Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A point about probability
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 40 of 65 (519880)
08-18-2009 2:24 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by slevesque
08-18-2009 12:59 AM


Deep Something or Other
slevesque writes:
Sometimes, hearing some evolutionists, it seems as though Neo-Darwinism has no limits in its capacity to create, but I do think that there is a limit, an edge, to the powers of Neo-Darwinism. Even on a theoretical level. (considering a finite amount of time of course)
Relative to the 6,000 year time limit insisted upon by the most geology, physics, chemistry, and biology-denying fanatics, which would be closer to infinity? Indeed if treated as a mathematical series which number would be closer to approximating infinity, 6,000 years or 3.8 billion?
It appears to me you have a problem with deep time which may influence your rejection of Neo-Darwinism. There is a potential cure, although it does not work on all who suffer from this disability.
This would be the Sagan cure. Here is a mildly amusing variant you may want to consider:
http://www.worsleyschool.net/...les/toiletpaper/history.html
The concept of deep time is as necessary to understanding gradual descent with modification as the ability to visualize both deep time and three dimensions is in geology (and in the case of 3D, organic chemistry). You either have it or you don't.
The same applies to deep space. I remember reading as a child in the old 1964 World Book Encyclopedia that if the sun was the size of a dime the nearest equivalent neighbor, Alpha Centauri, would be a dime 10 miles away.
The great short film by the Eames' brothers, Powers of Ten, attempts to show what is meant by distance on the macro and micro levels. Naturally it requires an understanding of logarithmic expansion/contaction and magnification of viewpoint, another challenge for one who may be clueless about deep time or, indeed, space or even logarithms. Had they made an equivalent film concerning the history of life on Earth, it would come across as an Ozu film with the payoff of some supposed ultimate purpose a loooooong time coming. Of course for those who accept the current enlightened human understanding, namely those who question and think about any declarations of fact concerning the universe (aka the works of God as opposed to the words of men) as opposed to declaring perfect (pseudo-god) absolute knowledge of the universe without evidence, such a film would be more a Kieslowski, a gradual unfolding of eternal truth without any final solution.
Sorry about the multidisciplinary stuff, but sometimes the beauty of creation and the best of human understanding overwhelms me and I wax philosophic.
OK, so where is that 'limit' to evolution at anyway? Is it in just a simple misunderstanding of one book?
Evidence?

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by slevesque, posted 08-18-2009 12:59 AM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 08-18-2009 12:04 PM anglagard has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 43 of 65 (520007)
08-19-2009 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by slevesque
08-18-2009 12:04 PM


Re: Deep Something or Other
slevesque writes:
Don't worry, I do not have any problem with deep time and 3D space.
That's a revealing statement. All the earth and astrophysics professors I studied under, when they mentioned deep time, felt even they could not fully appreciate just how old life, the earth, and the universe truly are.
I mentionned a finite amount of time because the limit to evolution isn't applicable with infinite time, since any improbable event will happen with infinite time.
And I mentioned that for all practical purposes billions of years are damn close to infinite when compared to our limited experience.
But since you don't have an infinite amount of time to work with, than evolution does have a limit.
Please feel free to support this assertion by providing any information concerning what this so-called limit is and when and where it occurs.
The thing here is to discover where is that limit, and if currently observable biological systems require this limit to be exceeded in order to have been produced by natural-Selection+Mutations
No. The thing here is for you to identify where such a purported limit is, along with the characteristics of such a supposed limit. You made the assertion, it is up to you to defend it, not us.
Edited by anglagard, : grammnnar

The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
Salman Rushdie
This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by slevesque, posted 08-18-2009 12:04 PM slevesque has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024