The Ever Present Problem of Atheism (HOF thread)

[shima]

>>So basically what you're saying is it just happened to be man. Now that might work for you, but I don't believe in evolution. I don't see how life can even come into existence in the first place without an intelligent designer, much less evolve into more complex forms.<<

Well, that you don't BELIEVE in evolution doesn't mean its not true. Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence speaking for it, which is more than can be said for most religious "creation" myths.

Science as yet doesn't understand how life can come about. Science is making progress, sure, but we are a long way from producing life ourselves. And even if we did, it wouldn't be PROOF that life on earth actually began that way, because it may be just one of many possibilities. It WOULD disprove the notion that life REQUIRES intelligent design.

Evolution has a lot of evidence for them, and again and again the mechanism of "mutation" and "natural selection" DO produce what some have described as "specified complexity" or "information". That this has certain religious implications, especially for christianity, is the main reason that the theory is opposed by some people. Strangely, these people do NOT oppose science itself, nor most of the other knowledge that science has gathered, but only those that prove that their literal interpretation of the bible cannot be correct.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Probability conditioned upon prior events is still probability. If man came to have the upper hand based purely upon the laws of probability, without any outside intervention, they why is man an outlier, statistically speaking?

For example, if man is in first place with regard to the ability to dominate this planet (either positively or negatively), then where's the second place species? Man, it seems is such an outlier statistically speaking that it brings Darwin's theory of evolution by random processes into doubt. I believe there's plenty of evidence to suggest we have evolved to where we are now. However, I don't admit that random processes can account for the statistical outlier called "man."

We have been to the moon. I would think the second place species would have at least discovered how to harness and exploit fire by now.

I love science. I've been a missile systems engineer and spacecraft engineer for much of my military career. I launch things into space. It's a blast

It is my study of math and science which confirms in my mind that there is a God, a universal first cause, an intelligent designer. The mathematical improbability that the outlier called "man" came to be an outlier without some other influence is as of yet unsatisfactorily explained by science. Opposable thumbs fails to convince.

Probability, even event conditioned, doesn't support the gap between first place (man) and a second place species.

God bless,

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Shima, I'm still reading your stuff. However, my office insists that I do some work now and then.

God bless,

 

[shima]

>>Probability conditioned upon prior events is still probability. If man came to have the upper hand based purely upon the laws of probability, without any outside intervention, they why is man an outlier, statistically speaking? <<

Because, given enough events, there are ALWAYS outliers. Yes, it could have been the dolfins, in which case we were NOT here talking about it.

>>For example, if man is in first place with regard to the ability to dominate this planet (either positively or negatively), then where's the second place species?<<

There is NO second place species at this point. It would be an amazing coincidence if TWO contious species would emerge at any given moment in time. The dominant species quickly alters the environment to ensure that the second one doesn't arise, if they take just that little bit longer. Given that we are talking about 8 million years of evolution, and a dominant position for less than 10,000 years, the chance that TWO species emerge at exactly the same time in opposite ends of this earth is remote to say the least.

>>We have been to the moon. I would think the second place species would have at least discovered how to harness and exploit fire by now.<<

No. It requires a great amount of evolution in the right direction to ensure this. Apes and monkeys lack the stimulating environment to do so, unless we put them in cages and mess around with their environment.

>>It is my study of math and science which confirms in my mind that there is a God, a universal first cause, an intelligent designer. The mathematical improbability that the outlier called "man" came to be an outlier without some other influence is as of yet unsatisfactorily explained by science. <<

Ofcourse, but these calculations assume that this EXACT organism must evolve into something contious. What you do NOT calculate is the chance that SOME organism can become dominant and contious. Its the same as the difference between calculating the chance of exactly ONE throw of 4D6 rolling 24 (1/1296) and the chance of rolling 24 at least ONCE given 10,000 dice rolls (99.96%). So, taking exactly ONE organism is the wrong approach, but taking the ENTIRE organic population and THEN calculating the odds of ONE outlier produces entirely different results.

>>Probability, even event conditioned, doesn't support the gap between first place (man) and a second place species.<<

The rise of the FIRST species rather spoils things for the second one. You are assuming that the arise of one dominant species will NOT alter the rise of a SECOND one. However, odds are that mankind has rather spoilt things for most other organisms because of our influence of the environment.

