>Bertvan:
>I find it hard to believe any random mutation might improve any delicate
>piece of machinery, much less a living organism, which is many times more
>complex than any humanly conceived machine. You wouldn't open up your
>computer and invite a monkey to rearrange the pieces, expecting a beneficial
>mutation. You suggest that "given enough time" one might occur. We aren't
>speaking of infinite time for the evolution of the biosphere. I believe
>Dembski's augment is that it is mathematically impossible for such
complexity
>to have occurred by chance in some four billion years.
Letting a monkey dig into your computer and "rearrange the pieces" is the
equivalent of letting someone switch the positions of your heart and
liver. This is gross manipulation of the body form and no biologist that
I've ever read claims this is the way evolution works. This is the
equivalent
of the creationists old battle cry: "I haven't seen any cats evolving into
dogs lately". The other point I'd like to make is that, while it's true that
humans are more complex than computers, we are also much more tolerant of
tinkering. We can lose a kidney and keep right on going. Scratch a hard
drive with a screwdriver and you have a non-functioning computer. We can
have anemia and still survive. Cut the computer's voltage by 5% and nothing
is going to work right. We are more complex but the computer is much more
delicate and the parameters for its survival are very narrow. It would be
very hard to find a random mutation that would improve a computer but the
situation is quite different for biological units.
>
>Bertvan:
>Science "proves" the existence of unseen forces by learning to predict their
>effects. Free will, creative intelligence, and choice are by definition
>unpredictable. Yet I get the impression you believe free will exists.
Certainly I seem to be able to make choices, free of coercion, sometimes.
Whether this reflects reality or not is an old philosophical argument. I
just act like I have free will and don't worry about whether I really do
or not.
>Ralph:
>>which may be bad news for some religions. Of course, this definition
>depends
>>hugely on your definition of "exists".
>
>Bertvan:
>It might also depend upon your definition of God. What if someone were to
>define God as the "creative intelligence of nature"? Supposedly if one were
>to pray (or meditate) one might hope to tune into this immaterial
>"intelligence". I didn't read the following web site too carefully, because
>I'm not looking for a religion. However if you were to acknowledge the
>existence of intelligence as a component of nature, would you call such a
>"God" supernatural?
>
>http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/origins-awarness.htm
If intelligence were proven to be a component of nature, then such
intelligence would be natural, not supernatural. I have never had
the impression that you believe your idea of cell intelligence is,
in any way, supernatural.
>Ralph:
>>Most mutations are random? What, is your cell intelligence laying down
>>on the job? :) Yes, I think nature has done a marvelous job. But it seems
>>to me that if a creative intelligence was guiding our mutational changes,
>>we'd be a lot better functioning creatures than we are now and it wouldn't
>>have taken so long, either. Why don't the good, working, improvements
>>come along faster? This cell intelligence seems to be a real slug-a-bed.
>
>Bertvan:
>You keep insisting that nature should do a better job. Not easily
>impressed, are you? Organism often do manage to keep functioning in spite of
>harmful (random) mutations, but you seem to demand 100 %. Are you expecting
>perfection or merely "better" intelligence to be a part of nature? Perhaps
>the "good, working improvements" come along at the right speed to maintain a
>healthy biosphere. I don't pretend to know.
No, I'm not demanding 100% or perfection (as compared to what?). But I am not
so foolish as to believe that our bodies and various sense organs are the
best that nature can do. A cursory glance around the animal kingdom will
show many better eyes, ears, noses, etc. Aren't you the one who keeps saying
we might be overrating our intelligence? :) By the way, I think you are
stretching a point with your "harmful (random) mutations". Trying to define
random as harmful comes under the heading of propaganda.
>Bertvan:
>So you see only two alternatives - chance or pre planned? What if the
>organism began spending a lot of time up-right? It would take too much
>intelligence for nature to determine that a better pelvis might come in
handy.
Well, how much intelligence would it take? We assume the organism has
not previously spent a lot of time upright. So the intelligence has to
know that a redesigned pelvis will help the new upright stance. It has
to know what sort of redesign will be most beneficial. It has to know
how to cause the organism to redesign itself. Finally, it has to know,
before it makes the change, that this change will really be long-term
beneficial and not a liability. Also, it has to communicate its changes
to other, similar, organisms to increase the likelihood that the new
changes will be retained in the general population. I don't know if
this qualifies as "too much intelligence", but it's a lot.
>Bertvan:
>Do you consider human consciousness to be the epitome of intelligence?
>Surely the intelligence of our own bodies can do many things our conscious
>minds can't, such as maintaining an immune system, body temperature, etc.
>I'm skeptical that we even know how to measure human intelligence. Some
>people are convinced that those who disagree with them are pretty stupid,
>regardless of their IQ. (I don't think ID critics suggest Dembski has a low
>IQ - rather they accuse him of being stupid.)
Yes, all animals possess a "reptilian brain" that monitors their vital
functions and keeps their hearts beating, etc. Besides, we can affect
many of these things. Just reading about the Florida fiasco invariably
raises my body temperature! :)
Have a good weekend.
ralph
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 03 2000 - 03:07:30 EST