Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Jesus of Nazareth is the historically human basis of the myth of Christ.

The myth of Christ is useful as an allegory about bridging the gap between man and the perfection of God.

The Christian and Judaic perfection of God is described in literature and traditions that date from the Axial Age between 200BC and 500BC.

[3017Metaphysician]

Sure. Many people give primacy to metaphysical phenomena that exist. For example, your own Will that causes you to exist or not exist. Otherwise, say, in Christianity Jesus existed in a history book. You know, just like your Zeus! Is there a difference?

Jesus may or may not have actually existed. He was a superhero archetype, as was common lead character in legends of the time, from Egypt to Greece to Israel to Rome.

Still, even if Jesus did exist, that hardly disproves evolution, which has been the aim of this thread. Maybe we'll have a thread denying NASA's Moon landing too?

Evolution is just a theory.

"Just a theory" makes clear that you lack the basic core knowledge to meaningfully contribute to any discussion about science and nature.

Does this mean you can't support your assertions?

[EricPH]

In the face of all evolutionary reality, I maintain that human beings are 100% pre-encoded in time and mathematics as a robotical structure. Five fingers, five toes, eyes ears mouth and nose. We are even horizontally symmetrical.

When were humans pre-encoded, fifty billion years ago, or at the time of the Big Bang, or at the creation of the Earth?

[EricPH]

Fact is, you know that an expert in biology would destroy your arguments in ways that philosophy buffs cannot.

The odds against winning the UK lottery is around fourteen million to one. This only requires picking six numbers from forty nine. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise a trillion cells?

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae, teeth, ribs, etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc on the left side. Blind evolution would then have to make the right, similar, but totally different.

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion?

How is this mathematically possible without intelligent design?

BTW, many sophisticated Christians have no problem accepting evolution.

I don't have a problem with evolution. God created everything according to its kind, then life was left to evolve.

[Count Lucanor]

How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise a trillion cells?

There are trillion of atoms interacting randomly in a pool of water. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise trillions of atoms into a liquid substance with the properties of water? A body of water by pure chance? Impossible, it seems.

[EricPH]

There are trillion of atoms interacting randomly in a pool of water. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise trillions of atoms into a liquid substance with the properties of water? A body of water by pure chance? Impossible, it seems.

There may well be trillions of atoms in water, but it mostly takes on the shape of its container. Bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons create movement, they have to be a certain size, shape and be connected together to serve a purpose.

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae, teeth, ribs, etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc on the left side. Blind evolution would then have to make the right, similar, but totally different.

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion? The odds against winning the UK lottery is around fourteen million to one. This only requires picking six numbers from forty nine. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise a trillion cells into bones, tendons, ligaments, muscles and more?

How is this mathematically possible without intelligent design?

[Sy Borg]

Fact is, you know that an expert in biology would destroy your arguments in ways that philosophy buffs cannot.

The odds against winning the UK lottery is around fourteen million to one. This only requires picking six numbers from forty nine. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise a trillion cells?

However, when you enter a lottery ticket quadrillions of times, then you can expect to win multiple times.

We are talking BILLIONS of years. You have been alive for DECADES. Stop underestimating deep time. It's a newbie error.

[Count Lucanor]

There are trillion of atoms interacting randomly in a pool of water. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise trillions of atoms into a liquid substance with the properties of water? A body of water by pure chance? Impossible, it seems.

There may well be trillions of atoms in water, but it mostly takes on the shape of its container. Bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons create movement, they have to be a certain size, shape and be connected together to serve a purpose.

I didn't say shape, but all the properties of that substance called water. According to you, trillion of parts interacting randomly in nature could not produce structures, and those structures would not serve a function (aka purpose), but here it is a simple example of trillion of parts interacting randomly to produce a structure with physical properties that work in a particular way. The point is: randomness in nature doesn't imply complete abscence of natural laws. Biological entities have complex structures and perform certain processes that appear guided because there's an underlying physical order from which biochemistry emerges. This is not that a difficult concept to understand.

For about three billion years, life existed happily without jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc. Small fish might be comprised of a trillion cells. It might take millions or billions of cells to make a jaw bone, billions of cells to make vertebrae, teeth, ribs, etc. How does blind nature randomly mutate millions or billions of cells into each of these shapes?

