“Intelligence,” OUT OF NOTHINGNESS!

[bennyboy]

This post lends further support to Esquilax' contention that people who don't accept evolution do so because they don't understand what evolution is. This Q'rannic dimwit has equated 'evolution' with 'chance' at least a dozen times in his dishonest, misleading, and wronger-than-wrong post.

For the 12th skajillionth time: Evolution is NOT a random process.

Boru

Hmmmm.

12 skajillion is a lot of times. But it still seems to me that mutation is random, at least as far as we are concerned.

[Cyberman]

However mutation filtered through natural selection - be it sexual, environmental, or whatever - is the very opposite of random.

[bennyboy]

However mutation filtered through natural selection - be it sexual, environmental, or whatever - is the very opposite of random.

I'm not sure what you mean by random. If you mean the universe is deterministic, and nothing is random, then I'd have to disagree that this is known or knowable-- and that some aspects of QM make this idea seem unlikely to be true.

I'd really like to know in what specific sense evolution is seen as not being random, without first requiring the acceptance of absolute physical determinism as a confirmed aspect of reality.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'd really like to know in what specific sense evolution is seen as not being random, without first requiring the acceptance of absolute physical determinism as a confirmed aspect of reality.

Evolution, in the sense of descent with modification, is a non-random process whereby beneficial traits are selected for. This is why camels have third eyelids and elephants don't have thin legs and bird claws. In other words, evolutionary traits are manifestly NOT selected for randomly, any more than you would install a fuel injection system on a bird feeder, just because one happened to be available.

Mutation is indeed random, but mutation, in and of itself, is not evolution.

Boru

[Chas]

"We know information comes only from intelligent source. When we see coded information in a DNA, the most logical thing to conclude, that too, has an intelligent source."


No, we don't know that. You do not know what information is and you misquote others to support your nonsense.

[JuliaL]

Evolution, in the sense of descent with modification, is a non-random process whereby beneficial traits are selected for.

Where a beneficial trait is defined as one causing an increased likelihood of reproduction of that trait. Which results in that trait being more persistent, prevalent and available for observation. In any case, the universe doesn't care what chemicals react or how. They just do. The observed uniformity of how atoms bond isn't indicative of an intelligent, personal God.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Evolution, in the sense of descent with modification, is a non-random process whereby beneficial traits are selected for.

Where a beneficial trait is defined as one causing an increased likelihood of reproduction of that trait. Which results in that trait being more persistent, prevalent and available for observation. In any case, the universe doesn't care what chemicals react or how. They just do. The observed uniformity of how atoms bond isn't indicative of an intelligent, personal God.

No argument.

Boru

[paulpablo]

---

Many contemporary scientists believe that universe came into being about 15 billion years ago. Despite of this fact, a clear majority of scientists in today’s world agree that universe has a beginning.

At the beginning of 20th century, scientists believed that the universe has always existed and matter-energy had always been around. That was, “The Steady-State Model.” In the last hundred years, the counter evidences have blown that model away.

1. The first evidence for the beginning of universe is its expanding process. Edwin Hubble discovered this phenomenon in 1929.

2. The second is “The Cosmic Background Radiation”. This discovery had given a fatal blow on those who want to believe in an eternal universe.

3. Third is the relative abundance of light elements in the known universe.

If the universe has a beginning then it should has a cause and that cause should be immaterial and beyond space and time. There are only two things, which can fit to explain this cause.

a. Abstract objects and
b. Embodied mind.

The problem with the abstract objects is that they are causally effete, meaning, they cannot cause anything. The laws of nature (including entire mathematics) are abstract concepts and they cannot produce any event. The rules of arithmetic state the Pattern to which all transactions with money must confirm, if only you can get hold of any money. Consequently, in one sense, the laws of nature are existent only because there exist a physical universe.

To think the laws can produce, it is like thinking that you can create real money by simply doing sums. As said by Hawkins, “it is the laws of physics, not the will of God, that provide real explanation to how the universe came into being. The big bang,” he argues, “was the inevitable consequence of these laws.”

Does that lead to the concept, if the law says; gravity controls the motion of earth around the sun so is it the gravity that endeavoured the creation of sun or other celestial objects or is it other way round. Law is descriptive and predictive but not creative. It is even worse as laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. It is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being into existence.

Nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world famous scientists.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Stephen Hawking.

One of the outdated philosophical clichés, “who created God?” is an oblivious platitude because if there is no cause which is uncaused there simply be no existence.

Laws of physics are extremely precise to enable complex life to exist. It is exceptionally unlikely that this precision could have happened by chance. If we analyse different levels of structures in the universe then we have:

Quarks at the first level that make up the atoms
Atoms build up to make molecules
Molecules build up to make a living cell
The cells make organisms, and eventually, we end up with brains and consciousness

It is rather hard to estimate what the probability is, but it is clearly very, very unlikely that those fine tunings, which allowed this Pyramid of complexities to arise, would be there as consequence of chance.

As we look at the details of nature, one thing stands out:
This is the order, the pattern, and the symmetry. Everything in the universe has a mathematically precise structure.

As one example, consider Double helix of DNA in living beings. Try to assess how likely is it that we find a protein by chance with all the amino acids in that Pre-biotic soup interacting with each other for, say, billions of years?

“Welcome Collection” in London has a unique publication. This publication is 100 volumes long each with thousands of pages and text so small that it is barely legible. Together, these books represents only a single human genome. Only four chemicals or letters made this Genome, 3.2 billion of them. A disorder of only one letter in the sequence leads to serious illness in the living being.

Question is how common or how rare are the functional sequences of amino acids among the big space of all possible amino acids there are?

Nobel laureate, organic chemist and a leader in origin of life studies, Professor deDuve writes in his excellent book, Tour of a Living Cell,

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. There are some 30 animal phyla on Earth by estimation. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. Now let us consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance: Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. Twenty commonly occurring amino acids join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices! Randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a “Director” behind the success of life.

No serious scientist think that life is a matter of chance.

Some modern Darwinists defend their case by asserting that about 98 percent of our DNA is similar to that of apes and that this difference is only a few spelling mistakes. Other say, more accurate figure is no more than 95 percent. However, considering that humans have three billion DNA information in each cell, even two per cent difference is actually sixty million spelling errors. Of course, this is not error, but 2,500 pages worth of new information. After all, we do share about 50 percent of our DNA with bananas, but that doesn’t mean that we are half banana.

Entire present-day science is based on the inductive reasoning. Using the same inductive reasoning, “one can compare the information stored in DNA molecule to a software program code only much more complex.”
Bill Gates.

We know information comes only from intelligent source. When we see coded information in a DNA, the most logical thing to conclude, that too, has an intelligent source.

“… If you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”
Richard Dawkins
The R. Dawkins Foundation
R. Dawkins Answers Questions


And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 22-
Quran


And in the earth are neighbouring tracts, and gardens of vines, and green crops (fields etc.), and date-palms, growing out two or three from a single stem root, or otherwise (one stem root for every palm ), watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs) for the people who understand.
Ar Ra'd (13)
-Verse 4-
Quran


And He shows you (always) His Signs: then which of the Signs of Allah will ye deny?
Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 81-
Quran


Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.
Al 'Ankabuut (29)
-Verse 49-
Quran

---

Many contemporary scientists believe that universe came into being about 15 billion years ago. Despite of this fact, a clear majority of scientists in today’s world agree that universe has a beginning.

What do you mean despite of this fact? Surely the fact that the universe has a beginning and it came into being 15 billion years ago agree with each other.

If the universe has a beginning then it should has a cause and that cause should be immaterial and beyond space and time.

How could anything do something while being immaterial and not within space and time.
I'm confused how you could be a Muslim and say this since your god is definitely within time.
He created everything in periods of time

7:54

Surely your Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods of time,

Here is another verse where Allah is creating within time and establishing himself on a throne above water, seems to be saying Allah has a domain and is established within space.

And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water

[max-greece]

The problem with the abstract objects is that they are causally effete, meaning, they cannot cause anything.

I don't know what you mean by an abstract object. If you mean one without intelligence then you are certainly wrong - unless you believe that Uranium 235 (for example) is intelligent.

Take a lump of U235 (stay under about 65 kilos) and leave it on the shelf.

Come back in 4 billion years.

There should be about half the U235 you started with, some thorium, some radon gas and various other elements culminating in lead.

