How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?

[Pogo]

The evidence does not tell us that a creator is not needed.

Nor does it tell us that a creator is needed,
though @Clizby Wampuscat is convinced of a lot of credulous things.

 

[Pogo]

But unfortunately - as HHGTTG predicted - future AI will likely be produced by earlier AI, and even then we might not be able to comprehend why any AI does this, such that at some stage what AI produces might be beyond our comprehension - and much like creating a God figure.

Douglas Adams wrote the Bible. 42

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The evidence does not tell us that a creator is not needed.

Actually, that's wrong.

The evidence in fact DOES tell us that a creator is not needed, since the natural process detailed in the theory of evolution is sufficient to explain the evidence.
What you probably meant to say is that the evidence does not tell us that a creator had no part in it.


Let's illustrate with a simpler example that might be less controversial to you since it doesn't threaten your dearly held religious beliefs.

Say I have a chocolate cake in my kitchen. I enter the kitchen and notice that half of it is missing.
My child is standing in the kitchen and his T-shirt, hands and face is covered in chocolate. There is nobody else in the house.
Based on this evidence, I conclude my child ate the cake. The evidence tells me that the explanation is sufficient to account for the missing half.
This evidence thus tells me that it is not needed to think about a third party having broken into the house to steal half the cake. Or that extra-dimensional aliens materialized into my kitchen and went off with half the cake.

The evidence does not allow me to exclude such a third party or extra-dimensional aliens having taken part of that half while my child ate the rest of that missing half. It doesn't even exclude that they took the entire half and then smeared chocolate all over my child to make it look AS IF he ate it all.

But as there is no evidence of such things happening, and the hypothesis of the child eating it all is sufficient to explain the facts, the evidence most certainly tells me that such third parties or extra-dimensional aliens are not needed to account for the missing half of the cake.


See?

 

[Pogo]

How can you justify the sheer complexity that evolution would have to evolve?​

The second law of thermodynamics says that the entropy of the universe has to increase. Entropy is the natural drive for all types of change in nature, including life. Life is uniquely designed to tap into entropy, and enhance the second law, by first lowering entropy into ordered states, thereby created an enhance potential zone for entropic change. This entropy enhancing mechanism is connected to the interaction of water and organics, via the water and oil effect. If we randomize water and oil, by shaking, and let them settle, order will appear from the chaos.

For example, freshly synthesized protein are at maximum entropy; open, unfolded and wiggling like worms. However, since the organic side groups will cause surface tension in the water, the water will pack these protein to optimize its own free energy, with the orderly packing and folding lowering the entropy of the enzyme to a minimal state. This causes the protein to go against the 2nd law, and thereby creates a zone of entropic potential, that is expressed as catalytic change, for example. This protein activity increases the entropy around itself, while the water keeps the protein in a perpetual state of entropic potential; water and oil effect.

In terms of the DNA, the DNA double helix is also a lowered entropic state, due to water and the water and oil effect. The water forces the DNA to bury the bases and sugars so these have less impact on the bulk water. The double helix is the answer. If we dissolved DNA into an organic solvent like an alcohol, this solvent allows the DNA to remain less ordered, by dissolving or freeing up the bases and sugars; into higher entropy. This is not very bioactive, since the potential for change is not the same. It is already doing fine with respect to solvent entropy.

An important source of enhanced entropic potential in life is connected to ion pumping and the exchange of sodium and potassium ions. Each cation has a different impact on water. The sodium is kosmotropic or creates more order in water that water creates for itself. While potassium is chaotropic and creates more chaos or disorder in water than water creates for itself. With sodium accumulating outside the cell, the outside water has an entropic potential; too ordered. The entropy increase is connected to the attraction of food materials to the outside cell surface to help create more aqueous complexity. The potassium ions inside enhances the disorder of water. This loosens up the water induced organic structures, while also adding potential for enhanced change, even on the DNA. As ion pumping got stronger and stronger change was inevitable and quickened, driven by metabolic energy expenditure lowering ionic entropy.