Random mutations are part of the process, but that's not all there is to evolution. That is why it's called natural selection: some mutations give a survival advantage to the population that carries that mutation.

Symmetry is a massive problem, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. Blind evolution would have to organise billions of cells into each bone, muscle, tendon, ligament, etc on the left side. Blind evolution would then have to make the right, similar, but totally different.

Bilateral symmetry is definitely not a problem. It could be an advantage for internal processes as well as for locomotion.

The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion? The odds against winning the UK lottery is around fourteen million to one. This only requires picking six numbers from forty nine. How do you even start to calculate odds when you have to organise a trillion cells into bones, tendons, ligaments, muscles and more?

How is this mathematically possible without intelligent design?

It is simply not a mathematical problem of random events without underlying biochemical processes made possible by physical laws.

[Belindi]

Count Lucanor wrote:

Bilateral symmetry is definitely not a problem. It could be an advantage for internal processes as well as for locomotion.

It could also be a disadvantage. For instance, consider the circumstances of the wild Scottish haggis which is adapted by Nature to run along the steep hillsides of its native habitat. The animal has shorter legs on the uphill side of its little body and longer legs on the downhill side.

[EricPH]

I didn't say shape, but all the properties of that substance called water. According to you, trillion of parts interacting randomly in nature could not produce structures, and those structures would not serve a function (aka purpose),

The structure I mentioned was bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments that make up a skeletal system. The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion?

How did blind evolution first off all produce a few billion bone cells, then make them into the hundred or two random shapes that bones are? How did natural selection know that one percent of a skull would be beneficial, or that three percent of a skull would be an advantage? One percent of a skull might be looked on as an unwanted tumour, not sure how natural selection would work through this.

It is simply not a mathematical problem of random events without underlying biochemical processes made possible by physical laws.

What physical laws can blindly organise trillions of cells into jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc.

Random mutations are part of the process, but that's not all there is to evolution. That is why it's called natural selection: some mutations give a survival advantage to the population that carries that mutation.

Natural selection is wholly dependant on random mutation. If there are no light sensitive cells, natural selection has nothing to work with.

[EricPH]

Count Lucanor wrote:

Bilateral symmetry is definitely not a problem. It could be an advantage for internal processes as well as for locomotion.

It could also be a disadvantage. For instance, consider the circumstances of the wild Scottish haggis which is adapted by Nature to run along the steep hillsides of its native habitat. The animal has shorter legs on the uphill side of its little body and longer legs on the downhill side.

If natural selection came up with two left feet and two left hands, that would be symmetrical, but useless. Our hands are not symmetrical, when you hold both hands in front of you, then you will see that two left hands would not work. You would not fit a prosthetic left hand onto the right side. From an engineering viewpoint, once you have made the left hand, it will be easy to make a similar but very different right hand. A fairly easy task when you apply intelligent design. Without intelligent design it would be near impossible, like all the other questions about random mutation.

There is no symmetry from top to bottom either, because you would need a head at the top of the body and also where our feet are. There is no symmetry from front to back. When you look closely at the bones in our bodies they are all individual.

What physical and natural laws exist to sort billions /trillions of cells into a couple of hundred bones, hundreds of muscles, ligaments and tendons, plus all the other body parts?

[Count Lucanor]

I didn't say shape, but all the properties of that substance called water. According to you, trillion of parts interacting randomly in nature could not produce structures, and those structures would not serve a function (aka purpose),

The structure I mentioned was bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments that make up a skeletal system. The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion?

How did blind evolution first off all produce a few billion bone cells, then make them into the hundred or two random shapes that bones are? How did natural selection know that one percent of a skull would be beneficial, or that three percent of a skull would be an advantage? One percent of a skull might be looked on as an unwanted tumour, not sure how natural selection would work through this.

