From: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.misc
Subject: Re: Proving the existance of a deity (was Re: Mandatory negatives)
Date: 14 Aug 92 00:54:07 GMT
Reply-To: dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann)
Organization: University of Arizona

[A few people have posted complaints that this discussion is tedeous]
[and/or inappropriate for the newsgroups.  I would tend to agree, so]
[after this round of replies, I'm going to do my best to sit on my]
[hands...		-Dave Schaumann]


In article <1992Aug12.075223.20947@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu>, rob@watney (Rob Carriere) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.012745.15359@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
>dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes: 
>>OK, suppose you're right, and there is some kind of "evolution force"
>>that causes systems to move from disorganized to organized states on
>>a profound and incredibly long-term basis.
>
>No such force needed.  If you're going to attack evolution theory, please do
>it on an informed basis.

I was replying to the following (in particular, the highlighted portion),
which smith@ctron.com (Larry Smith) wrote in message <4709@balrog.ctron.com>:

|>dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Schaumann) writes:
|>[argument that evolution in incompatable with entropy deleted]
|
|This is totally fallacious.  Read Richard Dawkin's excellent book
|"The Blind Watchmaker" for a full explanation of just what evolution
|is, why it works, how it works.  It will explain in easy-to-read
|detail exactly why the above comparison is silly.  Evolution _is_
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|a natural force
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If evolution is to be regarded as a viable theory, it must explain the
apparent contradiction with entropy (and other difficulties as well).
In fact, it seems you must postulate some kind of force which causes
systems to go from a chaotic state to more and more organized states
(the exact opposite of entropy) for any `godless' orgin theory of the
universe.

So where is this `anti-entropy'?  Where are the experimental results
that show it works?  Where are the equasions that describe its operation?
If there is truely such a mechanism in the universe, harnessing it would
be the most incredible breakthrough science has ever seen.  There should
be massive research efforts working to discover its operation, and how
we could harness it for our own purposes...


>Where did your Creator come from?

He's eternal and uncreated.  Let me anticipate your reply to this: absurd,
right?  Well, I think that everyone believes something absurd about the
universe:

1. There is an eternal uncreated Creator from which all creation springs.
2. The universe sprang from nothing out of nothing, and was designed by
   no one -- everything about us is just coincidence and happenstance.
3. One of the above, but there's no way to tell.

These are how I would define theism, atheism, and agnosticism.  I would
also submit that all three are incredible, absurd hypotheses.

But one of them must be true.  And the nature of the human race is that
each of us must come to grips with which one we believe in.  The evidence
is in the world around us, and within our own souls and spirits to
decide.  Which is the least absurd?  I believe the first one is, and my
contributions to this (and related) thread were intended to indicate
why.

>>[PS: if evolution works, where are all the transitional forms?]

>You mean like Homo Sapiens Cro Magnon, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis, Homo
>Erectus, Homo Habilis, etc?

No, I mean /transitional/ forms.  Consider, for a moment, the probability
that a random mutation will not prove lethal (or sterilizing) before the
animal in question has a chance to breed, and pass it on.  Call this
probability `p'.  So the probability of 2 mutations not killing the animal
before it can pass it on will be p*p, and the probability of n such mutations
will be p^n.  Clearly, successful mutations will almost always be a single
change.

From this, one would suspect that the fossile record would show incremental
change between species: p, p', p'', p''', p'''', p''''', etc.  Certainly
there would be gaps, but one would certainly expect to find at least a few
examples of animals identical but for one or two mutations.  These are what
I mean by `transitional forms'.

Are there examples of very-close-but-different species probability theory
would seem to require of evolution?

-- 
You unlock this door with the key of imagination.  Beyond it is another
dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind.
You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas.
You've just crossed over into... the Twilight Zone.