity that is not existant.
lose the pseudo formula stuff and spell it out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sid, posted 04-25-2004 8:23 PM sid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-26-2004 2:34 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 6 of 45 (102723)
04-26-2004 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
04-25-2004 9:07 PM


Sid vs. Brad in a Great Debate?
See subtitle.
Moose
ps by edit: To sid - If you feel so high and mighty, we could have one of the scientists here post a message containing highly technical jargon, and see what sense you can make of it.
And yes, I'm the non-admin mode of Adminnemooseus. While I (MM) keep real calm, AM is known to sometimes be substantually cranky.
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 04-26-2004]

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 04-25-2004 9:07 PM RAZD has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 7 of 45 (102733)
04-26-2004 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by sid
04-25-2004 8:23 PM


This forum is a complete joke - an army of uninformed dilettantes, and arm-chair philosophers.
Yeah, dude, it's called "the internet." Maybe the last time you used it was when you had to write your own TCP stack to get on, but these days, they let everybody in. Sorry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by sid, posted 04-25-2004 8:23 PM sid has not replied

  
sid
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 45 (102735)
04-26-2004 3:13 AM


(RAZD wrote)
quote:
or perhaps you are not able to explain it. you don't define half your terms and assume a level of familiarity that is not existant.
lose the pseudo formula stuff and spell it out.
O.K., I'll lose the formula stuff (as best I can).
(Incidentally *all* the terms (Pn,Pi,L,M,E,B) were defined in the first post and each of those definitions was *repeated* at some point in my second post.)
Point#1:
Evolutionists don't say that relevant attributes of the biological world (e.g. intelligence) happened by blind chance. If they did, evolution would be worthless as a scientific theory as it wouldn't explain anything. Rather, evolution says that certain attributes of any mechanism E that created the biological world *increase* the liklihood of things like intelligence emerging over what you would expect with blind chance. (Foremost of these attributes would be "natural selection" - Pn.) HOWEVER, from elementary probability theory, we know that when you factor in the probability of Pn(E) occuring by blind chance (which you must) you have a greater probability of getting intelligence (for example) by blind chance.
According to elementary probability,
for all X,Y prob(X) >= prob(X and Y)
Therefore,
prob(Pi(B)) >= prob(Pi(B) and Pn(E)).
IOW,
You have a greater probability of getting intelligence through blind chance, than intelligence *AND* a natural selection mechanism through blind chance. This is true regardless of whether intelligence is more likely *assuming the existance* of natural selection (i.e. we still haven't explained where natural selection came from.)
(Skip this paragraph if you want, as it has more formulas, and go directly to point #2, but there was an additional comment I wanted to make: Some would say that natural selection isn't some additional principle that needs to be coded or described as an attribute of a mechanism. Rather, they would say that it is an intrinsic attribute of competition in the natural world. For example, no additional principle needs to be described explaining why if an eye comes into existance it is an advantage. In other words, in the formula L(M)->B, completely remove L, so all you have is M->B. But M is just random mutations, and once again, your back to B happening by blind chance.)
Point #2:
Any time you have a completely stated set of conditions E that causes a specific outcome B, then E is really a description of B as well. Thus in any complete specification E of the mutations and laws that would generate the biological world B, E would be a description of B as well, and thus could not be smaller than the smallest description of the biological world. There is a further sense in which it can be shown that E and B are in effect the same thing.
Basically points 1 and 2 deal with the question, "Well if X caused Y where did X come from?", and stated informally they both imply that you don't get something for nothing. Thus, in some sense I guess they state the obvious. Point 1 addresses the relative probability of X to Y, and Point 2 addresses the relative size of X to Y, plus the idea of the *identity* of X relative to Y.
To appreciate the above requires accepting the idea that the biological world needn't have been created directly by God, but instead could have been be caused by something finite, i.e. a mechanism.
I know that evolutionists will say the arguments I present are vacuous. Does anybody disagree with that? As I've stated, these ideas didn't originate with me, and I was hoping in a forum of this size, someone might have come across them before, and could also perhaps provide me a reference.
[This message has been edited by sid, 04-26-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 04-26-2004 3:32 AM sid has replied
 Message 10 by Gary, posted 04-26-2004 3:46 AM sid has replied
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-26-2004 4:07 AM sid has replied
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 04-26-2004 10:02 AM sid has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 9 of 45 (102736)
04-26-2004 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sid
04-26-2004 3:13 AM


