It is talking about the selection. I thought you understood that the mutations can be random but the selection isn't.

This is exactly the point I've been trying - unsuccessfully I guess - to make. I don't believe most Atheists think that identifying a natural law necessarily excludes God. What it does, is add one more reason why God is unnecessary for this universe to work and makes it that much LESS LIKELY that God exists.

Atheists tend to believe that there is no reliable evidence for God's existence. Each advancement in the understanding of the natural universe ads to that.

Yes I do. The question then is how would you characterize the end result? A product of chance or ... non-chance, design? I think I've given a few examples already. EVEN IF genetic mutations are pure chance, EVEN for God, they occur within a certain range of possibilities, all of which could be known to God and designed by Him to be achieved through the random process so that the result is certain though the path is variable through a range. When you say evolution is undesigned you go beyond simple random genetic mutation, and you can't prove that assertion. That's what I take issue with. Science has no ability whatsover to make any pronouncement on whether or not life as we know it is designed, whether or not the biological diversity we see COULD happen without design.

It doesn't add to it logically anymore than the fact a watch can run without the watchmaker being present increases the probability the watchmaker doesn't exist.

Well, I think people like Dawkins are certainly allowed to speculate based on their expertise whether evolution itself has to be designed or whether that questions makes sense. Also, whether life as we see could happen without direct design at an atomic level or higher is certainly a scientific question and one that I don't think people with sufficient knowledge of science disagree about. People are not required to keep your religious beliefs in mind when they do science or science based speculation and you can't really prove anything in science.

No, I gave a well-understood proof of my statements. You chose to ignore it, saying I quote "Baloney".

That's not a simple proposition. Proof please (I already gave a counter-example, but hey, maybe you have a proof anyway).

I think you mean that he doesn't understand basic evolutionary theory. Biological evolution is probably the most complex system on the planet, much more complex than, say, weather. We understand about - maybe - 7% of how it works. I think a thing can be "designed" to be random. IOW, it can be part of God's plan that these changes are randomly appearing, to suit a purpose of His we can't possibly understand. I'm not saying that happened, but I am saying we don't want to limit God's choices.

As for "random" mutation - well - maybe. Not Ready is correct in that we cannot prove the randomness. The idea that "90% of mutations are harmful" is both hypothetical and relative.

What we do know is that some mutations are not random and we don't know what causes them. I don't have all these books handy anymore but the classic classroom example is hemophilia. While it is heritable, it also just appears seemingly out of nowhere with regularity. So, a question still to be answered amongst the twenty-gabillion others about biological evolution is: what causes some mutations to appear again and again independently of one another?

The absolute randomness of genetic mutation is essentially modern mythology, not unassailable fact.

As for God, well, I think there is a difference between omniscience that means nothing escapes His knowledge and the idea that He perfectly controls every action and interaction.

NotReady: Are you saying that randomness doesn't exist because God has a plan for every single atom (or smaller) in the universe throughout infinity?

If I were to accept this view, I'd agree that there is no such thing as randomness.

The concepts 'chance' and 'randomness' are probably recent inventions, ca. 1500 B.C.E. (Obviously this can't be proven, but read the case presented here and see what you think.)

It was many years ago that I read this famous book in your link (The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian James), and as I recall one of the things that James said was that consciousness came about with the invention of the mirror. That is lol.

Chance and randomness are indeed inventions of the human mind. Whether they exist outside of our minds is still an open question. Our interpretation of quantum mechanics embraces the random but the scary thing about the random is that it may reflect only ignorance.

I think it's perfectly ok to talk about chance from the human viewpoint because of our finite knowledge. If you flip a coin there are 2 possibilities but since we don't know and can't calculate which will occur there's a 50% chance for each. But that doesn't mean the result it actually due to chance - pure chance would be something that is uncaused.

If pure chance exists for God it would only be because He allows it and because He has control over the results - that is, the immediate result of the chance would be unimportant to His plan, the final result would be certain. Take the example I gave - we decide to give X$ to charity then flip a coin to see who pays. It's chance how the coin will come up but the final result, X$ going to charity, is certain. Perhaps God allows chance of that nature. I don't personally believe He does but He could without it diminishing His omnipotence or sovereignty.

I really like your example. Maybe He does it to give us the opportunity for Grace. What if the chance result of the coinflip doesn't match the expectations of one person and he, freewill intact says, "I changed my mind. I'm not paying."

Now, chance has brought you to a place to make a choice: you don't have to pay, you are relieved of your obligation by chance.

The charity still needs the money, you still have the money to give. You don't have to pay now. Chance brings you a great opportunity.

NR,

Do you take this philosophy with you to the poker table? Do you adjust your play based on it? Do you think God (or some other factor) is controlling the shuffle and therefore you should act accordingly?

Not trying to be rhetorical or anything, I'm genuinely curious.

