Home | Community | Message Board
You are not signed in.
Sign In New Account
Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

Jump to first unread post Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9356832 -

"Nay, that I am spared, O Queen,"  "The servant of the stars
marks not the smaller light of woman's eyes, and therein is he happy!"


--------------------
Wave.
'And for this reason repentance (metanoia) is an elevating means. For he who feels impatience with the circunstances in which he finds himself, devises means of escape.
  Now the chief thing in purification is the will. For then both deeds and words lend a helping hand. But, when the will is absent, the whole purificatory discipline of initiation is...'

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9356894 -

deCypher said:
Diaboleros said:
Mutations being random goes against everything science stands for.


What the hell?  This in no way follows.  There are plenty of random events in science; just look at radioactive decay or at probability waveforms in quantum mechanics.



They only seem to be random because the underlying cause hasn't been discovered yet. But like I said, this is the basic assumption of science, that there is always an underlying cause. Random is nothing but an illusion created by our ignorance.

On top of that, not only is it already obvious that randomness doesn't exist, it has already been scientifically verified that evolution is not caused by random mutation. Read the article I provided. Nonetheless, even when scientific evidence is provided, this urban legend will persist because people are proud of their beliefs, no matter how unlogical they may seem.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9356965 -

Diaboleros said:
They only seem to be random because the underlying cause hasn't been discovered yet.


Possibly true.  Or maybe everything's random; it's just that our human minds attempt to impose an illusory order onto the fundamental chaos.  The point is that we can't say for certain either way.

Quote:
But like I said, this is the basic assumption of science, that there is always an underlying cause.


I believe you're mistaken.  Science assumes nothing; the whole point of the scientific method is to develop a model of reality that fits past observations and allows us to make successful predictions in the future.  An underlying cause has nothing to do with it--if we observe apparently random phenomena, science is fine with accepting this until a pattern is found.

Quote:
Random is nothing but an illusion created by our ignorance.


Again, this is a wholly unjustified assumption.  Regardless, however, the fact remains that in our current state of knowledge, mutations are essentially random.  (Random in the sense that we can't find a pattern, to be sure, but random nonetheless).  Can you predict when the next gamma ray will strike a strain of DNA and alter the structure?  No, and in fact even if you knew the positions of every particle in the Universe we still would not be able to predict when this would happen (see Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle).

Quote:
it has already been scientifically verified that evolution is not caused by random mutation.


Interesting article.  You might be correct in that random mutation is not the dominant factor in spurring genetic change, but this does not imply that evolution is not caused by random mutation--it still plays a role, albeit fairly small.

Edit: Apparently Shapiro's view is not held by most microbiologists as he attempts to support a radical theory halfway in between evolution and creationism (the "third" way).  An orthodox interpretation of evolution still holds that mutation is the accepted mechanism by which natural selection acts.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357128 -

Science is the search to predict. Randomness is unpredictable. Meaning, randomness is not an explanation science is looking for. Using randomness to explain unexplainable phenomena is like using God to explain unexplainable phenomena.

Everything is predictable, nothing is random. Including evolution. Believing in randomness is like believing in fairies.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357146 -

Belief in order is like belief in Santa Claus.

Read up on Discordianism.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357157 -

Yes indeed, but the belief in order is what science is based on. So if you want to belief in science, you'll be forced to assume this belief. That's why I said, that believing in randomness goes against the core belief that science is based on... those two beliefs contradict eachother, you can't believe in science AND belief in randomness without contradicting yourself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357164 -

Again, this is a faulty understanding of the scientific method.

Order is not a presupposition of science.  If this were true, radioactive decay would have to fall into the realm of philosophy.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357180 -

Like I said before, we only perceive radioactive decay to be random because we haven't found the underlying causes yet.

But, ok, you seem to honestly believe such a thing as randomness exists? Please explain to me how any event could be random? How any event could exist without any prior cause?