Besides, our own history is about 10,00 years old and only for the last few 100 years have we really been exploring this world. What are the odds of TWO species emerging at EXACTLY the same time (200 years or so) and EXACTLY the same evolutionary "depth" AND at opposite sides of the globe (so we would not have met them before they become dominant too). Given that our evolution took about 6-8 million years, these odds are rather small.

As you are well aware, one event is very little evidence either for or against a theory given that the arguement being used is CHANCE. We need MORE events (like life on other planets) to assertain what the chances of life evolving and intelligent life evolving may be.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Shima,

Because, given enough events, there are ALWAYS outliers. Yes, it could have been the dolfins, in which case we were NOT here talking about it.

Given enough events, the distribution fits the process. Pure random processes may have a normal distribution, for example. Extreme outliers, from my study of prob and stats, always have to have a cause. Random processes do not result in extreme outliers like the one called 'man'. Therefore, man's status as first place is no mere result of random variation, otherwise I would expect a distribution with the second place species as an outlier, but less than that of man. Where is the second place species? How come we can go to the moon and the second place species have not yet navigated its way across the Atlantic, or in the case of Dolphins, found its way toward exploring the land masses?

There is NO second place species at this point. It would be an amazing coincidence if TWO contious species would emerge at any given moment in time.

What do you suppose the statistical distribution is? Normal curve? Poisson curve? In all distributions that I am aware of, there should be a close second, unless there was some extreme outlier which has some other external influence that was not affecting the others. I believe man is an extreme outlier. All the evidence suggests this. Therefore, I conclude that there's some external influence which is the cause, which is not affecting the rest of the pack.

As I said, I'm trying to approach this methodically, given the tools of math and science which I've come to believe. Darwin's theory is based upon random variation. It should then match the laws of probability. Why the extreme outlier? I read "Beginnings" by my favority atheist, Isaac Asimov. He does a great job explaining evolution. However, his explanation lacks an answer as to why man is the quintessential extreme outlier when compared to all other animals on this planet.

Life finds away to adapt and overcome. Your theory that "man" as the first place species is keeping the chimpanzee at a distant second, for example, and not allowing the random variations to work its way forward is unconvincing. Compare man's dominance to the status of all species before man. Before man, was there an extreme outlier? Sure there was a dominant species, however, it doesn't seem that they were so dominant that they were clearly an extreme outlier. This is not the case with man. We're not like the best dinasour. We are much better equipped, more advanced, etc.

In short, there is no biological precedent compared to man in pre-human existence. Random variation would not have resulted in such an extreme outlier. Check all known probability density curves where random variation is the supposed influencing process. The gap between first and second is never great. An extreme outlier always indicates some other influence. Always. If I'm going to stick to what I learned in probability and stats, I must admit this conclusion.

God bless,

 

[shima]

>>Given enough events, the distribution fits the process. Pure random processes may have a normal distribution, for example. Extreme outliers, from my study of prob and stats, always have to have a cause. Random processes do not result in extreme outliers like the one called 'man'.<<

Even the normal distribution has outliers. The chance of some extremely LARGE number is NEVER zero and you know it.

>>In all distributions that I am aware of, there should be a close second, unless there was some extreme outlier which has some other external influence that was not affecting the others. <<

I have given some arguements why there doesn't have to be one. You are assuming a one-time target event for your distribution.

Now i'll give some MORE arguements:
But evolution works different. The evolutions NEVER stop. Intelligence for example is a self-propelling and self-evolving mechanism. The difference between us and apes is very small, but the most likely "big" difference is our SOCIAL STRUCTURE. Yes, apes have a social structure. But they DON'T have the sophisticated language we have. As such, we have developed the process of "learning from OTHER peoples experiences", something an ape cannot do because they don't have the nessecary TOOLS for it.

Thus, our "giant leap" towards number two is not ONLY because of evolution, but also of "social evolution" (for want of a better word). The main difference is SOCIETY, not biology. We have developed fire, the wheel, the pully, the crowbar etc because we have a system to STORE knowledge beyond the memory of a single individual. Therefore, discoveries by single people can be SHARED with others, and they can share it back.