So U235 "causes" a whole host of different elements.

Thanks for playing.

[downbeatplumb]

If the universe has a beginning then it should has a cause and that cause should be immaterial and beyond space and time. There are only two things, which can fit to explain this cause.

a. Abstract objects and
b. Embodied mind.

How does an embodied mind outside of space and time cause a universe from nothing?
I want details.
If you don't have an idea of what the process might be you are just throwing around empty ideas with no merit.

Does that lead to the concept, if the law says; gravity controls the motion of earth around the sun so is it the gravity that endeavoured the creation of sun or other celestial objects or is it other way round. Law is descriptive and predictive but not creative. It is even worse as laws of physics cannot even cause anything to happen. It is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being into existence.

You do know what a "law of nature" is don't you.
Its a description of what we observe not us telling the universe what to do "or else".

Nonsense remains nonsense even when talked by world famous scientists.

True, but nonsense is also nonsense when spouted by religious blow hards.

And world famous scientists are wrong less often.

“Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.”
Stephen Hawking.

I bet this was wrenched from a much larger quote along with some fancy maths stuff that showed some evidence for this.

Google google.... I see it is from a book which is about this subject from which you have pulled one sentence.

"If you equate the probability of the birth of a bacteria cell to chance assembly of its atoms, eternity will not suffice to produce one...”

Humans and all mammals have some 50,000 genes. That implies, as an order of magnitude estimate, some 50,000 to 100,000 proteins active in mammalian bodies. There are some 30 animal phyla on Earth by estimation. If the genomes of each animal phylum produced 100,000 proteins, and no proteins were common among any of the phyla (a fact we know to be false, but an assumption that makes our calculations favor the random evolutionary assumption), there would be (30 x 100,000) 3 million proteins in all life. Now let us consider the likelihood of these 3 million viable combinations of proteins forming by chance: Proteins are complex coils of several hundred amino acids. Take a typical protein to be a chain of 200 amino acids. The observed range is from less than 100 amino acids per protein to greater than 1000. Twenty commonly occurring amino acids join in varying combinations to produce the proteins of life. This means that the number of possible combinations of the amino acids in our model protein of 200 amino acids is 20 to the power of 200 (i.e. 20 multiplied by itself 200 times), or in the more usual 10-based system of numbers, approximately 10 to the power of 260 (i.e. the number one, followed by 260 zeros!). Nature has the option of choosing among the 10 to power of 260 possible proteins, the 3 million proteins of which all viable life is composed. In other words, for each one correct choice, there are 10 to power of 254 wrong choices! Randomness cannot have been the driving force behind the success of life. Our understanding of statistics and molecular biology clearly supports the notion that there must have been a direction and a “Director” behind the success of life.

You seem to be poorly educated on the subject of evolution. An american I guess.

No serious scientist think that life is a matter of chance.

No one will disagree with the above sentence, evolution is not random.

We know information comes only from intelligent source. When we see coded information in a DNA, the most logical thing to conclude, that too, has an intelligent source.

This is just a bald assertion and is wrong. Evolution provides a viable mechanism to create information without the need to invoke an outside agent.

“… If you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer. And that designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe.”
Richard Dawkins
The R. Dawkins Foundation
R. Dawkins Answers Questions

You know I have seen him answer like this before in a debate where he then went on to explain that the only way to get the higher intelligence from elsewhere was by evolution.

You need to read this book.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_Mount_Improbable

And among His Signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge.
Ar Ruum (30)
-Verse 22-
Quran


And in the earth are neighbouring tracts, and gardens of vines, and green crops (fields etc.), and date-palms, growing out two or three from a single stem root, or otherwise (one stem root for every palm ), watered with the same water, yet some of them We make more excellent than others to eat. Verily, in these things, there are Ayat (proofs, evidences, lessons, signs) for the people who understand.
Ar Ra'd (13)
-Verse 4-
Quran


And He shows you (always) His Signs: then which of the Signs of Allah will ye deny?
Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 81-
Quran


Nay, here are Signs self-evident in the hearts of those endowed with knowledge: and none but the unjust reject Our Signs.
Al 'Ankabuut (29)
-Verse 49-
Quran

What does this have to do with anything?