I don't see what's the point. The main tenet of evolution: that all species are descendants from common ancestors is unchallenged. Then there's the issue of how evolution works, what are the mechanisms behind it, which was first explained satisfactorily by Darwin, Wallace and other that came after him: natural selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc. Surely research is in progress to get into the details and solve all the mysteries of the story of life on Earth in 3.7 billion years, but evolution by natural selection is a well-attested fact. You keep pounding the idea that evolution is puported to be some kind of metaphysical entity that "knows" what is doing and has a purpose, but that's not how evolution is understood by science. Advantage and improved fitness are concepts without teleological implications and are used as a posteriori descriptions of the observed phenomena, not as goal-directed causes.

It is simply not a mathematical problem of random events without underlying biochemical processes made possible by physical laws.

What physical laws can blindly organise trillions of cells into jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc.

Chemistry would not work without physical laws. Chemistry alone shows a particular organization of matter without conscious design. Biochemistry is emergent from chemistry under certain conditions that allowed life on Earth. The forms of life have evolved, there's nothing mysterious about that.

Random mutations are part of the process, but that's not all there is to evolution. That is why it's called natural selection: some mutations give a survival advantage to the population that carries that mutation.

Natural selection is wholly dependant on random mutation. If there are no light sensitive cells, natural selection has nothing to work with.

That's like saying that the making of latte coffee is wholly dependant on coffee. Well, sure, but there's more to it.

[Sy Borg]

Eric, this may help sort out some of your confusion regarding this issue:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... not-random

No, Evolution is Not Random
And natural selection is not a chance process.

Posted December 3, 2021 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

Key points

- Evolution is not random and natural selection is not a chance process.
- The core mistake involves mixing up natural selection and mutation.
- Resolving the confusion is key to understanding evolution and natural selection.

Have you ever come across a statement like this:

“I can’t believe that something as beautiful and complex as the human eye could be the result of a random process like evolution”?

Or this:

“It seems implausible that the intricate molecular machinery of the cell – a finely-tuned nanofactory of exquisite complexity – could have arisen by chance”?

The basic argument being made is as follows:

Premise 1. These complex, organized, functional parts of the body and brain could not possibly have arisen by chance.

Premise 2. Evolution is a chance process.

Conclusion: Therefore, these complex parts of the body and brain cannot be a product of evolution.

The fatal flaw in this argument is that premise 2 is incorrect. Evolution is not a chance-driven process; that is a widespread misconception.

... natural selection, is not random at all. In fact, it is the diametric opposite of randomness. In this step, mutations that turn out to be beneficial to the organism are more likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they aid the organism’s survival or reproduction. Mutations that are harmful are less likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they lower the organism’s likelihood of survival or reproduction. If you give it a moment’s thought, you will see that this is the opposite of a random relationship. If something is random, it is inherently unpredictable and not orderly. Natural selection is the opposite. It is logical and predictable: the likelihood that a mutation will make it into the next generation depends, in a predictable way, on its effects on survival and reproduction. Beneficial mutations tend to get passed on, whereas detrimental ones are weeded out. This is a constrained and orderly relationship – the opposite of “randomness”.

The core mistake is that people sometimes confuse mutations (which are random) with natural selection (which is not random). Evolution is a process in which randomly mutated genes pass through the highly non-random sieve of natural selection.

Note, genetic mutations may not be random but are also subject to competition.

[3017Metaphysician]

I didn't say shape, but all the properties of that substance called water. According to you, trillion of parts interacting randomly in nature could not produce structures, and those structures would not serve a function (aka purpose),

The structure I mentioned was bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments that make up a skeletal system. The starting point for blind evolution is single cell life, to multi cell, to multi billion, to multi trillion cell life. What tools did evolution have 3.7 billion years ago to set all this in motion?

How did blind evolution first off all produce a few billion bone cells, then make them into the hundred or two random shapes that bones are? How did natural selection know that one percent of a skull would be beneficial, or that three percent of a skull would be an advantage? One percent of a skull might be looked on as an unwanted tumour, not sure how natural selection would work through this.

I don't see what's the point. The main tenet of evolution: that all species are descendants from common ancestors is unchallenged. Then there's the issue of how evolution works, what are the mechanisms behind it, which was first explained satisfactorily by Darwin, Wallace and other that came after him: natural selection, adaptation, genetic drift, etc. Surely research is in progress to get into the details and solve all the mysteries of the story of life on Earth in 3.7 billion years, but evolution by natural selection is a well-attested fact. You keep pounding the idea that evolution is puported to be some kind of metaphysical entity that "knows" what is doing and has a purpose, but that's not how evolution is understood by science. Advantage and improved fitness are concepts without teleological implications and are used as a posteriori descriptions of the observed phenomena, not as goal-directed causes.

