The Sex Life of 747 Aircraft

Hey Taz,You abandoned your first analogy because it had a goal, which was to produce a 747. You said that evolution is not directional.Giving an analogy where a 747 is the final result of many efforts to 'get off an island' seems to me to have the same problem. Getting off an island is a goal, isn't it?

I wasn't saying that you were a creationist nor that you were intentionally providing creationists with hope. I apologize if anyone misunderstood that I had.I just meant that by objecting to the Hoyle argument only on the basis of our not yet knowing what the probabilities are, that holds the door open, inadvertantly though it may be, to their one day being able to say "OK, now we do know the probabilities, so let's use Hoyle's claim to finish evolution off!" You obviously didn't mean to provide them this out, but I see their opportunity there nonetheless.Also quite obviously, creationists' probability arguments and claims are never meant to actually consider the probabilities of actual applicable models, but rather are meant solely to pronounce whatever idea they oppose as being so improbable as to be deemed virtually impossible. That is why they use such things as single-step selection models (eg, an entire modern cell forming spontaneously out of nothing but its component elements and compounds).That is why we need to say that, even though we do not yet know enough to work out the actual probabilities or anything close to them, we do know for a fact that that model proposed by Hoyle is wrong and should never be used because it is guaranteed to yield erroneous results. Nor should it ever be used as an argument against anything or even for anything, because it is false and deceptive.Then when we have come closer to working out the probabilities, or we are engaged in fruitful speculation, we can develop and apply more accurate models with which we can honestly evaluate our ideas.Edited by dwise1, : .

You use the term "evolution" for aircraft and for living things. However, as was pointed out, the two processes are very different.Just saying they are both "evolution" only confuses the issue.I'll use bevolution (for biological evolution) and sevolution (for changes of designs).747s have the attributes of things that under went an sevolutionary process they do NOT have the attributes of things that come from a bevolutionary process.Humans have characteristics that are produced by bevolution and NOT by sevolution.You didn't answer the fact that we can actually produce evolutionary designs (bevolution) and they are NOT like things we design at all.There is no grounds for suggesting that humans are a result of design evolution because of these facts.You may offer up Collin's explanation for his views if you think they are germane. As I recall he simply believes that all of creation was kicked off by his god and that living things did, in fact, evolve (bevolve) through biological processes and that humans do not show specific signs of intelligent design. Just that the universe is set up so that it is possible. If he says otherwise I'd like to see his arguments in support of his views.

Depends on what the goal is I guess. In evolution, the "goal" for every species is to survive. But as far as direction, there is no direction, because there are many ways for a species to survive.The "goal" for the inhabitants of the island is to get off the island before it blows up. Doesn't matter whether someone comes up with a 747 or just a raft. As long as whatever contraption or thing can take people off the island, it's used to do so.The biggest misconception about evolution is that it has some kind of direction toward higher lifeforms, and that humans are the ultimate "goal". I suspect that this very misconception is the origin for the tornado and 747 analogy. The people who use this analogy to describe evolution think that human is the ultimate goal of evolution, which isn't even close.But yes, you are right, evolution does appear to have a "goal". But there are an infinite paths toward this goal, which is why the analogy is faulty.Added by edit.Scratch all of that. The best analogy I think for evolution is the monte carlo method to solving mathematical and physical systems. Having spent some parts of my life coming up with computational algorithms to solve dynamical and physical systems for a living, I've found that the monte carlo method works wonders. It's pretty much random mutations and natural selection with a lifetime warranty all in one package for $19.99 (limited time offer).Edited by Tazmanian Devil, : No reason given.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

If you're doing science, you don't draw conclusions about things you don't know. You create hypotheses for which you then devise experiments and/or observations to test them.And you're not even drawing conclusions about things we don't know. You're using the 747 metaphor to draw conclusions opposite to what we already do know. You're letting metaphor trump evidence. In fact, if you recall your message that I originally replied to, you claimed that the metaphor trumps materialism, quite a feat for a poetic device.--Percy

Because he thought that origins scientists believed ridiculously wrong things From wiki on him

quote:

---

Hoyle promoted the theory that life evolved in space, spreading through the universe via panspermia, and that evolution on earth is driven by a steady influx of viruses arriving via comets.

