Hi Chris,
Descent with modification existed as a concept before Darwin. Darwin's only
contribution was the mechanism - tiny random mutations, which natural
selection created into complex biological systems by picking and choosing.
Darwin himself stated that if any biological system proved to be too complex
to be created in this way, his system would prove to be invalid. Some
scientists, such as Behe, now claim that many, if not all, biological systems
are too complex to have been "created" by natural selection. If, as you
claim, "most scientists" no longer regard Darwin's theory the explanation of
evolution, all they have to do is say so. Much of the controversy would
disappear, for it is not "evolution" that most critics question, but
specifically "the creation of complex biological systems by RM&NS". Some
people use the term "imperfect copying" (of DNA I assume) instead of random
mutation. This language certainly implies "accidental" and "lacking
intelligence or purpose".
In your analogy, the monkeys are only allowed to make certain changes. Who
sets the rules for which changes are allowed? The machine itself you claim!!
Any machine or entity that sets rules, or makes decisions sounds to me like
it either includes intelligence, or it is itself the result of an intelligent
design. I realize yours is only an analogy, but below is a quote.
Chris:
>So, we let the monkeys do their thing on a billion computers,
>and a billion new computers are produced based on their
>(mostly slight) changes. In some cases, the change might
>only an increase in power supply wattage. In other cases,
>it might be an increase in the amount of memory. In other
>cases, it might be a difference in some software subroutine.
Bertvan:
We can guess the odds that an accidental modification made to billion
computers by a billion monkeys would actually result in increased power
supply wattage, or increased amount of memory, or change a software
subroutine. I suggest that the odds are even less that an equivalent
"improvement" would accidentally occur in a biological system, which is many
times more complex. The most unlikely of all, IMHO, would be that all this
random tinkering by monkeys would result in increased complexity, rather than
deterioration. You say the system has the ability to repair itself. How
would it to that without intelligence?
I'm not sure if the "random mutations" you have in mind are point mutations
in nucleotides. In which case, each new biological function would require
thousands of mutations occurring in the proper order. Since I find it
difficult to think that is what you mean, I assume that that you believe DNA
itself has the ability to "organize" various point mutations into coherent
information to specify a new protein. I've heard the suggestion that an
existing gene might be used for a new function. Accidentally? Without
intelligence? What would make the choice to use a gene for another function,
if not some form of intelligence?
Your view of life might not be too far from my version of intelligent design.
I know it is important to you that no god play a roll in nature, and I
wonder if that is the reason for your insistence upon "randomness".
However, your view of life wouldn't have to be in conflict with Theism. I
have no interest in a theory of evolution that would prove materialism wrong.
I doubt either materialism or its opposites can ever be proved to the
satisfaction of everyone. Materialists who are repelled by the concept of
God could attribute nature's ability to organize itself into rational systems
to an invisible force called "intelligence". Since a definition of
"intelligence" is something that makes choices, it will always be
unpredictable. Belief in whether or not God plays any roll in that
intelligence could be optional.
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Dec 02 2000 - 16:52:25 EST