In terms of the human body, the brain uses about 90% of its metabolic energy ion pumping and exchanging, to creates these two potentials inside and outside the neurons. These are the highest entropic ionic potentials of the body. This has an impact on increasing complexity in the brain to the highest level of the body, that we call learning potential and then forward integration into synapses; platforms for higher thinking. This is the platform for consciousness.

The current model of evolution sort of says the same thing, but uses a random dice and cards approach. Entropy is not exactly random, since it has to increase via states. Energy, is conserved, and energy can shift between forms of energy and accommodate random. Entropy is an ordering principle and is a state function. Entropy absorbs energy and moves forward or increases in steps, like stable platforms for further change. An enzyme has a specific job it does well, but is not subject to in situ random change. Like photons there are entropic quantum states instead of continuous functions, thereby eliminating the assumed randomness inside the gaps. This may not be obvious, when the entire cell is the dynamic state, but changes on the DNA are predictable, if you know the original state and the next quantum step; new species.

There is a logic to the biological system of change we call evolution, but this logic is being blurred by the black box assumptions of statistics, that tries to eliminate the light; reason, needed to see. Statistics is a tool and too many are afraid to lose this tool, since their logic has atrophied in favor of the coin toss and lottery tickets.

The debate between Creation and Evolution is really one between order versus chaos. Evolving order can be induce via the steps of entropic states. This make evolution more in line with a natural ordering principle; 2nd law. The second law should be redefined as the 1st law, since energy is conserved, but entropic has to increase, in time, in steps, and leads change as energy/enthalpy lowers; metabolism. My approach looks different than Creation or Evolution, since I used the order assumption of Creation, and the Science assumptions of water, ions and entropy to create evolving ordered states; a bridge between.

Woo Woo goes the crazy train.

 

[PureX]

This is the objection, we don't accept that placeholder as profound or impenetrable. to do so is to give up.

Well, until you can, it remains what it is: a mystery. So you can whine anc complain about this all you like, and object to every possibility anyone proposes that you don't like, but all that is ever going to be is your own irrational bias. And there is no reason any of the rest of us should care about it.

This isn't logic, It is religious faith in a circular argument, I can't know it because I think it is beyond me.

Or you have an idiot's philosophy?

Or you have no idea how to deal with a logical assertion, but want to whine and cry about it anyway.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You 'believe' in limits yo do not understand.

Well, yes. We believe differently, you and I.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, until you can, it remains what it is: a mystery. So you can whine anc complain about this all you like, and object to every possibility anyone proposes that you don't like, but all that is ever going to be is your own irrational bias. And there is no reason any of the rest of us should care about it.

Or you have no idea how to deal with a logical assertion, but want to whine and cry about it anyway.

I can only repeat myself: things aren't actual "possibilities" simply because someone can dream them up.



If a cake is missing from your kitchen and you ask "what happened to my cake" and I then propose that extra-dimensional aliens materialized in your kitchen, took the cake and then dematerialized back into their own dimension.... would you consider that an actual viable possibility?


I submit that you won't. Instead, you'll raise an eyebrow, look at me like I was crazy or hopefully joking and then simply repeat "what happened to my cake?", completely ignoring what I said as any kind of "possibility" at all. And rightfully so.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

The evidence does not tell us that a creator is not needed.

Agreed. But the time to believe something is true is when there is good evidence that convinces you.

 

[Mock Turtle]

If you look at 1960s prediction of life in the years 2000, we are all flying around with jet packs and living on the moon. The internet wasn't even on the list, though.

Our predictions of the future are notoriously wrong. I wouldn't give them much thought.

Well you are being naïve then in my view regarding AI, given that most who do understand enough about AI are recognising what it is capable of currently, even if the LLM stuff is hardly a good reflection, and it will undoubtedly get much more advanced, especially when quantum computing becomes a reality (not far off it seems), such that we will be able to call such true intelligence - rather than simply being clever, as to what mostly happens now. But as with most inventions by humans, there are usually as many deficits as benefits.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yeah and the evil demon problem by Descartes seem to be universal for all local beings in regards to knowing objective reality in itself.