Thus, it is most likely that there are very MANY seconds and thirds, but we are far ahead because of our social structure. Biologically, we are not that much ahead, given that monkeys have opposing thums as well. Dolphins are also not far behind, but they lack ARMS with which to make tools to CHALLENGE the environment.

You do not see those seconds and thirds as such, because they haven't build cities. They probably never will now, because they are at least 500,000 years away and we will most likely KILL them if they even showed so much as a hint in that direction.

 

[Flipper]

Dave:

Remember the neanderthals? They would probably be the closest we had to your second tier species. They're extinct now.

I would think the second place species would have at least discovered how to harness and exploit fire by now.

Forgive my facetiousness, but if dolphins are the second tier species, I can think of at least two very good reasons why they haven't discovered how to harness and exploit fire

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Yeah. Fire wouldn't be all that valuable to dolphins. Except for perhaps burning themselves free from our tuna netting.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Even the normal distribution has outliers. The chance of some extremely LARGE number is NEVER zero and you know it.

Man is no mere Gaussian curve outlier. He represents an extreme outlier. Gaussian distributions are continous distributions. That is, the probability density gradually declines to virtually impossible probabilities (virtually zero) in any given finite population. Man seems well beyond the range of impossible probabilities in the Gaussian distribution of all species if mere random variation is behind it all.

The #1 species in a Gaussian model, or any other continuous distribution that I am aware of should have a close second--another outlier but less so than man, but pretty darn close to man, both falling within the bell curve. Any Guassian outlier should be within predictable distributions. In the normal curve of biological species, man seems way outside the bell curve. Man's an off-the-chart, extreme outlier when compared to any species now, but even more telling, when compared to any species which has been known to exists. Can you give me evidence to the contrary? Is there some other clever animal out there than I'm not giving enough credit to? There have been many different dinasour species who have ruled the earth for much longer than man. But not one stood out like man has. Some had developed better survival mechanisms (like big sharp teeth and claws). Some also developed better societal mechanism (like hunting in packs). Yet they didn't pull ahead of the pack. Random variation would not allow such a thing, even when influenced by better societal mechanisms (also caused by random variation and so, also must have random distributions).

The evidence of pre-human existence seems to indicate there was always a close second. Until man.

God bless,

 

[shima]

>>In the normal curve of biological species, man seems way outside the bell curve. Man's an off-the-chart, extreme outlier when compared to any species now, but even more telling, when compared to any species which has been known to exists. <<

Could you give me an arguement WHY you think that man is an "off-the-chart" biological outlier? There is BIOLOGICALLY very little difference, except speech and intelligence. The combination of the two gives us our flourishing civilisation, but drop any one person in a jungle and he'd be hard pressed to survive.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Do you suppose our societal advantages are not as a result of our biological advantage? If all biological advantages can be attributed to merely random variation, than it should fit a Guassian curve, skewed or othewise.

Man is not the only animal who benefits from his society. Other animals work together as well for the benefit of the pack. However, how well these societal influences work are also caused by the benefit of random biological advantages. Therefore, these societal influences should also be characterized by a Guassian curve.

Drop any one of us in a jungle and we don't have a population large enough to study statistically. But the earth is a "jungle," with a bunch of animals on it. We have a large population of animals to help us understand the dynamics of the processes which dominate. Random variation is no doubt one of those processes. However, if it were the only process to influence biology and by cause-and-effect, society, then man would not be an extreme outlier. We have pre-human existence to compare to. There's no evidence from pre-human existence of an extreme outlier which even compares to the precedent of 'man.'

Why is man off the chart? I think our visit to the moon was a great example. If there's very little difference biologically betweem man and the #2 species, then why hasn't the #2 species build such societal advantages as to begin to have the upper hand on its environment comparable to man? Do you understand that societal processes and biological processes are not mutually exclusive processes. The random variation theory includes the theory that it, and it alone, is the cause of man's societal advantages. This seems unsupported by the laws of probability, however.

