Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois
From: dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: The Keebler Chronicles (5 of 7)
Message-ID: <939@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 19-Apr-85 16:07:34 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.939
Posted: Fri Apr 19 16:07:34 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Apr-85 01:27:17 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: UW-Madison Primate Center
Lines: 346


>>> [Ernest Hua / Keebler]
>>> { From my article CREATIONIST ARGUMENTS, PART II }
>>>
>>> In this segment, we shall look at the incessant complaint about the
>>> mathematical probability of evolution by the creationists.
>>>
>>> The complaint has be raised in several forms.  The simplest form of
>>> the argument is like this:  "... the probability of an organism, so
>>> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental
>>> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could
>>> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..."  Well,
>>> it sounds good.  But, wait!  Who is to say that the human being is
>>> even remotely near perfect?  On what basis shall we rate the organ-
>>> ization of the human body?  We might say that the shark is far more
>>> perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply.

>> [DuBois]
>> Perhaps you should check your statements before you make them.
>> [I then quoted Romer, to the effect that sharks are
>> "...the last of the major fish groups to appear in the
>> fossil record..."]
>>
>> Sharks were the *last* major group of fishes to arrive on the
>> evolutionary scene; they haven't been around "so long" as all that.
>> Also, since you have indicated elsewhere your dislike for like my lack
>> of proposed mechanism, I am sure you would abhor the same failing in
>> yourself and will take this opportunity to propose to elucidate for
>> us why the simple sharks should degenerate from more complex
>> ancestors.  This is particularly interesting as it apparently occurred
>> whie the teleostean fishes were increasing in complexity, and while my
>> lovely coelacanth ("be still, my heart") was refusing to budge in
>> complexity.

> Perhaps you would like to tell me how long I meant?  (It would be in-
> teresting, if you can tell me.)  Perhaps I neglected to mention that
> sharks are survived so long, unchanged.  Time is not as important as
> the fact that it remained virtually unaltered from its earliest fossils.

Ah.  Perhaps I was wrong.  Wouldn't be the first time!  But I'll
attempt a response.  First, if time is, as you (that is, as you NOW)
say, irrelevant, the phrase "so long" in "managed to survive so long
and so simply" doesn't make much sense, does it?  Second, it doesn't
really matter how long "so long" means (though I assumed (apparently
incorrectly) you meant by it that they were ancient), since the more
complex fish arrived first.  If you want unchanging fish, the
coelacanth would be a much better example.  Been around longer.  Poor
logic, poor example.

> You have certainly dragged out a point beyond usefulness.  As indicated
> in my last letter to you, you go too far in taking everything literally.
> You have missed the point, obviously.

My argument was that you had no point in the first place.

> The length of your response to a
> single example is quite contrary to your reputed intelligence.  Why don't
> you try understanding the main thrust of the text, rather than sidetrack-
> ing on some less-than-relevant point.

I have done nothing to encourage others to make complementary comments
regarding the nature of my intellectual capabilities.  To some degree I
have discouraged it (because they are after all irrelevant).  This
being so, your remarks that those comments are obviously inaccurate are
not worth responding to.  Remember, I never asserted that I have a
brain; I'm not about to deny allegations that I don't!

But I still miss the point.  What is it?

>> Or shall we simply say that "there is nothing to prevent this in
>> evolutionary theory?"  Only at the price of the inability to rule out
>> any possible occurrence.  And if we do that, we shall only add to the
>> frustrations of those who wish to prevent evolution (as a theory) from
>> being reduced to pure description, and who wish it instead to rise to
>> the stature of a "nomothetic discipline".  (Gould's phrase.)

> You are making conjectures, which I don't see justification for.

Read the first few pages of Stephen Jay Gould, "The promise of
paleobiology as a nomothetic, evolutionary discipline."  Paleobiology,
6(1), 1980, 96-118.  My comments will become crystal clear.  Nomothetic
means "law-giving"; hence Gould's lament is that there should be some
predictive or generative principles, and that there aren't.  Only
description.

>>> And
>>> the virus must be the most organized since it is simplistic in con-
>>> struction and can remain dormant until food comes along.  I doubt a
>>> creationist would admit to any of these comments.
>> 
>> Uh ... why do you doubt it?

> How many creationists would accept a virus being more organized than
> he/she is?  Better yet, would you?  If you understand the main thrust
> of my point in this article, you would not have wasted your time on
> these inane sidetracks.

Nope, I wouldn't, but WHY do YOU doubt it!?  Talk about sidetracks!  :-)

>>> The GROSS ERROR
>>> here is the assumption that human beings are perfect, organized and
>>> a host of other adjectives that associate subjective, rather than
>>> objective, characterizations.
>>
>> I think we might say that "organization" is a concept susceptible to
>> quantification.  Perhaps even perfection is, as well.  Since you assert
>> that this is not the case, the burden of proof is certainly on you to
>> show it, however.