The objectivity of science is not dependent on local beings. I believe you are misrepresenting the 'evil demon problem' to justify a Nihilist subjective agenda..

More to follow . . .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The objectivity of science is not dependent on local beings. I believe you are misrepresenting the 'evil demon problem' to justify a Nihilist subjective agenda..

More to follow . . .

Well, I have already shown that I am not a nihilst, since I hold postive beliefs. But if it makes you fell better believing that I am that, then do so.

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, yes. We believe differently, you and I.

Unfortunately yours is based on a philosophical self absorbed personal Nihilist subjective agenda devoid of justification.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Unfortunately yours is based on a Nihilist subjective agenda.

What is nihilsim to you?

 

[PureX]

Well you are being naïve then in my view regarding AI, given that most who do understand enough about AI are recognising what it is capable of currently, even if the LLM stuff is hardly a good reflection, and it will undoubtedly get much more advanced, especially when quantum computing becomes a reality (not far off it seems), such that we will be able to call such true intelligence - rather than simply being clever, as to what mostly happens now. But as with most inventions by humans, there are usually as many deficits as benefits.

I can't do a thing about AI whatever it turns into or gets used for. So why do you care if I'm naive or not?

The media loves to scare us with issues that we can't do anything about. So I tend to ignore them. You can fret over them if you want, but I don't think I'm the one being naive, here,

 

[shunyadragon]

What is nihilsim to you?

There are number of variation of Nihilism. I consider your beliefs a form of Epistemological Nihilism and anti-science.

Nihilism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Epistemological nihilism is a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings.

Antiscience - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method.[1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There are number of variation of Nihilism. I consider your beliefs a form of Epistemological Nihilism and anti-science.

Nihilism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Epistemological nihilism is a form of philosophical skepticism according to which knowledge does not exist, or, if it does exist, it is unattainable for human beings.

Antiscience - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Antiscience is a set of attitudes that involve a rejection of science and the scientific method.[1] People holding antiscientific views do not accept science as an objective method that can generate universal knowledge.

Well, I have a different belief about what knowledge is than you. Now you just have to show that your understanding of knowledge is not dependent on your understanding, but truely objective.

 

[firedragon]

There are 3 billion base pairs in the human genom(a cell) and around 30-40 trillion cells in a human each specialized for a specific function.

There are approximately 86 billions of neurons in the brain.

The eye has a cornea, iris, pupil, lens, retina, optical nerve, macula, fovea, Aqueous Humor, Vitreous Humor, Ciliary Muscles, sclera, Choroid and Conjunctiva to name a few. The eye can distinguish between 10 million colours.

The human gut is home to trillions of microorganisms, collectively known as the gut microbiome.

These are just a few incredible facts about the human body there are hundreds more.

This doesn't even touch on the origins of the first cell, first DNA, first multi cell etc etc

How can you expect anybody to believe that it was random mutations that ultimately created all of this, the complexity is ridiculous and there's no way all these complex organisms could have evolved to work together in harmony as they do?

Evolution is not equal to "random mutation". This is a fundamental error Atheists and Theists both seem to make. Evolution is just evolution. Random Gradual Mutation is the Darwin's theory of evolution. You guys should stop equating the two.

Anyway, evolution begins with the first cell. I mean in theory and conceptually. So you cannot even ask the question about evolution speaking about the origins of the first cell. It's a category error.

You are getting somewhere, but have not thought this through.

 

[Kenny]

It is interesting that you admit it. It comes form the distorted belief in ancient mythology.

LOL - I guess the tone and meaning that was behind what I wrote went beyond your capacity to understand as you do with the historicity of the Gospel.

 

[shunyadragon]

LOL - I guess the tone and meaning that was behind what I wrote went beyond your capacity to understand as you do with the historicity of the Gospel.

My view of the historicity of the Bible including the Gospels without provenance is based on the independent historical, literary and archaeological evidence.

Your original statement is more correct concerning your knowledge of the background of the Bible,

 

[shunyadragon]

Well, I have already shown that I am not a nihilst, since I hold postive beliefs. But if it makes you fell better believing that I am that, then do so.

There are different types of Nihilism See post #216