God bless,

 

[shima]

>>Do you suppose our societal advantages are not as a result of our biological advantage? <<

They are only partly caused by biological factors. You seem to forget that THIS society wasn't always that complex. The "cave-man" was also a society but much simpler. Its only because we developed language that our society was able to evolve.

>>If all biological advantages can be attributed to merely random variation, than it should fit a Guassian curve, skewed or othewise.<<

It probably WAS a gaussian curve, almost 100,000 years ago. But for the last 10,000 years, the environment made it possible to develop a society and that society evolved into THIS society. Most of our "outlier" advantages are because of what society has made possible, NOT because of what biology has made possible.

>>Man is not the only animal who benefits from his society. Other animals work together as well for the benefit of the pack. However, how well these societal influences work are also caused by the benefit of random biological advantages.<<

Man's society is the ONLY one to store knowledge and increase that store. This is because of language and the sharing of experience such that newborns are able to LEARN from the experience of their elders.

>>Therefore, these societal influences should also be characterized by a Guassian curve. <<

No. Our society is very different because of ONE biological advantage. We have a language, monkeys don't.

>>However, if it were the only process to influence biology and by cause-and-effect, society, then man would not be an extreme outlier. We have pre-human existence to compare to. There's no evidence from pre-human existence of an extreme outlier which even compares to the precedent of 'man.' <<

The difference, once again, is LANGUAGE. Our society is BASED on language, and because of that we are able to change our society based on lessons from the past. Language itself is a biological quality, but its the ONLY one that makes us really different.

>>If there's very little difference biologically betweem man and the #2 species, then why hasn't the #2 species build such societal advantages as to begin to have the upper hand on its environment comparable to man?<<

Because they haven't developed the nessecary language to do so. Language makes it possible to store knowledge and to pass experience from one person to another. It makes it possible to store knowledge outside of any one persons memory, and THAT makes all the difference, because a soietal memory can ADD to existing knowledge all those new experiences.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Shima,

They are only partly caused by biological factors. You seem to forget that THIS society wasn't always that complex. The "cave-man" was also a society but much simpler. Its only because we developed language that our society was able to evolve.

Our ability to develop language was the result of BIOLOGICAL FACTORS. So how could our societal advantage only be partly cause by biological factors?

Is it not the Darwin assertion that the reason man's society became so "lucky" was due to biological superiority? Isn't that biological superiority supposedly based solely upon random variation? If that's the case then it doesn't matter what the complexity of our societal advantages are, both biology and society have there source in random variation. Therefore, the prevailing process is random and so a Guassian distribution is still expected. What other factors are there that do not have random variation as their ultimate source, in the Darwin theory?

It probably WAS a gaussian curve, almost 100,000 years ago. But for the last 10,000 years, the environment made it possible to develop a society and that society evolved into THIS society. Most of our "outlier" advantages are because of what society has made possible, NOT because of what biology has made possible.

Is it your theory that our society is not a product or our biological advantages? Random + Random = Random. The combined Guassian curve which encompasses both the effect of our biology and the society with is the product of our biology must also be Guassian, no? If not, please explain why. Offer another probability distribution for "Society" with regard to all the animals on the planet and explain why this curve is not also Guassian if the societal advantages of all animals depend upon their biological capabilities.

Man's society is the ONLY one to store knowledge and increase that store. This is because of language and the sharing of experience such that newborns are able to LEARN from the experience of their elders.

I know. But tell me how this capability is not a result of random variation. If Darwin is correct, the only reason we can store information is due to random variation. Our societal advantage is #1. Where's #2? Why is there a distinct gap between #2 and #1 if the source of our advantage is random variation. A Guassian continuous distribution is expected and yet it seems to exist only with regard to all animals except man. We have man as the single extreme outlier with the rest way behind. This can only be due to an external influence which has helped man and no other animal. Our natural abilities are said to be as a result of no more than random variation, which fails to account for an extreme outlier. Society is not external force, as it is merely the result of advantageous biology, caused by random variation.

No. Our society is very different because of ONE biological advantage. We have a language, monkeys don't.

That one biological advantage is a single random variable. No matter how advantageous it is, it is still a result of random variation. When you combine one or more random variables, the sum is a random variable. The distribution of the combined affects of all these random variables must still be a Guassian distribution.