> It is precisely the fact that words like "organization" and "perfection"
> are subjective that make objective arguments based upon these words in-
> valid.  In case you missed it, the first section of this text, which you
> littered with your sidetracks, is devoted to showing the subjectiveness
> of these words.

Regarding organization:  I disagree.  There is a certain amount of
literature devoted to the attempt to quantify organization.  If you
were familiar with any of it you wouldn't make such specious remarks.
It's evolutionist literature, by the way.  Stuff you ought to know
about.  You might start with Saunders and Ho, f'rinstance ("On the
Increase in Complexity in Evolution".  J Theoretical Biology, 63, 1976,
375-384.  It's marked by some fundamental internal contradictions, but
it's short and very readable.) Now, I do not like to say this, but I'm
going to anyway.  I find it depressing and scandalous that the
creationist should find it necessary to inform the evolutionist of the
content of the evolutionary literature in order to disabuse the
evolutionist of notions about which he should know better.

I don't know about quantifying perfection, however.  I agree that would
be more difficult.

>> But the REAL gross error is the assumption that all creationists must
>> argue on the basis of perfection.

> It certainly would be ... if I did make that assumption.  Why don't you
> show me where I made it ...

Right here:

>>> The complaint has be raised in several forms.  The simplest form of
>>> the argument is like this:  "... the probability of an organism, so
>>> perfect, so organized, like the human-being, forming from elemental
>>> particles in random fashion is so ridiculously small, that it could
>>> never have happened, no matter how much time is allowed ..."  Well,
>>> it sounds good.  But, wait!  Who is to say that the human being is
>>> even remotely near perfect?  On what basis shall we rate the organ-
>>> ization of the human body?  We might say that the shark is far more
>>> perfect since it has managed to survive so long and so simply.

As I read this again, however, I think that perhaps my conclusion was
not a *necessary* one.  I retract it.

---

>> It is also erroneous to assert that
>> such arguments are always tied to human perfection.  They aren't.

> I am refering to commonly raised arguments such as the old "watch-
> watchmaker" gripe.  Although the perfection is generally directed
> at humans, I have encountered many instances of it being used to
> refer to life in general.  I really doubt that I said it was ALWAYS
> tied to humans.  If I did, I present my apologies.

Ok.  It's not worth arguing about.

>> One
>> instance of the canonical doctrine of perfection in a non-human context
>> is the bombardier beetle.  There are others.

> I am not sure, but are you saying that the bombardier beetle is perfect?

No, it's just a non-human example that has been used by some
creationists.

> If you are, tell me what it could possibly do to prevent me from stepping
> on it.

Do you really propose to measure perfection by means of the metric
"resistance to being stepped on"?

>> I may as well raise a related point.  You seem to imply that perfection
>> is a concept over which creationists exert a monopoly.

> Really?!  Where did I do that?  I did not claim any such thing.

You seemed to strongly imply it.

>> This is not
>> true, although the use of the concept by evolutionists perhaps more
>> often focusses on its antithesis, i.e., imperfection.

> Here we go again with the "you do it too" argument.

Telling me that I say "you do it, too" is no response.  The response
would be better if you simply dispelled the vagueness which I (continue
to) allege inheres in your position, rather than complain that I say it
too often.  If your position is so explicit and so clear that shouldn't
be difficult to do.  Since all you seem to do is reply "don't say 'you
do it, too'", I conclude that you have no more to say than I do beyond
WHAT you believe.  Which isn't much.

>> You say "who is
>> to say that the human being is even remotely near perfect?"  Who is to
>> say?  Well, it's pretty obvious that you are.  For clearly you wish to
>> assert the absence of perfection, which cannot be done without some
>> idea of what would constitute such perfection.  So you have proceeded
>> to do what you mock, namely, make an estimate of the perfection of the
>> human body.

> Perhaps you would like to tell me what I had in mind, since you seem to
> be certain that I do.  My main point was to say that "perfection", along
> with several other words, is highly subjective, and thus does not have a
> set of standard definitions and qualifications to everyone.  I raised
> examples of different qualifications that would place human beings below
> other life forms.  Creationists generally insist that human beings are
> far better than all other life forms (do you?  I don't know ...), sort
> of like "the chosen".  I am simply saying that there is nothing to jus-
> tify that claim.  I am certainly not saying that there is any absolute
> concept of perfection as I am proving the opposite.

Well, NOW you say "DOES NOT have a set of standard definitions and
qualifications".  But your argument proceeds along the lines of "CANNOT
be given a set of standard definitions and qualifications" (otherwise
you have no argument).  Which is it?

