The name for the point where a probability changes

OUCH!!!

Would there be any creation vs evolution debate if scientists acknowledgded the origin of organisms as a matter of decision?Scientists only tend to look backward seeing how causes in their effects relate to the present. They hardly ever look forward seeing how decisions on chances relate to the present.One evolutionscientist who did disparingly seek to convince his fellow evolutionists of the importance of the historical view of unique decisions was Gould. He did not actually put much work into seriously investigating the locality of the decisions that determined any kind of organisms to be. He never even used the word decision, or gave any proper name to that point at which it was decided. He only forcefully suggested as per example that if time were wound back, and evolution run again, there might not have been a comet that struck the earth, that killed the dinosaurs, and in stead the dinosaurs might have evolved into other species.A decision that fell some place, with huge consequences. So where did this decision take place, when did it become a relative certainty that the dinosaurs would be hit by a comet and go extinct? Mainly at the point where the trajectory of the comet was decided in exploding of a star perhaps.But what of other things being decided, like eyes, and ears, legs and nose? To what decision or decisions does the probability of the appearance of those attributes trace back to? When people seriously begin to ask questions like that, and investigating it as a matter of a search for the truth about the origin of organisms, the creation vs evolution debate loses it's meaning. There can't be much of a controversy over an intelligent design theory vs a theory that investigates the origin of things as a matter of decision, because they would overlap too much.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

They do this every time they design an experiment, the entire point of an experiment is to arrange the probabilities so the 'determination' is as dependent as possible on 1 variable. Of course the reason they do this is to reduce the unknowns involved in the experiment to as narrow a focus as possible. If they didn't do this then there would be no need for so much statistics in evolutionary biology. No matter how forcefully he suggested it, it still doesn't provide evidence for anything other than Gould's opinion. Only if you are now saying that decisions must be 'owned' by an intelligence, which you only just claimed that that you weren't saying in post 153.TTFN,WK

Given Syamsu's track record on misrepresenting the views of others, I wouldn't be surprised if Gould's statement were a little different.And the fact that the meteor\comet hit wiped out the dinosaurs would probably be repeated, the net result today would most likely be very different. The orbit of the rock having been determined before the dinosaurs, but the chance results of mutations not.

You first support that science covers decisions, and then you trivialize Gould's hypothesis, the one description of any decision of any magnitude in basicly all evolutionist literature, as mere opinion. You want to play both sides, because you know you are on the losing side.Evolutionist conception of intelligence is different as creationist conception of intelligence. You can see on this forum that evolutionists talk about intelligence without referring to decision at all. This is why you don't see an overlap.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

actually you avoided it, studiously, from the start.face it you think that every chance probability is resolved by a decision by a supernatural power, that anything that cannot be resolved by cause and effect is resolved by "god did it"and that means no free will. because you put god in all the nooks and crannies.my position has been and will be that there is no way to know what the result really will be, that probability is just a measure of our ignorance of all the factors including the elements of chaos in the systems, and that the actual results are due to all those factors and elements regardless of what the calculation ends up with: results happen whether you can determine them or not; chaos happens whether you try to eliminate it or not; you pays your money and you takes your chances.and that means there is free will.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You take your chances, but your chances don't exist according to you, so you can't take them. Your attempt to make bizarre science philosphy about probability as a measure of ignorance into common knowledge is doomed to fail.Again your argument is already refuted by the fact that there can be 2 people sharing a decision, and they still both have free will. You have no case to say that the involvement of God in a decision negates free will. You are of course stupified to think about decisions on a more formal level, having basicly discarded the concept as reflecting reality.And besides as argued previously it will not be in evidence that God owns decisions IMO, there would just be an apparent magic to decisions that leads to believe in God. But the evidence will point to decisions coming from nothing, or zero IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Making spurious accusations won't disguise the fact of enormous prejudice for "cause and effect" in science, and prejudice against "probability and realization".regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Once again you use a highly contentious philosophical issue as a given assumption and think it constitutes some sort of evidence.You are much more accurate in those instances where you highlight things as simply being your own opinions, you should probably put that proviso at the end of every sentence or paragraph, IMO.TTFN,WK

Because at the moment in all practical terms its scientific contribution is trivial. As you yourself pointed out, the theory requires that time be 'wound back' in order to actually test it, as you may recall this is the exact same point I made repeatedly about all your other examples. You can hypothesise that they would have turned out differently and you can generate complex probabilistic models for their behaviour, but unless you can reverse time to provide the exactly identical initial conditions, then you have singularly failed to demonstrate things going one way or another. Gould's argument, as you represent it, goes even farther and requires a large change in the initial conditions with an asteroid impact of extinction size proportions being erased from the Earth's history. This pretty much sums up your style of argument. You make a claim, you put forward some 'evidence' to support it and then make an unwarranted conclusion. How about a couple of definitions from alternative creationist and evolutionist sources? How about an example of creationists on this board, other than yourself, discussing intelligence in reference to decision and being criticised for it? How about, in short, any evidence whatsoever?Presumably it is all 'common knowledge'.TTFN,WK

I have found an ID proponent, which may or may not be the same as a creationist, who seems to share elements of your argument with regards to the origin of 'decisions'. He decribed intelligent agents making choices as He of course, as a proponent of intelligent design, is clearly linking the phenomenon in relation to intelligence. Do you or do you not think intelligence is required for 'realisations'?TTFN,WK

the fact that you cannot quote my position correctly shows a complete lack of understanding on your part.what part of chaos says there is no chance happenings?there is a world of difference between chance happening and probability being a measurement that in anyway {affects\is effected} by the reality of random chance.you are the one eliminating chance because you put god in there deciding the result.you have no free will in your world vision, just an illusion.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

accusations based on observed instances of such behavior are not spurious, but real valid observations.you have just done it again on another post.

It is mostly all just common knowledge yes. A creationist wouldn't say that "organisms are an "effect" of God". When a creationist says God caused there to be organisms, the creationist means God made a decision which sets the cause of organisms to be. As also it is common knowledge that free will is not lost in democracy, where people share in decisions. But of course I'm not saying that 2 people sharing a decision is the exactsame thing as sharing a decision with God. People are quite far away from God I'm sure.One could use many names for that which decides. The point is that it would all fall into the same class of things which decide. So if it is assumed true that intelligence decides in human affairs, than intelligence belongs to the class of things which decide. And since "intelligence" is the only thing commonly recognized to decide, the name for all of that which decides may be called intelligence, eventhough the quality of every thing that decides may be very much different. Of course you can also speak of chance deciding, but I think this messes up the structure of knowledge, when it is said that chance decides on chance, because chance seems to have a double meaning there. As before the next logical step to recognizing decisions, seems to be to hypothesise some kind of relationship between decisions. And so this structure of relationships may be called an intelligence, and be qualified with what the structure looks like.I don't understand what it means to specify the one that was actualized. I don't see where specification would be an essential component of intelligence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Is there an interpreter in the house?Is there a technical name for an argument from gibberish? I'd suggest argumentum ad absurdam but that seems to be taken.TTFN,WK