It is simply not a mathematical problem of random events without underlying biochemical processes made possible by physical laws.

What physical laws can blindly organise trillions of cells into jaw bones, vertebrae, limbs, teeth, etc.

Chemistry would not work without physical laws. Chemistry alone shows a particular organization of matter without conscious design. Biochemistry is emergent from chemistry under certain conditions that allowed life on Earth. The forms of life have evolved, there's nothing mysterious about that.

Random mutations are part of the process, but that's not all there is to evolution. That is why it's called natural selection: some mutations give a survival advantage to the population that carries that mutation.

Natural selection is wholly dependant on random mutation. If there are no light sensitive cells, natural selection has nothing to work with.

That's like saying that the making of latte coffee is wholly dependant on coffee. Well, sure, but there's more to it.

Nope. Countess, stay out of this grown-up talk! Darwin only hypothesized from an already existing ensemble of creatures; not the first one ex nihilo.

Keep trying!

[EricPH]

Eric, this may help sort out some of your confusion regarding this issue:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/blog ... not-random

No, Evolution is Not Random
And natural selection is not a chance process.

Posted December 3, 2021 | Reviewed by Kaja Perina

Key points

- Evolution is not random and natural selection is not a chance process.
- The core mistake involves mixing up natural selection and mutation.
- Resolving the confusion is key to understanding evolution and natural selection.

Have you ever come across a statement like this:

“I can’t believe that something as beautiful and complex as the human eye could be the result of a random process like evolution”?

Or this:

“It seems implausible that the intricate molecular machinery of the cell – a finely-tuned nanofactory of exquisite complexity – could have arisen by chance”?

The basic argument being made is as follows:

Premise 1. These complex, organized, functional parts of the body and brain could not possibly have arisen by chance.

Premise 2. Evolution is a chance process.

Conclusion: Therefore, these complex parts of the body and brain cannot be a product of evolution.

The fatal flaw in this argument is that premise 2 is incorrect. Evolution is not a chance-driven process; that is a widespread misconception.

... natural selection, is not random at all. In fact, it is the diametric opposite of randomness. In this step, mutations that turn out to be beneficial to the organism are more likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they aid the organism’s survival or reproduction. Mutations that are harmful are less likely to make it into the next generation precisely because they lower the organism’s likelihood of survival or reproduction. If you give it a moment’s thought, you will see that this is the opposite of a random relationship. If something is random, it is inherently unpredictable and not orderly. Natural selection is the opposite. It is logical and predictable: the likelihood that a mutation will make it into the next generation depends, in a predictable way, on its effects on survival and reproduction. Beneficial mutations tend to get passed on, whereas detrimental ones are weeded out. This is a constrained and orderly relationship – the opposite of “randomness”.

The core mistake is that people sometimes confuse mutations (which are random) with natural selection (which is not random). Evolution is a process in which randomly mutated genes pass through the highly non-random sieve of natural selection.

Note, genetic mutations may not be random but are also subject to competition.

Hello Sy Borg, I have said several times on this thread that I have no problem with natural selection, and I accept it, no problem, honestly.

Having read through the link you posted, I see you have edited one key passage out of your link; so I have posted it below. I can understand why you would want to omit this quote, it's because it confirms everything I have been saying.

Step 1, mutation, is random. Mutations don’t arise in order to fill a current “need” of the organism. They are blind and they lack foresight, so they also can’t anticipate future needs. In this sense, they can reasonably be described as random. They can also be thought of as “random” in the sense that they are not automatically helpful; a new mutation may turn out to be beneficial or harmful or neutral.

Genetic drift, random mutation does not have to produce millions / billions of cells into a left hand. It does not have to redesign a complex mirror image for the right hand. But if genetic drift of millions/billions of cells did randomly create a left hand, then and only then could natural selection do its job.

... natural selection,

For some reason you also chose to omit the words Step 2 from your link, and replace them with three dots.