Re: [asa] Random Design

I like this photo.

http://www.chromasia.com/iblog/archives/0411202114.php
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Merv
  To: asa@calvin.edu
  Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 6:51 PM
  Subject: Re: [asa] Random Design

  Cool cauliflower! I hadn't ever noticed the fractal appearance of that.

  One of my favorite physical examples of "design" from "randomness" is the snow flake. Most creationists are not willing to think of God personally hand designing each crystal, so they can then allow for secondary causes in this case. And I heard it beautifully explained. As a flake falls (or rises) through various temperature layers of air the water molecules of that layer have a slightly altered rate of accretion onto the crystal giving the addition at that point its own peculiar & symmetrical (since the whole flake is in the same layer) characteristic. Since no two flakes are likely to see all the same layers in the exact same sequence and time, it isn't likely any two flakes would develop the same way. It is an excellent example of randomness within constraints. Order from chaos (with the requisite energy input). It is a good way to help a YEC get past the abuse of the second law. (Thanks for pointing out the list of "arguments creationists should stop using", Burgy. It is particularly useful since it comes from a YEC site -- in other words, a "trusted source" for those who feel everything else to be bastions of conspiracy. --I plan on pointing a few students to that source.)

  --Merv

  Jim Armstrong wrote:
    Mathematical? Well, to an extent, and yet here is my favorite example of a beautifully (but not infinitely) fractal vegetable, a Romanesco cauliflower (or broccoli).
    JimA [Friend of ASA]

    Jon Tandy wrote:

True, I guess I'm thinking of fractals as mathematical models for real
things, but I think it also applies as a mathematical or statistical model.

>From Wikipedia (Fractal):
"Because they appear similar at all levels of magnification, fractals are
often considered to be infinitely complex (in informal terms). Natural
objects that approximate fractals to a degree include clouds, mountain
ranges, lightning bolts, coastlines, and snow flakes. "

The argument goes (in informal terms), "this thing appears extremely
complex, so therefore it must have been designed". But fractal designs
aren't explicitly designed structures. It is true that there are underlying
rules or techniques by which fractals of various designs are constructed,
but the process of actually creating it is based on random or deterministic
processes that have no further inherent design involved. This might be
analogous to "intelligent design" inherent in nature, which leads to vast
complexity through natural ("random") processes with limited or no further
intervention.

And the real things that fractals are used to model, such as coastlines, are
in many cases formed by a set or series of random processes. Again this
comes back to what is the definition of "complex", which seems to be rather
subjective. I also failed to take into account the ID concept of
"irreducible complexity", which they might hold as not having any
applicability to simply "complex" structures as I've suggested.

Jon Tandy

As I understand it, a fractal is not a physical thing but a visual of a
mathematical equation. You could say the same for cones and other things
that can be mathematically-visually graphed...?

...Bernie

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Feb 10 08:14:49 2008