Let me take it methodically...
1) Random Variable #1 - All animals (including man), have biological traits which are more or less advantageous, as a result of random variation.

2) Random Variable #2 - All animals (including man) have developed societal mechanisms (e.g. hunt in packs), which are more or less advantageous, and which are a direct result of their biological capabilities, which have their source in random variation.

When you combine the above random variables, the sum is a random variable. The curve must still be Guassian. Why do all animals fall into the Guassian distribution except man? Why is man the extreme outlier? Why does pre-human evidence show that there was no extreme outlier like man? Conclusion: There must be another influence other than random variation which affects man only.

God bless,

 

[Gerald]

Ever notice how creationists can talk a blue streak when it comes to origins and probability and such, but when faced with something closer to the here and now (e.g. "Demonstrate that there exist volitional beings beyond human perception or instrumentation, who interact in a measureable way with the material world."), and they can't stop bobbing and weaving...

 

[shima]

>>Our ability to develop language was the result of BIOLOGICAL FACTORS. So how could our societal advantage only be partly cause by biological factors? <<

That is because our social advantage is expanding exponentially BY ITS OWN CAUSE. It is a positive feed-back loop towards itself, making its growth exponential.

>>Therefore, the prevailing process is random and so a Guassian distribution is still expected. <<

It IS expected, 500,00 years ago. If you compare our civilisation of 500,000 years ago with todays monkeys, you will notive very little superiority. However, our language has reinforced our society and from that moment on, the growth of society was exponential and its own cause.

Even if you look at civilisations between now and 10,000 years ago, you can see the exponential growth occuring in the advancement and complexity of our society. This growth isn't caused by "randomness" but by the application of language. Because our society was able to remember mistakes and successes, it was far easier to discover NEW things to add to the already existing knowledge. As more knowledge is gained, the rate of growth in knowledge increases. Today we gather much more knowledge and information than 10,000 years ago. There is NOTHING random about the growth of our society, other than that it needs language to do so.

>>Is it your theory that our society is not a product or our biological advantages? <<

It is not ONLY the result of randomness. Add a normal distribution to exponential growth, and you get exponential growth.

>>Why is there a distinct gap between #2 and #1 if the source of our advantage is random variation. <<

Because the source isn't random and the gap is NOT the result of randomness but exponential growth. The gap WAS random almost 500,000 years ago. But it is no longer.

>>1) Random Variable #1 - All animals (including man), have biological traits which are more or less advantageous, as a result of random variation.<<

True. We are BIOLOGICALLY speaking not that far "ahead" of the number 2.

>>2) Random Variable #2 - All animals (including man) have developed societal mechanisms (e.g. hunt in packs), which are more or less advantageous, and which are a direct result of their biological capabilities, which have their source in random variation. <<

Its not a random variable, but exponential growth due to the ability to remember OLD knowledge and the sharing of NEW knowledge.

When I combine the above two elements, the result is a HUGE gap due to the exponential growth of the complexity and knowledge of our society.

Conclusion: there is NOTHING to make it nessecary for an Intelligent Designer to exist, based on these arguements.

 

[PureX]

Shima,

That's a far too insightful response for the terrain. Cut it out! *wink*

 

[shima]

>>That's a far too insightful response for the terrain. Cut it out! *wink*<<

If he can't accept that he is wrong, then perhaps he should look at himself in the mirror first.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Flipper
One-eyed-Jack:



Not if we become extinct.

But we're not extinct now, are we?

It's not a very useful way at looking at things. There are, I feel, probabilities that can be attached to different events. When ice forms, does it "just happen", or is it because certain criteria were met in a specific environment?

So, in an environment of 100 degrees centigrade, the probability of ice forming is effectively zero.

Your "just happened" takes all sorts of possible configurations, reactions, and events over time and condenses them into one rather glib phrase. For example, selective pressures seem broadly directional and don't, I feel, fit comfortably within a "just happened" category.

I'm just looking at the end result, not the factors that may or may not have went into it, since these factors aren't repeatable and can't be verified for sure.

And you do believe in evolution (I suspect). Just not the kind that leads to new taxa.