>> You also say "On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human
>> body?", and then go on to offer a couple of examples of statements you
>> think creationists ought to disagree with, apparently because the
>> rating of is made on the basis of criteria which, it is assumed,
>> creationists will or must deny.  So, not only do you do that which you
>> argue against, you miss the point of your OWN argument, which is that
>> you CAN and DO offer criteria for assessment of the character of
>> perfection.  Perhaps the criteria are poor - you seem to think so
>> yourself.  But they are offered, and therein lies the crux of the
>> matter.  If one wishes to say *anything* about perfection, either in
>> favor of its presence OR its absence, one must specify criteria.  This
>> is no less true of the evolutionist who wishes to argue that
>> imperfections are evidence of evolution (Gould, for example) than it is
>> true of creationists who argue that perfections are evidence of
>> creation.  So obviously, many people (creationists as well as
>> non-creationists) are willing to at least attempt to answer your
>> questions, "Who is to say that the human being is even remotely near
>> perfect?  On what basis shall we rate the organization of the human
>> body?"

> Your paragraph fumbles around too much, though I think I have already
> answered the main point.

No, because you have not resolved the contradiction of trying to do
what you imply cannot be done.

>> I think that you are sticking your head in the sand and saying "this
>> can never be solved, it's too subjective."  Maybe, but how do you
>> know?  You are arguing based not on what is known, but on what is
>> unknown.  Dangerous ground.

> Excuse me?!  Are you about to suggest that perfection CAN be defined?
> If not, what do you mean by "solve"?  Solve WHAT?  What is this gib-
> berish thrown in here?  What is the "unknown"?

Solve the question of the quantification of perfection.  The unknown is
that we don't know how to quantify it - yet.  I'm not saying that it
would be easy, or even that I know how.  But is it impossible?  Are
you, in fact, prepared to say that this is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE?  If
so, how do you know?  And what makes you so sure?

>>> Another form of the mathematical argument is like a proposition by
>>> Henry Morris of ICR (it might be Gish, or some other author):  "The
>>> probability of 100 body parts forming any configuration is X (some
>>> large number).  Even if one configuration were formed every second,
>>
>> You mean some small number.

> I mean some short period of time, for which an example was given.

Probability isn't time.  What are you talking about, anyway?

>>> For the
>>> programmers out there, one can look at the set of statements in any
>>> language and see that a program can consist of countless variations
>>> containing different configurations of these statements.  Is there
>>> a limit to the number of programs that will work?  [I am sure that
>>> many creationists are going to say, "Well, there you have it!  You
>>> need a PROGRAMMER to write a program!  So there!"  Don't waste my
>>> precious reading time because that is completely off the subject.
>>> Programs usually don't have billions/trillions (am I coming close to
>>> the right order of magnitude?  I am refering to the number of mole-
>>> cules.) of statements put together, and I don't want to hear about
>>> your omniscient God until you prove His existence.]
>> 
>> I suggest that it would be difficult to prove the existence of *anything*
>> without talking about it.  It would also be difficult to transmit the
>> proof without discussing the entity whose existence was in question.
>> So it would seem you have set up a condition impossible to satisfy.
>> Don't want to hear about X?  (Substitute any X.)  Fine, I won't talk about
>> X.  Nor will I be surprised to hear you say you haven't heard of any
>> proof of X.  Of course not.  You carefully excluded that possibility at
>> the beginning.

> Paul, do you ever try to understand the point?  Why do you insist on
> reading everything literally, except when it is convenient for you to
> interpret and comprehend?

> It is not too difficult to see that I will listen to any attempted
> proofs of God.  Otherwise, how the heck am I supposed to get the
> proof?

Apparently I have to be literal sometimes to get you to say what you
really mean.  It worked this time.  Thank you for the clarification.

>>> As for biological evolution, one should look at the transitions
>>> that a grassland goes through as it evolve into a forest.  I can
>>> just hear it now: "... the forest was there in the first place!
>>> The probability of all those trees growing together in one place
>>> is so small that ..."  (Just kidding!  I know none of you crea-
>>> tionists would even touch that statement ... would you?)
>> 
>> No, what I would say is that you have pulled a fast one with your use
>> of the term evolution here.  The evolution of a grassland into a
>> forest involves the replacement of pre-existing species by other
>> pre-existing species.  Grass does not "evolve" into trees when
>> grassland becomes a forest, any more than the sun evolves into the
>> moon during the night.  Surely you're aware of that, but what
>> then is the point of such a statement?

> I did not state that the grass will transform.  I said that the grassland
> will transform.  (No, not magically.)  There are several stages that it
> goes through, some of which are rapid, some of which are slow, all highly
> dependent upon the life forms available to populate it.  Evolution is a
> view of nature undergoing changes at all levels.  It is not restricted to
> organisms.

Not good enough.  Your example is still a different kind of evolution,
one which does not require transformation of one species into another.

---

> You fail miserably at understanding the extremely simple idea conveyed
> in my article.

This should come as no surprise to anyone.
-- 
                                                                    |
Paul DuBois	{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois        --+--
                                                                    |
"Danger signs, a creeping independence"                             |