---

I think that he did believe that. Assuming that is true, the origin scientist would be rediculously wrong. His 'theory' looks ridiculous from my point of view.In support of ID, he said:

quote:

---

No other possibility I have been able to think of...

---

So basically, he is arguing from incredulity But if he really did believe it, then he would be ridiculing the opposing position rather than supporting his own, as far as the 747 analogy goes. Just playing a little offense rather than defense, or is that visa versa? I think that he just honestly believed the position he was taking and was just playing the game. A purposely poor analogy could be filed under 'tactics'. He was just trying to convince people of his position, albeit in a dirty deceitful way.Well, that's my take on it, at least.Do you think that's any stronger than: ? ?

If you view a picture of human and aircraft evolution together, the progression of change has a somewhat similar feel: But that's all it is, a similarity, and a small one at that. The differences overwhelm this tiny similarity. Aircraft are built, not born. They are constructed, they do not grow. They are designed, they do not reproduce. The blueprint for the entire design is not contained within every module. They are inorganic, not organic. There is no such thing as a breeding program for aircraft. They have no capacity for sending favorable characteristics on to the next generation.The fact that is it common to use the same word evolution for changing design and changing life forms is an accident of nomenclature. They use two different definitions of the same word. To interpret this accident as some kind of evidence that design evolution is at heart the same thing as biological evolution is a significant mistake. These are empty rhetorical arguments just one rung above, "That's evolution with an 'e' and that rhymes with 'c' and that stands for creation." Your rhetorical argument is without substance because it rests upon games with words rather than upon evidence. You mean "why" in the sense of, "What caused this particular mutation?" Or "why" in the sense of, "Why are we here?" If the former then scientists know quite a bit of the "why". If the latter then that's the realm of religion, isn't it. And if you do draw such conclusions, then you'll be doing so without supporting evidence and your conclusions won't possess any scientific validity. Nosy covered this already, so I'll just say that I concur with him. Evolution is a theory based upon mountains of experimental and observational data, so this isn't faith. The process we believe created all the species present today on our planet has been observed countless times in the here and now, and projected back in time it not only accounts for the record of life's history we find in the ground, but also the degrees of genetic relatedness we find amongst life today. This is not faith but well established theory.On the other hand, no evidence for a cause of species diversity outside the realm of the natural world has ever been found, and to attribute the progression of life to the actions of a never-observed intelligence is based upon faith, just as you say.--Percy

I have never suggested that it was about science. Either there is an intelligent designer or there isn't. You go with what you know and form an opinion on what you don't know, but that definitely is not science. I am having more and more trouble trying to defend this particular metaphor aren't I? In the end I guess the best I can do with it is what Paley was doing with his watch.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Yes, of course, but panspermia just pushes the problem of life's origins off to another place and time. Had Hoyle been thinking rationally he would have addressed the question of why he felt conditions on earth were insufficient for the origin of life, and why they would be more conducive elsewhere. The reality is that he wasn't thinking rationally, and he had little evidence for his own ideas other than that he liked them better.Hoyle's preference for panspermia probably sprang from becoming over-enamored of his work on stellar evolution. He was the guy who figured out how elements are cooked in the cores of stars, and that nova and supernova create even heavier elements that are dispersed into space to become the dust from which the next generation of stars form. The scattering of elements throughout space is what probably made panspermia so appealing to him, but unlike his work with elements whose origins he had deciphered, Hoyle had no evidence for a non-Earth origin of life.Complex organic molecules routinely turn up in meteorites, and most scientists accept that this rain of organic material from space could have played a role in life's origins. But the wide range of conditions present on the early Earth makes it very difficult to exclude it as a possible site for the origin life.So if Hoyle truly believed that it was ridiculous to think that life could have originated on earth, then he was equally ridiculous in believing it could have originated anywhere else. And if he had ever gone to the trouble of calculating how life might have originated at his preferred setting elsewhere in the universe, you can bet your bippie he wouldn't have assumed the first cell came together all at once.Given this, and given Hoyle's history of casting ridicule at ideas he didn't like, the conclusion is inescapable that he advanced his 747 analogy and his probability calculations not out of a desire to make genuine scientific contributions, but simply to cast ridicule. This is why I find Hoyle such a puzzle. At one point in his life he was considered a shoe-in for a Nobel, but soon after WW-II he sank into a pseudoscientific morass from which he never escaped. He became widely disliked and there were attempts to shunt him aside from many of his longstanding involvements.It wasn't so much because of his weird beliefs. It was more because he was so much in the habit of energetically promoting ideas that had little to no evidential support. For example, at one point he was making claims that archaeopteryx fossils were fake. Like Johnny Cochran in a court room, he would bring up one irrelevant fact after another to exhaust the opposition in a whirlwind of detail. The irony is that Hoyle the great promoter of science (his radio science lectures are considered classics) did so much to provide some of the most effective ammunition for creationism the great enemy of science, at least in the public arena where science is terra incognito.--Percy

