"The Red Corvette" problem -- a disconnect in view points

by AlmostAtheist 27 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>But can new functions self-generate? Can the programming itself, not just its parameter values, evolve?

  There was a First Cause -- Bill Gates! ;-)

  You're right of course, somebody had to program the "evolver" and the original "genes" that would be subject to mutation. If abiogenesis is true, the genes themselves had to come about without an intelligent programmer. The difference sounds a little like the difference between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution". To me, there IS no difference. But to others, there is a clear distinction.

  Dave
• 

  Narkissos

  I apologise in advance for stating the obvious: we approach reality, of necessity, from within human language (and linguistically-informed human consciousness). Our approach is bound to be metaphorical and anthropomorphic.

  When we describe "living organisms" as "machines," and discuss their "intelligent design" or the lack thereof, we are (consciously or not) using a designer's metaphor -- in a sense, the question itself contains and implies the answer; it's the homo faber speaking within the homo sapiens: wherever welook through those eyes we will see craftmanship and design. Even in the detailed forms of the clouds, or waves, or mountains, or riverbeds, which we know are the result of chance and necessity (aka physical "laws," using a social metaphor this time).

  I personally prefer another (although equally anthropomorphic and debatable) metaphor by which I identify subjectively (rather than objectively) with the structures I perceive. Call it cognitive animism or cognitive empathy if you will, to me it simply makes much more sense. Wherever I see a "structure" which is not "man-made" I'd rather approach it as something similar to myself than as something similar to my works. Hence I will ascribe it, analogically, a kind of "will" -- a "will" toexist, to subsist, to differentiate, to adapt and to replicate that exceeds and transcends the similar "will" of any of its components (just as my will to exist overrules the "will" of any of my body cells). This is very intuitive referring to what we are used to call "sentient animals," but it is not such a big stretch to extend it to vegetables and single-cell organisms -- ascribing them a sort of "self" which is responsible for their self-organisation and adaptation (even through mutation) is much less farfetched, to me, than describing them objectively as "made" (by either a god or some personified "chance").

  This will not prove anything to someone who describes living beings as mere objects susceptible to be designed. But to me it makes biodiversity, and evolution much more understandable. And, in a sense, loveable.
• 

  DanTheMan

  I haven't studied abiogenesis in much detail (I haven't really studied much of anything in detail, ADD ya know), but to use the fact that scientists have not been able to create life from non-living matter as "proof" of God's existence is just so weak.

  What if next week a scientist working on this problem makes a breakthrough and does produce a living, replicating cell entirely from non-living matter? Will the creationist pack it in at that point, saying in effect "well, I was so sure that the God-of-the-gaps-argument of abiogenesis was rock-solid, but I guess I was wrong"?

  Well of course it wasn't rock solid, the gaps are always closing. But there will always be more gaps, I don't think that humans will ever fully comprehend life and the universe we inhabit, so believers who feel that gaps in knowledge are satisfactory evidence of God's existence will always have something to go on. But they build house after house on sand.
• 

  proplog2

  The brain is an "evolutionary" space. The rules of the game are the same for the flipping and flopping of our wet switches as they are for information "out" there in the real world. The brain runs its own evolutionary experiements and comes up with likely simulations. But the real world always has veto power in the form of practicality. The brain can come up with new rules but if they don't work in application to something in the physical world it is usually discarded or filed under "fantasy".

  The very idea of information processing, which we are familiar with in our own minds, is contradictory to the definition of God. God doesn't need to "ratiocinate". He doesn't need to "experiment" in his "mind". And since the mind is a computational space for processing information God has no need for a mind. He (IT) is mindless. So to say that God designed something is to suggest that he did something in his mind which could influence something outside of his mind. But he has no mind.

  One of the problems is that most people don't understand that creativity is not in your mind. Creativity is the result of the interaction between your little neuronal universe and the rest of the universe. If you don't have a good model of the world around you then you aren't going to come up with anything that works in the world around you.

  Minds/brains are re-active. They emerge from the ectoderm of the blastula in the first few days after fertilization. They are part of the outer protective boundary function and as such they speed up re-action. Noccipetion is the beginning of pain which is the beginning of "thought".
• 

  jaguarbass

  Dave, I think you need to go back to the drawing board and take the evoluionist with you. Not that I belive in Creation. But creation takes a litlle less faith to accept than evolution and these days I'm pretty low on faith.

