tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1731286840935340024..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Can Random, Non-Directed Processes Create DNA Information?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-23468969964772608092008-05-22T18:49:00.000-04:002008-05-22T18:49:00.000-04:00Apolonio said:---Even *if* the tiles were designed...Apolonio said:<BR/>---<BR/>Even *if* the tiles were designed, the *process* of me knocking it over was still random. If we are going to argue that "foundational forces" are intelligent and therefore the process are semi-random, it seems that there can be no such thing as randomness, which is counterintuitive.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I think you understood me backwards. ;-) It's not that the foundational forces are intelligent (they cannot be) but rather, because <I>you</I> are an intelligent being, then no action that you do is truly random. Of course, it can still be impossible to predict an outcome because the variables are beyond our scope. For instance, if you flip a coin we can treat that result as a random event, but in reality the flip of the coin is determined by the amount of force you apply, the angle the coin is held, how far above the ground it is, wind resistence, and other factors. It is not actually random, but because we cannot predict the outcome (and because we do not have control of many of the variables) we consider the results random.<BR/><BR/>One other thing: it is possible for intelligent creatures to create some seemingly random things (i.e., computers can be "seeded" to randomly generate lists of numbers--even then, because they are seeded they are not truly random but only semi-random), but the opposite is so much more difficult as to be physically impossible. Indeed, most of the time when random forces appear to have created something intelligent, it is more an indication of how the human mind can "fill in the blanks" and see what's not really there than it is that the random process actually does such a thing (think Mary appearing in a grilled cheese sandwich).Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-20744368296444269682008-05-22T17:31:00.000-04:002008-05-22T17:31:00.000-04:00One more comment...Even *if* the tiles were design...One more comment...<BR/><BR/>Even *if* the tiles were designed, the *process* of me knocking it over was still random. If we are going to argue that "foundational forces" are intelligent and therefore the process are semi-random, it seems that there can be no such thing as randomness, which is counterintuitive.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-68017617620014667352008-05-22T13:05:00.000-04:002008-05-22T13:05:00.000-04:00Oh, and to answer your question as to what "cannot...Oh, and to answer your question as to what "cannot" means, I am using it the way scientists typically use it (which isn't a logical impossibility, but rather the probability is so low as to be certain it can never happen).<BR/><BR/>For instance, if there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year (60 sec x 60 min x 24 hours x 365 days--not adjusting for leap years) and we say the universe is 15 billion years old, that gives us 473,040,000,000,000,000 seconds (4.7 x 10^17)<BR/><BR/>To get the easiest 50-amino acid long protein chain yields odds of 1 chance in 3 x 10^51, which is 34 orders of magnitude larger than the number of seconds the universe has existed (according to modern theorists). Even if we had one combination per second for all 15 billion years the universe is supposed to have existed, we would not have randomly produced a 50-amino acid protein.<BR/><BR/>But of course things are bleaker for the Darwinist since they do not have 15 billion years. As soon as life could begin, it did begin. Therefore, you're looking for something that has to be at most a few million years in the making, which in geological time is nothing.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-42984944858990327922008-05-22T10:21:00.000-04:002008-05-22T10:21:00.000-04:00Apolonio,You are correct that my wording was impre...Apolonio,<BR/><BR/>You are correct that my wording was imprecise. In reality, I should have said "While this would be a semi-random process creating information" since the intelligence factors involved mitigate against pure random processes. That is, if it was totally random then the tiles would have needed to be formed randomly too; but they were not.<BR/><BR/>I think I explained that part in the paragraph, but the sentence you quoted would be misleading and would contradict my B) statement.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-87371743465399057602008-05-22T09:24:00.000-04:002008-05-22T09:24:00.000-04:00"While this would be a random process creating inf..."While this would be a random process creating information, it is not using foundational forces. "<BR/><BR/>Response:<BR/>This contradicts (B). B states that information **cannot** come out of random process. I don't know in what way are you speaking of cannot here. Metaphysical or logical? It seems that my example, as you said, is a counterexample to (B). <BR/><BR/>You said it was not foundational forces. Well, (B) states nothing about foundational forces. And two, it seems to beg the issue that foundational forces must be designed. I think what you are arguing is that information cannot come from non-information. Yet, I think we can think of counterexamples to this. <BR/><BR/>I think (B), then, needs to be refined as, "It is improbable that..." rather than saying it cannot.Aphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04226017144967122488noreply@blogger.com