Sure it's a weak metaphor but the question of why the process exists at all can't be answered by science no matter how much it finds out about the how of things. I mean the latter and that's my point. If it is a matter of religion then either the Theistic conclusion or the Atheistic conclusion is an issue of faith. I agree. As I said it's a faith issue. However that doesn't mean that you can't look at both the scientific data and the historical data to come to the conclusion that you believe sounds most reasonable. I have no problem with that.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Re the 747 metaphor see my reply to Percy. I spent some time with google but couldn't find a specific response. I have read his book "The Language of God" and the best answer I can give is that he sees God as being reponsible for all of creation including the evolutionary process. My understanding of his position is that after the evolutionary process was started it was then driven by biological processes.This was the best site I could find.
http://discovermagazine.com/...feb/interview-francis-collinsEdited by GDR, : No reason given.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

Which, for now, I have no argument with. Therefore Collins has no argument with evolutionary biology at all. Maybe he has a disagreement with the gaps in our knowledge in the area of cosmology.Within the context of this thread then he and I are in agreement. Since you quoted him I presume you are too.He and I may then disagree about the initial formation of the universe and it's physical laws but then my rational answer is "I don't know" so it is hard to be in disagreement even there.The danger is that sounds an awful lot like God of the Gaps and we might yet close that gap too.

I can see the problem now. You're injecting a religious question into a science thread. You later say you have no problem with the implications of the scientific evidence, so if you would like to tackle evolution on religious grounds then there are other threads for that.--Percy

I'm sorry Percy. I hadn't noticed this was in a science forum. Mind you, here is how Ned started his opening post. That sounds to me like maybe it should have been put into something other than a science forum.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

The 747 analogy isn't a "Why are we here?" argument, and it isn't a religious argument. Remember, the analogy was formulated by Hoyle, whose motivation was scientific, not religious.Today the 747 analogy is used to argue for the intelligent design perspective. By placing the possibility of a natural origin for life into a ridiculous light it promotes the conclusion that life could only result from an intelligence. The analogy falsely represents scientific ideas about origins, but even worse, ID theory explicitly states that it is impossible to know anything about how the designer acted or about the designer himself, including his motivation. Clearly ID doesn't address the "why" question.ID places these limits upon itself for good reason, because it wants to limit its exposure to the possibility of being detected as religion. But placing self-imposed limits on what can be scientifically investigated is inherently unscientific, and ID is obviously religion anyway. It's not like an idea promoted almost solely for fundamentalist Christians can hide its origins. You may as well argue that the Pope's not Catholic.Ironically, almost every IDist who comes to this board seems completely unaware that ID replaced Creation Science in order to not be so obviously religious in order to appear more like legitimate science, and they seem blissfully unaware that once they begin introducing God and Bible into the discussion that they've already abandoned their contention that ID is really science.--Percy