  I think the confusion comes from we dont really know where we came form as the creator or creators arent talking to Fox News these days.

  There are intelligent people who believe in evolution and there are intelligent people who belive in creation. But they are not considered intelligent because of their belive in either issue. They are considered intelligent for their understanding of something else.

  Because so far nobody can explain life and where we came from.

  Got to go to work now.
• 

  Hortensia

  Here's the problem: "The problem, he said, is that if you are a true atheist, you MUST believe that a red Corvette could simply form out of nothing. "

  That's your definition of atheist, honey. It isn't mine. I'm an atheist who doesn't have to believe something just because you think it is logical.
• 

  hooberus

  A few comments:

  Abiogenesis -- if it occurred, and there's no proof that it did -- would not have produced a corvette, or any biological equivalent. It would have produced something that we wouldn't today classify as life. It would have been a rudimentary replicating system. The equivalent of producing a well-rounded stick, as opposed to a sports car. If you came upon a stick that was pretty round and rolled pretty well, you might conclude it was a manufactured dowel rod. Or you might conclude it happened by chance. It wouldn't be such a spectacular find that you'd be all that awfully impressed either way.

  I disagree with the phrase "the equivalent of producing a well-rounded stick, as opposed to a sports car", as it underestimates the complexity required of life.

  Once this replicator came into being, natural selection would have allowed it to grow and evolve into higher forms.

  It not often realized that even if a self-replicating system did somehow once come into being, that any sustained life would not necessarily be a likely result. Things such as hostile environmental factors, destructive reactions, etc, make rapid "extinction" probably a far more likely result for the emergent "life" and/or any small descendent population. The saying by some that "all it takes is for life to form once", overlooks many things.

  Every chance change to the "children" of the replicator would confer greater or lesser survivability on those children. The ones that "survived" (again, we're not talking life, so these are conceptual terms) would have been able to replicate more, and so pass on those traits to their children.

  But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes either confer no survivability change* or a lesser survivability? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the very,very rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and degeneration to extinction of this primitive life. *According to Cornell professor Sanford even most "neutral" changes even today are not really truely neutral but actually slightly deleterious. For more information see: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3028 Also see "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" and "The Biotic Message" both available from http://www.creationresearch.org
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Because so far nobody can explain life and where we came from.

  Dawkins gives a reasonable attempt if you read his books
• 

  hooberus

  Every chance change to the "children" of the replicator would confer greater or lesser survivability on those children. The ones that "survived" (again, we're not talking life, so these are conceptual terms) would have been able to replicate more, and so pass on those traits to their children.

  But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes either confer no survivability change* or a lesser survivability? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the very,very rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and degeneration to extinction of this primitive life.

  Edited to: But what if the overwhelming number of possible changes confer either no informational level change* or else a reduction in the genomic information level ? In such a likely situation "natural selection" [even if aided with the rare additon of a beneficial mutation], would then only slow the inevitable loss of information and ultimate degeneration of life.

  for how even "beneficial" mutations can cause a reduction in information content see: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/bact_resist.htm http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp *According to Cornell professor Sanford even most "neutral" changes even today are not really truely neutral but actually slightly informationally deleterious. "Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome" available from http://www.creationresearch.org
• 

  AlmostAtheist

  >>It not often realized that even if a self-replicating system did somehow once come into being, that any sustained life would not necessarily be a likely result. Things such as hostile environmental factors, destructive reactions, etc, make rapid "extinction" probably a far more likely result for the emergent "life" and/or any small descendent population. The saying by some that "all it takes is for life to form once", overlooks many things.

  We haven't been able to recreate the event (or CREATE it, to avoid assuming it ever happened in the first place), so it's impossible to say whether the self-assembled replicators would be hardy or not. It stands to reason that an environment that allowed for their creation would not be one hostile to their continued existence, but it's only "reasoning" at this point. There's no proof.

  It might be better to say "all it takes is for life to take hold once". By nature, a self-replicator would .. well,.. self-replicate. So it short order, assuming it survived those first few moments, it would have created a population of children, that would also create a population of children. There's no reason to assume it worked the first time, nor to assume that it only worked once.

  That some or even most replication errors would be detrimental to survival is irrelevant, as that would lead to the error-ridden children "dying", or at least not replicating as well. It would be the general population that would sustain the growth, and the few serendipitous "good errors" that would move them toward higher life.

  If it happened at all... ;-)

  Dave, great-great-great[...]-great grandson of a self-replicator