In a message dated 10/15/2000 5:22:55 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
DNAunion@aol.com writes:
> >Ccogan: No. I'm not implying that that one fact validates evolution. I'm
> pointing out that matter has nothing against being organized in complex
> ways.
>
> DNAunion: Actually it does: entropy. (Yes, localized decreases in entropy
> are possible, but only at the expense of equal or greater increases in
> entropy elsewhere: and the general rule is that the randomness and disorder
> of a system tends to increase naturally). The problem with your statement
> is
> that you incorrectly state that "matter has nothing against being organized
> in complex ways." This is wrong.
>
Nothing in the SLOT prevents matter becoming more organized. Sure, a local
decrease in entropy needs to be offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere
but does this apply to matter or to energy?
> >Ccogan: Thus, the question arises: Might not some small bits of it become
> complex through natural, material processes not involving design?
>
> DNAunion: Sure, matter can become *ordered* without design: the birth of
> stars, the spontaneous formation of vortices when water is let out of a
> drain, clouds forming from dispersed water droplets, etc. But these
> examples
> of order forming do not deal with specific complexity arising by purely
> natural means, and specified complexity is one of the main properties of
> all
> life.
>
So show how specified complexity cannot be formed by evolutionary pathways?
As Wesley has shown " Also, we can point out that Dembski considers natural
selection to simply be an element of the set of evolutionary algorithms".
So can evolutionary algorithms generate CSI ?
"(<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_explaining_csi.html>).
As such, it is just a bit glib to dismiss what we can learn
from the computational instances as having no application to
what we can know about natural selection. At least, it doesn't
make sense to do so if we take Dembski's definition of
"evolutionary algorithms" seriously.
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/19990913_csi_and_ec.html>
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=532248147>
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/dembski_ans.txt>
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/sc_resp_wre.html>
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/resp_wre_19991229.txt>
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/ae/dembski_wa/resp_wre_20000202.txt>
<http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=536978916>
<http://inia.cls.org/~welsberr/zgists/wre/papers/antiec.html>"
[...]
>
> >Ccogan: Only when selection is introduced as an integral aspect of what is
> being considered do we get limitations, and they depend on what kind of
> selection there is and how much of it there is.
>
> DNAunion: So selection is the "enemy" of the natural creation of
> high-degree
> complexity? Perhaps you could tell this to Darwinians.
>
Are you sure that this is what Ccogan actually said?
> >Ccogan: Here's the idea stated as a general principle:
>
> If the variations are within certain limits and are sufficiently nearly
> random or otherwise exhaustive of possibilities as time goes on, and if
> selection does not *prevent* the development of a particular degree and/or
> kind of complexity, then, given sufficient time, that particular degree
> and/or kind of complexity *will* occur, with nearly absolute certainty
> (approaching 1 as time approaches infinity).
>
> DNAunion: This sounds like a quote that should have references (we all need
> to be careful of plagiarism).
>
Are you suggesting that this was an example of plagiarism? Based on what
evidence?
[...]
> >Ccogan: In the real world, selection *does* severely limit what can be
> produced,
>
> DNAunion: I think that some/many/most evolutionists would disagree with the
> idea that selection *hinders* the creation of (high-degree) complexity.
>
Is that what Ccogan said?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 15 2000 - 20:52:07 EDT