2,002
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 578:
Line 578: + + + + +
→Scientific Claims
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Hoyle and Wrickramasinghe were advocating panspermia, and their argument deals with abiogenisis. We've been over this before. Look at the work of Rechenberg, Fogel, and Holland, who have proven that simple arguments from improbability are not applying to evolution, i.e. they have proven mathematically that evolution is not a random walk. If you want to promote Hoyle's idea of panspermia to solve the problem of abiogenesis, feel free to do so. But this is a tangent. [[User:Order|Order]] 17:44, 9 December 2007 (EST)
: Evolution is by definition random at heart, because it excludes design. Yes, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were talking about abiogenesis, so that was a bad example. That they were promoting the idea of panspermia is irrelevant, though. Evolutionary computations do not prove that the mathematics of evolution work, because they are not trying to do that, and they are not actually models of evolution, but [[natural selection]]. See the dam example in that link (including in the last section) for further information, and see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5089/ here] for more reasons why the computations are not like evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
: Evolution is by definition random at heart, because it excludes design. Yes, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe were talking about abiogenesis, so that was a bad example. That they were promoting the idea of panspermia is irrelevant, though. Evolutionary computations do not prove that the mathematics of evolution work, because they are not trying to do that, and they are not actually models of evolution, but [[natural selection]]. See the dam example in that link (including in the last section) for further information, and see [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5089/ here] for more reasons why the computations are not like evolution. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:55, 10 December 2007 (EST)
Your first sentence is mistaken on two accounts. First, evolution is not random, if you mean with random, random walk. If you mean without teleological purpose you are right, but that meaning of "random", doesn't allow you to calculate probabilities. If you calculate probabilities, your random wither mean that "uniform distribution" or "random walk" and evolution is neither. Because selection isn't random. And you can calculate at what population size genetic drift (random walk) is superseded by the effects of selection.
Second, randomness doesn't exclude design. If you are using a wifi connection right now, your are using a randomized backoff algorithm. And that has been purposefully designed. Randomness can be perfectly well be part of design.
Nice example with the dam example. You can show many instances of evolution that are different from biological evolution, but an instance that proves that evolution works for a dam, doesn't disprove other instances of the principle of evolution. It is like saying just because one instance of a wiki based encyclopedia does work, another instances of a wiki based encyclopedia that is different in many details cannot work. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:12, 15 December 2007 (EST)
===Interpretations===
===Interpretations===