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357234 -

Random does not mean acausal, it means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  The mutation of DNA is caused by errors in replication OR damage from environmental elements.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/archive/sloozeworm/mutationbg.html

The fact that we have identified the cause in no way indicates that this mutation is predictable.  This is what is meant by "random mutation."  The errors in replication occur unpredictably, as does damage from environmental elements.

Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357266 -

randomness is not meant to explain evolution.
evolution is just how to understand the history of forms changing.
most of heritable mutation causes death
Sexual reproduction especially egg cell and sperm cell production is not the same as protazoan chromosomal response to environmental conditions.

Microbiologist James A. Shapiro of the University of Chicago is not telling us something relavent to evolution.

as far as completing the story of how species, over millions of years, evolved yielding the species that we now share this planet with, we use the term random WRT mutation, to save the trouble (I am sure some people would be thrilled to attempt to reconstruct a fascimile of all cosmic rays that ever radiated on this planet).

working out the "randomness" of cosmic rays affecting the germ plasm of all creatures involves working out the positions in which they stood at all moments throughout their lives.

I am not saying that degree of accuracy will never be possible; it would be strange to declare that it is a reasonable task.

I don't even know how to plot the entire history of my own testicles; let alone the source and frequency of all cosmic rays that have disturbed the planet's path through the past million years.

when scientists ask questions and make theories, reasonableness, doableness, testableness figure largely in what they do.

Note Shapiro's work is entirely speculative, the article referenced is a review of other people's work, and a reattribution of other peoples' findings to support his little idea.

He especially confuses the kind of genetic engineering that does occur in bacteria, with the changes that occur during differentiationand growth, in which "enabled" codons are re-configured by environmental conditions (i.e. how a blastula grows from a dividing cell and into a human child...)

some genetic bacterial adaptation is not evolution, and some is, but this is not intelligent adaptation - it is effectively random, i.e. in a small culture of bacteria (a million cells) thousands of changes may occur due to teh Shapiro effect, and one might produce the next million cells while the rest die.

he is merely re-introducing known "random" mechanisms.

I hate that kind of fake science and popularization.


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9357490 -

Veritas said:
Think of it as a car accident: we know that accidents will occur, and we know how they will occur, but we don't know WHEN they will occur.  This makes them random, yet not acausal. 


Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.  Even when they will occur. It's perfectly predictable. But the accumulation of all possible data is not yet possible, that doesn't make the events random nonetheless. It's simply nothing more than lack of data.

Give me one example of an event that exists, without any prior cause?

You'll never find an example to my answer, which is the proof that randomness doesn't exist. Because as soon as an event has a cause, it becomes predictable, and not random.


Hence evolution is not random. Random is not an explanation. Random is just a word for mechanics not yet discovered because of the lack of data.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357584 -

Diaboleros said:
.... that doesn't make the events random nonetheless. It's simply nothing more than lack of data.
.... Random is not an explanation. Random is just a word for mechanics not yet discovered because of the lack of data. 


data is not mechanics
randomness is even the essence of quantum mechanics
the probability of a sub atomic particle being in any place at any time.

Unfortunately for you,
having all the data, just like having all the money, is not an option.

nobody, no computer, no model (approaching mechanics)
has "All the data".

some arguments are just to make a disturbance.
of course I do not have even 1/10000000th of the data to suggest this, but I am aware of the probability of that mechanical likelihood.

I love mechanix
I tolerate data


--------------------
:brainfart: _ :finger:

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357586 -

As I said, random does not mean acausal.  Random means "having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective."  Car accidents are random, DNA mutation is random, weather is random, and so on.  We can analyze past data to attempt to predict future random events, but the prediction will be a guess & not a certainty. 

We could input data regarding car accidents & generate predictions as to where & when they will occur.  Does this mean that we can state with certainty that a VW will rear-end a Toyota at 11:15 a.m. on December 22nd at the stop sign at 24th and Lexington?  No.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357632 -

Diaboleros said:
Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.


