[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[David Cake]

At 9:16 PM +0000 10/12/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Dec-10, at 08:51, David Cake wrote:
>
>>>what's the current 
>>>
>>>explanation/understanding for how new things appear in the first 
>>>
>>>place, particularly where those new things are large complicated
>>>
>>>structures like eyes or wings?
>>>
>>
>>	For the most part, they don't appear all at once - gliding 
>>precedes true flying always, for example, and gliding mechanisms can 
>>be as simple as excess skin flaps. Primitive eyes don't have 
>>focussing lenses or independent movement or multiple types of 
>>perceptual cell. Complex structures evolve via a long series of 
>>simpler changes (though sometimes with those individual changes 
>>evolving in an interrelated simultaneous way).
>>
>
>
>Intuitively I figure that, from what I've heard about evolution, the 
>"explanation" must be that there are lots of little steps. But I 
>have to ask myself, is this because these little steps have been 
>observed?

	Of course, our knowledge of the fossil record is incomplete, 
so there are cases where we do not have the observations and must 
surmise. But absence of observation isn't observation of absence.
	More importantly, where we do have such a record, then we do 
have evidence of features evolving in this way. Particularly in the 
case of eyes and wings, for example.

>>	There is a specific argument about ID that hinges on this 
>>exact point - the ID people contend that certain mechanisms are 
>>complex, and if you take a away a single part they would stop 
>>working, so could not have evolved part by part as natural selection 
>>claims. So far, none of their claimed examples have turned out to 
>>hold up - in every case of a claimed irreducible complex mechanism, 
>>partial precursors have been found.
>>	more, of course, in Wikipedia
>><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity
>>	(it gives a nice clear description of how eyes are believed 
>>to have evolved)
>>
>
>
>It's about starting assumptions. If you believe that every mutation 
>is random and accidental, then you are forced to conclude that there 
>must have been a long succession of small mutations which each 
>survived. And you'll be sure to find some likely examples. But that 
>doesn't demonstrate anywhere near all cases. You'd just be hoping 
>that one day all those other cases could be explained also.

	Read the article. It has linked.
	And no, that is fundamentally not how science works. In 
science, if you believe every mutation is random and accidental, then 
you set up experiments to test that

>I really don't see why it's necessary to hold this starting 
>assumption "religiously".

	Its not. Its necessary to hold it scientifically, because its 
a well developed theory that has resisted many aggressive attempts to 
disprove it, and it remains the best theory we have. Holding it 
scientifically means that, of course, you have appropriate doubt - 
but no inappropriate doubt.

>And I really don't see why the scientific orthodoxy needs to hold 
>that assumption.

	Because, as scientists, they believe in Occams Razor. If they 
can explain all observations using the theory of evolution, then 
Occams Razor says you reject the observations that explain the same 
thing using evolution plus Eros, evolution plus Jesus, evolution plus 
pixie dust, etc.

>One reason might be politically to refute and keep a large distance 
>between science and creationism, but that's politics and influence 
>and that's not a science issue in the sense of, what is the real 
>objective truth here? I'm not fussed about the politics here.

	You want a political, social, or scientific reason why they 
hold that assumption?
	the scientific one is as above - its the best theory we 
currently have, and accords with a great idea of observation and 
experiment.
	The social reason is its one of the major elements that 
separates the scientific world-view from the non.
	The political reason is because this exact point of theory is 
under attack from creationists, who wish to use it as a point of 
entry for their trojan horse - so its necessary for scientists not 
just to believe that its the best theory we have, but also to argue 
the point in public.

>
>Think about it, what does "random" really mean? Does it mean there 
>was no cause? Do events really happen without a cause? Does stuff 
>just magically appear without any contributing factors whatsoever?

	Evolution is a process. Some randomness is fed into the 
process to fuel it, yes, but it helps if you think of the process as 
what is doing the work. The relentless recombining of genes that are 
generally drawn from a pool of more or less good genes is what does a 
lot of the work, at least in species that reproduce sexually, for 
example.

>If you argue that all mutations are random, you may as well argue 
>that whole new species just pop out of thin air in a single instant, 
>completely formed and with a mate.

	No. Scientists and mathematicians have a different 
understanding of randomness than you do.

>Something must cause the mutation, something must cause the change. 
>When we say it's "random", what we really means is that we simply 
>don't know what caused it.

	No, that is not what we mean at all. We do have a good 
understanding of what sort of mutations occur and why  (and there is 
weird stuff in there, like picking up viral RNA and such), but more 
importantly, a better description of where changes come from is that 
they are the end result of a complex process, which is somewhat 
fueled by randomness.

>Calling it random doesn't explain anything. It's just a word for 
>"don't know". We don't know so much that we can't even see a 
>pattern. The mechanism is undetected. It might be fields for all we 
>know, but we just haven't observed it.

	Don't assume that because you don't know, that they don't know.

	Cheers
		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20071211/bb7cf935/attachment-0001.htm