Darwin Unhinged: The Bugs in Evolution

[Laird]

I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?

To me, that's like saying: "The process of monkeys typing randomly on keyboards is sufficient to produce a comprehensible story of any length, given enough time".

The arguments raised in this thread, particularly around irreducible complexity and the bleakness of the protein landscape lead me to a tentative conclusion that's... not exactly affirmative.

To me, that's like saying: "The process of monkeys typing randomly on keyboards is sufficient to produce a comprehensible story of any length, given enough time".

 The arguments raised in this thread, particularly around irreducible complexity and the bleakness of the protein landscape lead me to a tentative conclusion that's... not exactly affirmative.

Hope you like this.
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite? Minding bending implications.
 https://youtu.be/Al9EyNoCsRI

I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?

~~ Paul

It would be interesting to see an attempt to answer this. Given that it is necessarily sufficient to explain some level of complexity, for the time given (per the theorem you mention), we would need to know what that is before anyone could say that it is insufficient.

Linda

I think the process is sufficient to explain any level of complexity, given enough time. So the question is: Has there been enough time?

~~ Paul

 


No human ever can grasp the immensity of long spans of time, it's impossible to intuitively comprehend a span of 100 years which many humans are capable of living until they do. I find it a foolish ID ideology statement there has not been enough time.

[Laird]

Hope you like this.
Is the Universe Finite or Infinite? Minding bending implications.
 https://youtu.be/Al9EyNoCsRI

When you resort to answering the monkeys typing on keyboards objection with "But maybe there are infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards", you might have reached the end of your rope and tied a knot in it...

Off the topic of evolution: sure, the video is interesting, but I wonder whether its claims contain hidden assumptions. For example: is it necessarily the case that in an infinite universe there will be a duplicate you in a duplicate environment within some given spatial extent? Isn't it possible that the circumstances of "you in your environment" are uniquely dependent on the complete configuration of the entire rest of the (infinite) universe, such that there is and can only be one such circumstance in that infinite universe?

Just a question, not an argument - I simply think that we need to interrogate claims like these.

[Laird]

It would be interesting to see an attempt to answer this. Given that it is necessarily sufficient to explain some level of complexity, for the time given (per the theorem you mention), we would need to know what that is before anyone could say that it is insufficient.

Linda

Let's not stretch the theorem beyond what it concludes, which is only that "Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment". It doesn't (1) preclude the possibility of a stasis being reached, and, which might be stating the same concept in different words, (2) entail any creation of new "more productive" traits not present in the original environment - it's logically possible in the theorem's premises that all mutations are destructive or otherwise non-conducive to higher reproduction rates.

It also ignores the possibility that some traits - that happen to be observed - are not plausibly inherent in the process from the beginning (i.e. via mutations), and can only be achieved through either massively implausible luck (the monkeys typing on keyboards) or through some sort of creative intervention from outside the process.

When you resort to answering the monkeys typing on keyboards objection with "But maybe there are infinite monkeys and infinite keyboards", you might have reached the end of your rope and tied a knot in it...

Off the topic of evolution: sure, the video is interesting, but I wonder whether its claims contain hidden assumptions. For example: is it necessarily the case that in an infinite universe there will be a duplicate you in a duplicate environment within some given spatial extent? Isn't it possible that the circumstances of "you in your environment" are uniquely dependent on the complete configuration of the entire rest of the (infinite) universe, such that there is and can only be one such circumstance in that infinite universe?

Just a question, not an argument - I simply think that we need to interrogate claims like these.

Hidden assumptions such as?
To have a causal link as you are imagining necessarily means there has to be faster than light communication. However, causal links travel at the speed of light (EMR and gravitational waves) and have affect only when they encounter matter such as you. Matter necessarily travels slower than C. Quantum entanglement if you are thinking that conveys no information, therefore no causal link there. Think of all the atoms in the universe as a deck of 52 playing cards. The permutations amount to a very large but finite number, so too the arrangement of atoms. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw Ponder the rational of this video.

P.S. How to count past infinity. https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88

[Laird]

Hidden assumptions such as?

Hmm, you couldn't infer one from my post? OK, let me infer it for you: hidden assumptions such as that nothing constrains any configuration of matter of a certain spatial extent from being repeated elsewhere in the universe.

To have a causal link as you are imagining necessarily means there has to be faster than light communication.

A rejection of the assumption needn't require a causal link faster than light, just a limitation on potential configurations of matter based on (potentially as-yet-undiscovered) rules of physics in the context of the full (infinite) state of the universe, but I'm not really trying to mount a serious argument here anyway, just posing the sort of question that we might ask of the presentation.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uNS1QvDzCVw Ponder the rational of this video.

Hmm. You're trying to tutor me in basic high school maths?

P.S. How to count past infinity. https://youtu.be/SrU9YDoXE88

No offence at all, but I don't have the patience for that video right now, especially given that its title is a logical impossibility (unless it's followed up with: "Oh, wait, you can't"). Obviously a click-bait tactic, which is fine and all, but I'm not in the mood to sit through 24 odd minutes of who-knows-what based on a misleading attempt to gain my attention. Maybe I'll watch it later - it must say something interesting given that it has over 9 million views.

[Laird]

In any case, Steve001, I think that there are good arguments against an actual infinite, so I'm skeptical that an actually infinite universe is possible. But we're veering badly off-topic for this thread, so I'll try to avoid continuing this diversion.

[Laird]

No offence at all, but [...]

I guess I got a little gung-ho there. The video turned out to be very interesting; I knew a little about infinities but it went way beyond that. Thanks, Steve001, for sharing it.