Let me have a go
I'm not a mathematician so this will be, at best, amateur.
Your first point rests upon:
According to elementary probability,
for all X,Y prob(X) >= prob(X and Y)
I need to translate this into a concrete example. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You have X and Y as being to events that can have separate probabilities in the above. Let's say they are me winning the pretty big Saturday lottery here and the really big Friday lottery.
So the chances of me winning one of them (either) is less than the chance of me winning both. That makes sense to me.
However, what I think you are saying is that the chance of me winning the Saturday lottery by just randomly picking numbers is P(X) and the chance of me winning the same lottery by fixing the number generation machine is P(Y). Thus the chance of me winning the lottery is not the chance of X and Y but the chance of X or Y. The chance of one or the other is greater than the chance of either one alone.
If random mutation and natural selection has a probability of producing some result then the probability of either RM&NS producting the result or blind chance is greater than one alone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 3:13 AM sid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 4:27 AM NosyNed has replied

  
Gary
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 45 (102740)
04-26-2004 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sid
04-26-2004 3:13 AM


I think I might get what you are saying.
A common argument made by creationists is that there is absolutely no chance of something complicated to have been formed through evolution, such as a human eye or an enzyme, or, in your posts, intelligence. Are you saying that it is similarly improbable for a mechanism for natural selection to form by itself when life was just beginning to form through the process of abiogenesis?
Natural selection doesn't need some sort of nebulous mechanism made by a Creator to work. Among the first polypeptide chains extant during abiogenesis, natural selection favored the ones that could reproduce. Out of millions of chains, only a few made new chains because all the others could not copy themselves. Billions of years later, animals undergo a similar form of natural selection - only fast gazelles can survive long enough to reproduce before a predator eats them, for example. This process is not random but that doesn't mean that it is evidence for intelligent design.
If I am going in a completely wrong direction, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 3:13 AM sid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 4:49 AM Gary has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 11 of 45 (102744)
04-26-2004 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sid
04-26-2004 3:13 AM


I think I've found the error - although the argument is very unclear due to the excessive use of jargon and unnecessary complications.
Essentially you take a collection of strings - some generated by natural selection and some generated by pure chance. Some of these strings have property i which is favoured by selection.
Pi(X) then is the probability that a string taken AT RANDOM from this collectionhas property i AND THAT is what you are calling the probability of getting a string with property i by pure chance.
But that is incorrect - because you have included the strings generated by natural selection. What you actually want is Pi(X|~n(X)) - the probability of a string having property i if it is NOT generated by natural selection.
For example if we have 1,000 strings. Of these 100 are generated by natural selection and 9 of those are "intelligent". One other string is "intelligent"
The probability of choosing a string from that collection that is "intelligent" is 0.01 (Pi(X))
The probability that the chosen string is generated by natural selection AND intelligent is 0.009 (LESS than 0.01)
The probability that a string is intelligent through pure chance is 0.00111111.... (1/900). (LESS than 0.009)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 3:13 AM sid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 3:43 PM PaulK has replied

  
sid
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 45 (102751)
04-26-2004 4:27 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
04-26-2004 3:32 AM


Re: Let me have a go
To use your example:
"chance of me winning the Saturday lottery by just randomly picking numbers is P(X)"
OK, I'm with you there. X is "you won the lottery".
"chance of me winning the same lottery by fixing the number generation machine is P(Y)"
No, P(Y) would be the chance of you being able to fix the lottery machine. The chance of you winning the lottery assuming you were able to fix the machine would be P(X|Y).
And presumedly, P(X|Y) > P(X).
However,
P(X) >= P(X and Y)
P(X) >= P(X|Y)*P(Y).
That is, assuming we don't know anything else about you, the chance of you winning the lottery is greater than you both managing to fix the machine *and* winning the lottery.
How many people are in a position to fix a lottery machine? 1 in a million?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 04-26-2004 3:32 AM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by NosyNed, posted 04-26-2004 11:11 AM sid has replied

  
sid
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 45 (102754)
04-26-2004 4:49 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Gary
04-26-2004 3:46 AM


