Originally posted by Barcs
Originally posted by adjensen
If something requires randomness (as we both seem to agree that it does,) then it is dependent on randomness, period. End of story. Stop
Dependent on randomness is not equal to driven by randomness. People make that argument to suggest that evolution is random. It's
There is no "driving process" in evolution -- that implies intelligence and direction. I'm not making the argument that evolution is driven by
randomness, I don't think it's "driven" by anything. What I said was, from the first post, that it is dependent on it.
Let's do a thought experiment... imagine a planet with an environment that never changes, but is favourable to life. Some ideal temperature,
distance from the sun, gravity, etc. Now, let's imagine that there is one homogenous type of life on this planet, single celled; mushrooms; cats;
whatever, and that on this planet, there is no genetic drift, no random mutations... like the environment, life never changes.
Roll the clock forward a million years, and what would we expect to find on our hypothetical planet? Business as usual, of course -- the environment
can't change, and neither can the life forms, so it is not likely to look any different than it did a million years prior.
Now, let's say that we have the option of adding change, but only to one side. We can either make the environment variable, or we can make the life
variable, through random mutation. Make your choice, then move forward a million years... with which choice will life still exist?
Opting for genetic drift, there's no telling what life might look like, but it is highly likely to still exist. Opting for natural selection through
environmental change is almost certain to result in a planet wide extinction.
Because knowing how something happens is not knowing "why" something happens. If it is unpredictable, as any sufficiently chaotic
system is, then the change is random.
But they can predict certain things about the mutations, and they do know many of the causes.
Everything that I've seen on this end have been attempts to "intelligence up" natural selection (and not always by the ID types -- I've read
articles by evolutionary biologists who clearly are attempting to add some level of intelligent direction to natural selection,) and I've never been
impressed by the rationale behind any of it.
It has been a long time since I did much research in complex systems and chaos theory (one of the things that I studied in Graduate School was
meteorology and I wandered off into chaos from that,) but I'm of the mind that, while it is possible
to make absolute predictions that remove
the concept of randomness from complex chaotic systems, the computational needs to do so are likely beyond the abilities of anything now or in the