:nonono:

Probability waveforms are fundamentally unpredictable.  If there is no precise location for an electron, then there is no way to predict a car accident with 100% certainty even if we had all the "data".


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: redgreenvines]
    #9357684 -

redgreenvines said:
randomness is even the essence of quantum mechanics
the probability of a sub atomic particle being in any place at any time.



Randomness is the essence of quantom mechanics? Eventho they use probability equations to predict the place of the sub atomic particles? Can't you see, how these sub atomic particles are completely not random, or they wouldn't be able to be predicted through probability equations?

You can keep claiming this and that is random, but at the same time, you will never be able to come up with an example of an event that does not have a prior cause. If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted. If something can be predicted, it is not random.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: deCypher]
    #9357694 -

deCypher said:
Diaboleros said:
Nothing is random. All car accidents can be predicted if you have all the possible data.


:nonono:

Probability waveforms are fundamentally unpredictable.  If there is no precise location for an electron, then there is no way to predict a car accident with 100% certainty even if we had all the "data".


Probability waveforms are unpredictable? Thats why they use probability equations to predict them? LOL. The electrons move in a predicted electron-cloud. They are everything but random.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357701 -

Fundamentally unpredictable in the sense that there is no specific location of an electron; instead, there is only the probability that the electron is in a particular area.

Thus, there is only a probability that a car crash will take place at such and such time, NOT a certain prediction.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Diaboleros]
    #9357715 -

Quote:
If something has a prior cause, it can be predicted.


No, this is incorrect.  With random events, we can identify the cause after the fact, and utilize probability to GUESS when it might reoccur.  This in no way changes the fact that the vent is "without pattern, purpose or objective."

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357734 -

Also, hard determinism is a fundamentally flawed theory in that cause and effect are mere illusions.

All we can ever observe is the constant conjunction of two spatiotemporally contiguous events; we say that A causes B if B has happened after A every time that we've observed A.  But this in no way guarantees that B will happen if A happens at some point in the future.

Cause and effect can only be applied in retrospect; there is no such thing as something causing something else.


--------------------
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Re: Do you think evolution is blind? [Re: Veritas]
    #9357843 -

You see random as something without purpose. But nothing has purpose, purpose is something we give to it as human beings.

I see random as something unpredictable. And afaik, everything can be predicted, this is the very basic assumption of science. Going against this claim is going against science itself.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |  [ show all ]

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Sporeworks.EU Spores for European Microscopy   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Myyco.com Isolated Cubensis Liquid Culture For Sale   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies

General Interest > Philosophy, Sociology & Psychology
Threaded Mode Threaded  Previous topic Previous  View all topics Index  Next topic Next 

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* change and the rapid evolution of humaninty...
( 1 2 3 all )		 Smack31 5,915 57 09/25/02 04:27 PM
by shii-tan
* Radical Evolution
( 1 2 all )		 exclusive58 3,201 22 04/30/06 07:01 PM
by HippyInASuit
* Evolution
( 1 2 3 4 all )		 SkorpivoMusterion 9,315 61 12/08/03 03:34 PM
by Anonymous
* evolution
( 1 2 all )		 Droz 4,835 29 10/02/01 12:29 PM
by dimethoxy
* evolution or creationism?
( 1 2 3 all )		 top 5,476 52 11/17/05 09:19 PM
by Moonshoe
* Personal Predictability
( 1 2 all )		 Swami 1,750 24 03/27/04 05:53 PM
by SpecialEd
* Miracle-blindness
( 1 2 3 all )		 gribochek 4,934 41 02/06/02 04:58 PM
by ArCh_TemPlaR
* Evolution and natural selection (philosophy) SeussA 811 4 03/08/05 09:33 AM
by redgreenvines

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
11,993 topic views. 0 members, 62 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2026 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.028 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.