I believe in adaptation, which is nothing more than an expression of genetic material that's been there all along (barring mutations, but survival of the fittest tends to weed those out). Animals adapt, but they don't get brand new genes to do it with -- which is what you'd need for evolution to be true. In any case, I'm well aware of the fact that every example of evolution in action has been nothing more than a case of adaptation.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by shima
>>So basically what you're saying is it just happened to be man. Now that might work for you, but I don't believe in evolution. I don't see how life can even come into existence in the first place without an intelligent designer, much less evolve into more complex forms.<<

Well, that you don't BELIEVE in evolution doesn't mean its not true.

And the fact that you do, doesn't mean that it is.

Evolution has a tremendous amount of evidence speaking for it, which is more than can be said for most religious "creation" myths.

It depends on how you look at the evidence. Take the fossil record for example... I see evidence of the great flood described in Genesis, and you see evidence of evolution (I suppose). But consider this -- the great majority of organisms found in the fossil record (clams, sponges, and the like) are still alive today, while extinct organisms only make up a very small fraction of it. The only thing the fossil record really proves is that a lot of things died and got covered with sediment.

Also, don't forget that the evidence can be misinterpreted. I can take a ferret, a civet cat, and a panther (based on their morphology) and show you how one evolved into the other, even though that's clearly not the case. Now if all these animals were extinct, such an assertion would be difficult to argue against.

Science as yet doesn't understand how life can come about. Science is making progress, sure, but we are a long way from producing life ourselves. And even if we did, it wouldn't be PROOF that life on earth actually began that way, because it may be just one of many possibilities. It WOULD disprove the notion that life REQUIRES intelligent design.

Really? Then what would that make man -- a force of nature? You can't have a scientist create something, and then turn around and say that proves intellligent design wasn't required. That's just ridiculous.

Evolution has a lot of evidence for them, and again and again the mechanism of "mutation" and "natural selection" DO produce what some have described as "specified complexity" or "information".

If you're so sure about that, then I'm sure you can come up with a few examples for our consideration.

That this has certain religious implications, especially for christianity, is the main reason that the theory is opposed by some people.

Or maybe it's just a stupid theory.

Strangely, these people do NOT oppose science itself, nor most of the other knowledge that science has gathered, but only those that prove that their literal interpretation of the bible cannot be correct.

Why should anyone oppose science? Truth isn't going to contradict itself. But at least you admit that evolution isn't science.

 

[shima]

>>And the fact that you do, doesn't mean that it is.<<

Quite true, this is why scientists rely on EVIDENCE rather than belief.

>>But consider this -- the great majority of organisms found in the fossil record (clams, sponges, and the like) are still alive today, while extinct organisms only make up a very small fraction of it.<<

Aux Contraire, mon ami. Almost 99.9% of all the species to ever walk the globe is extict today.

>>Also, don't forget that the evidence can be misinterpreted. I can take a ferret, a civet cat, and a panther (based on their morphology) and show you how one evolved into the other, even though that's clearly not the case. Now if all these animals were extinct, such an assertion would be difficult to argue against.<<

However, DNA evidence would clearly prove you wrong, since the diversity in DNA is way too great to account for it.

>>Really? Then what would that make man -- a force of nature? You can't have a scientist create something, and then turn around and say that proves intellligent design wasn't required. That's just ridiculous.<<

That is because, despite all the tinkering, the scientists still use NATURAL forces to do their job. Throwing together a mix of chemicals, having the right acidity, some electron sparks etc. These are forces of nature, and as such CAN and DO occur in nature. Therefore, while the exact circumstances can never be recovered, we do know what circumstances will produce life. And these circumstances can occur in nature.

>>If you're so sure about that, then I'm sure you can come up with a few examples for our consideration.<<

Genetic Algorithms, Langstons Ant, to name a few. Also, the bacterial evidence speaks highly of natural selection at work.

>>Or maybe it's just a stupid theory.<<

Which is no reason to presume its wrong, especially considdering the evidence.

>>Why should anyone oppose science? Truth isn't going to contradict itself. <<

Correct.

>>But at least you admit that evolution isn't science.<<

I'm sorry, but you must have misread my words. I never said evolution isn't science. Evolution IS science. Creationism however, is NOT science.