Re: I think I might get what you are saying.
quote:
A common argument made by creationists is that there is absolutely no chance of something complicated to have been formed through evolution, such as a human eye or an enzyme, or, in your posts, intelligence
Actually, I didn't say that at all. What my overriding presumption is that, even if biological world wasn't created by God, it was nevertheless *caused* by something. In fact, I see no reason at all to say that God created B directly. If something like B is caused it implies a prexisting set of conditions occured that resulted in B coming into existance. In an evolutionary paradigm, The necessary preconditions that resulted in B (our current biological state) are presumedly a series of mutations and presumedly some set of laws dictating how you get from a bunch of mutations to B. I called this precondition for B, "E" (or alternatively L(M)). Now if we know E occured then the chance of B occuring are 100%, but you've just shifted the burden of explanation from B to E. This is related to the fact that a full description of E cannot be smaller than the smallest description of B. And if E always yields B (which it does since it include the specific mutations that occured), then a description of E is a description of B as well, E and B are equatable in some sense.
(I probably won't answer any more posts tonight but will pick it up tomorrow. Thank you very much for your time.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Gary, posted 04-26-2004 3:46 AM Gary has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Brad McFall, posted 04-26-2004 10:26 AM sid has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 14 of 45 (102760)
04-26-2004 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by sid
04-23-2004 3:55 AM


Natural selection is necessary: any system that has reproduction, finitre resources and limited mutation will exhibit it. Any biological system must meet these criteria.
So p(E)=1 and your p(B) >= p(B|E) * p(E) is actually just p(B)=p(B|E). Which, I hope you'll agree, demonstrates practically nothing.
Incidently, you'll find many of the people on this forum are geologists or biologists - the number with a good knowledge of probability is probably relatively small, and the number willing to read such a long post is smaller still. You'll also find evos will generally blank any probability arguments for the simple reason of having seen so many utterly stupid ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by sid, posted 04-23-2004 3:55 AM sid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 4:35 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 15 of 45 (102774)
04-26-2004 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by sid
04-26-2004 3:13 AM


adding my 2cents to the pile:
Evolutionists don't say that relevant attributes of the biological world (e.g. intelligence) happened by blind chance. If they did, evolution would be worthless as a scientific theory as it wouldn't explain anything. Rather, evolution says that certain attributes of any mechanism E that created the biological world *increase* the liklihood of things like intelligence emerging over what you would expect with blind chance.
False. Evolution says that things change over time. When push comes to shove, then those better able to mate pass on their genes to their offspring. Evolution cares not a gnats hiney what attribute increases that ability.
You have a greater probability of getting intelligence through blind chance, than intelligence *AND* a natural selection mechanism through blind chance.
Intelligence would be a result of selection and natural selection would be a mechanism of selection, thus the two cannot, with good logic, be considered similar elements. This is like saying you can't get a number and an addition operator in a formula.
Furthermore, evolution is not run by probability -- it is run by what actually happens: if what happened was a million to one shot, it still happened and what is in the real world is still the result.
Some would say that natural selection isn't some additional principle that needs to be coded or described as an attribute of a mechanism. Rather, they would say that it is an intrinsic attribute of competition in the natural world. For example, no additional principle needs to be described explaining why if an eye comes into existance it is an advantage.
This is just repeating your ignorance, imho, of the process of evolution.
Point #1 - based on a false precept and further invalidated by an ignorant conflation is therefore a totally false statement by definition.
Any time you have a completely stated set of conditions E that causes a specific outcome B, then E is really a description of B as well.
Nice sounding words, adding nothing. This also assumes that "B" is static and not subject to further change. As further change is the rule rather than the exception, being able to fully state "E" no longer defines "B" except by continuing to catalogue the changes in "B" so it becomes just an historical catalogue of "B" -- WOW (I can spell that backwards too).
Point #2 - pointless.
Basically points 1 and 2 deal with the question, "Well if X caused Y where did X come from?", and stated informally they both imply that you don't get something for nothing.
Nope. Jumping conclusions. One false statement and one empty statement don't add up to a hill of beans.
I know that evolutionists will say the arguments I present are vacuous. Does anybody disagree with that? As I've stated, these ideas didn't originate with me, and I was hoping in a forum of this size, someone might have come across them before, and could also perhaps provide me a reference.
Why single out evolutionists? If I had run across this before I wouldn't try to remember the source. Why do you need it?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by sid, posted 04-26-2004 3:13 AM sid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024