I don't think I've ever heard someone say evolution is undesigned as a scientific statement. What we continuously hear is evolution does not require a designer.

There's a HUGE difference between the two. One is an accurate statement and the other is a strawman you invented.

You didn't get what I said, did you?

Well, we hear it from scientists who occupy official positions as educators of people who are ignorant of science and without taking off their science hat and putting on their unscientific hat so if they don't mean it as a scientific statement they should at least realize that most people will view it as such. When Dr. Sagan says "The cosmos is all there is", for instance, he didn't suddenly, in the midst of all that scientific exposition, preface the statement by saying "The next statement is my own unsubstantiated, unprovable, metaphysical personal opinion". Neither do people like Dawkins when filling our poor minds with all the wonders of evolution.

And there's no substantial difference between saying "evolution is undesigned" and "evolution doesn't require a designer". Statement 1 is stronger but 2 makes the same kind of assertion requiring unreachable knowledge.

Just wrong. Pretty silly that you criticize dawkins and sagan and make such a ridiculous statement.

Nope.

Invisible garden gnomes blocked the reading comprehension faculty of my brain while I was writing that last post. Of course I can't prove to you that's what happened, so you'll just have to take my word for it.

I am a very prolific programmer -- ~a couple of millions of lines of code over tens of different computer languages and a dozen or so different computing platforms -- and I have several times seen random changes / random bugs cause entirely unsuspected effects that were then somehow "beneficial", in the sense that they were adopted and fine-tuned into new features.

It's very rare, but it happens -- which is exactly what one can also say about DNA mutations. You're FOS, and so is obviously Berlinski.

...but even if what I describe above never happened, his analogy is awful.

Biological entities aren't enough similar to computers that you can take that analogy as far as he does, likening computer code to DNA, because cells and bodies have all sorts of fault-tolerant sub-systems, backup mechanisms, etc. Mainstream computer software is just not made that way.

The analogy could perhaps work better if he made a comparison with e.g. the software that rides onboard the NASA Mars rovers, as they are built to handle random errors due to radiation -- in a somewhat similar fashion to what natural selection most likely has done over millions of years to biological systems.

Which takes me to this point, which really shows the level of ignorance and idiocy Berlinski is on compared to what real scientists are involved in:

There has already over many years been lively debate about to what degree, and by what mechanisms, natural selection has "tuned" radiation-robustness -- and thereby also mutation rates -- in various organisms. Because not only are too many mutations bad, too few might also be bad, as it lowers the accumulative adaptability of the gene carriers, and so other species are more likely to outcompete them.

See e.g.

Deinococcus Radiodurans

Radioresistancy in organisms

So, if he is so damn smart, why haven't Berlinski educated himself about these matters before mouthing off? It's not like this is a very obscure corner of the scientific world. He is either dumb, or he is an arrogant prick fighting hard to save face where he has no left (a la sunk cost fallacy), or he is just a contrarian shuckster as suggested by the poster Voltaire earlier in the thread.

After having had the nauseating displeasure of watching him in a couple of debates, I'm not sure where to put my money in that regard. All three alternatives seems plausible.

This is a pretty weak analogy for several reasons:

1) Genetic Algorithm's are a major & successfull area of AI and are based almost entirely around random mutations & reproduction

2) Mutations in humans are very frequently catastrophic

3) Windows 2000 is designed, not evolved, code can be written to have failsafe mechanisms in case one part fails but designers often design the system to run in normal situations only and do not factor in abnormal situations. Evolution is much better at creating failsafes as a person who can withstand damage is more likely to reproduce, it makes sense that a system created by evolution is better suited to handle negative mutations than a designed system

4) Humans are on there X^Y billionth release, windows 2000 was the 3rd version

Oh. c'mon, Max, it's pretty disingenuous to deny Dawkins et al are saying there is no designer. The whole "randomness" position is based implicitly on lack of intent by a force able to manifest that intent.

And you can't prove it's random, so everyone get off this turkey of a mount. You all are the ones who are starting to look foolish. It's like some Pope changing the Church's stand on an issue and saying in the encyclical, "We aren't really changing anything, we're just clarifying it."

uh-huh

Yeah, Dawkins claims no designer. Now, move on.

Which is not what he's saying, really. Either address the point or don't.

Independent of what Dawkins says there is a huge difference between saying evolution does not require a designer and I think it is very likely that evolution is undesigned. The first statement is something that could be understood pretty well within a scientific framework, like I don't think anybody in 2009 denies that the Earth didn't needed anything special designing and is a result of gravity and other basic laws.

-moe- and jeog's posts above are awesome and if verified crush Berlinski's arguments.

Which doesn't mean it's not inevitable.

You still have to account for the laws: "first cause." I agree that there wasn't a Big Guy Who formed the planets like making cosmic mudballs.

And while I have you here - I really would like to know, why does stuff rotate and not tumble? Planets, galaxies..all that stuff.