• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Perfect symmetry by chance???

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
images
1e20d9b27270e5ddc357059139c5b903.jpg
images

Well, yes. If natural selection favors a better deployment of the available energy, then it is to be expected that the survivors have phenotypes that converge towards optimizing some functions of merit. For instance, light intake in plants favors plants that have a very symmetric disposition of their leaves. The asymmetric ones, just die out.

Therefore, symmetry might be the necessary result of some optimization processes favored by natural selection. For instance, a sphere optimizes its surface to contains the most volume and it is highly symmetric.

Ciao

- viole
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Antony Flew, while suffering from cognitive decline at the end of his life, was convinced to lend his name to a book he acknowledged that he didn't have any involvement in writing.

I've pointed this out to you before. It's disgusting - and IMO dishonest - that you keep on making the same claims about him.

Pretending that an old man's senility is support for your position? You should be ashamed of yourself.

First of all, because you have pointed out something certainly does not make that something a fact for everyone else. I disagree with your assertion that he was senile and incompetent at the time of his position shift. His wife and those that knew him do not even accept this attempt to explain away his shift in views.

You can certainly see Flew, in his own words, was quite intelligent and competent in discussing his shift to deism. Even if you don't agree with him you could not call him senile and incompetent if you read interviews such as I link below. You can find many interviews and discussions by him on the internet.

Flew Interview

BTW, you used the words, 'disgusting', 'dishonest', 'should be ashamed of yourself' in your reply to me. REALLY?

Even putting Flew aside for the moment, one thing I have noticed is that the fundamentalist atheist-skeptic types create their own narratives on individuals and evidence suggesting God or the paranormal. They all recite similar things; So-and-so is incompetent, So-and-so is not a scientist, Such-and-such evidence is worthless, Skeptic So-and-So has debunked it so that makes it debunked, So-and-so's experiments are flawed, etc., etc.. These mantras become repeated and repeated hoping that such repetition can make them the final word.
 

popsthebuilder

Active Member
Absolutely everything in observable existence can be perfectly and accurately described mathematically.

If that doesn't at least hint to intelligent design for someone then nothing ever will.



Peace
 

popsthebuilder

Active Member
The paintings on the wall are all acts of nature, not of a designer. There is not a painting anywhere in any medium that didn't occur as 'act of nature.' Therefore no designer needed.

Is how I hear some of the responses in this thread being filtered. But fact is, all paintings everywhere are natural. Them the facts.
Why would one contend that all nature wasn't formed in some way?
 

Rajina

Member
Well, yes. If natural selection favors a better deployment of the available energy, then it is to be expected that the survivors have phenotypes that converge towards optimizing some functions of merit. For instance, light intake in plants favors plants that have a very symmetric disposition of their leaves. The asymmetric ones, just die out.

Therefore, symmetry might be the necessary result of some optimization processes favored by natural selection. For instance, a sphere optimizes its surface to contains the most volume and it is highly symmetric.

Ciao

- viole
I agree with you that natural selection deletes the asymmetric ones. But how did the perfectly symmetric ones come into existence? As a result of blind random mutations for millions of years???
Do you think that its possible to create a computer program which prints Fibonacci spirals on screen by trial and error method (by randomly pressing keys and deleting the programs with wrong outputs).

Even if this happened somehow by chance in the case of spirals in plants, what about the massive information in human DNA which includes the information required for a single cell to grow up into a perfectly functioning human body. By chance???
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I agree with you that natural selection deletes the asymmetric ones. But how did the perfectly symmetric ones come into existence? As a result of blind random mutations for millions of years???
Do you think that its possible to create a computer program which prints Fibonacci spirals on screen by trial and error method (by randomly pressing keys and deleting the programs with wrong outputs).

Even if this happened somehow by chance in the case of spirals in plants, what about the massive information in human DNA which includes the information required for a single cell to grow up into a perfectly functioning human body. By chance???

Yes. Probably you are referring to the spirals we find in plants, since they follow a mathematical sequence. The reason organisms like plants lock into a mathematical symmetry is that this allows them to optimize sunlight intake. And this optimization is the solution of a mathematical problem that can be solved by a sequence of approximations converging to the solution.

This is exactly what we should expect from selection of inheritable traits. If a plant develops a random mutation that allows it to get closer to the optimum, it will get more light than its neighbors. Therefore, it will have a higher chance of making a progeny that inherits this trait. Until all plants will have the trait. Repeat until you get the optimum.

What you forget is that "lucky chance" is inherited, and therefore, from that moment on, is not chance anymore. It is a trait that kills whomever does not have it. Until everybody has it, and get ready for the next little lucky strike. Repeat until you get the complexity that amazes you and makes you think it must have created by a god.

Ciao

- viole
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
OK, but did all those things happen by chance? And all the way to complex life and consciousness? That is the unknown issue.
I'm sure there's a certain threshold, an "action potential" of sorts, if you will. Beneath the threshold, nothing will happen. After the threshold's been reached, all sorts of things can happen. I once spilled hydrochloric acid on my arm in chemistry class in high school. Why do I still have my arm? The strength (or lack thereof) of the acid did not reach the threshold to eat up my arm, that's why.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
If these were some paintings on a wall and if someone argues that these paintings doesn't have a designer and that the perfect symmetry in those pictures came out by chance by throwing random paints on wall for millions of years, would you believe it????
images
1e20d9b27270e5ddc357059139c5b903.jpg
images
No, but that has nothing to do with evolution. They aren't paintings, and there are scientific explanations for their color and symmetry due to evolutionary changes and natural selection.
 

Ouroboros

Coincidentia oppositorum
I agree with you that natural selection deletes the asymmetric ones. But how did the perfectly symmetric ones come into existence? As a result of blind random mutations for millions of years???
Do you think that its possible to create a computer program which prints Fibonacci spirals on screen by trial and error method (by randomly pressing keys and deleting the programs with wrong outputs).

Even if this happened somehow by chance in the case of spirals in plants, what about the massive information in human DNA which includes the information required for a single cell to grow up into a perfectly functioning human body. By chance???
Self-organization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization

Self-organization is a process where some form of overall order or coordination arises out of the local interactions between smaller component parts of an initially disordered system. The process of self-organization can be spontaneous, and it is not necessarily controlled by any auxiliary agent outside of the system. It is often triggered by random fluctuations that are amplified by positive feedback. The resulting organization is wholly decentralized or distributed over all the components of the system. As such, the organization is typically robust and able to survive and, even, self-repair substantial damage or perturbations.

You can find this in society, ecology, physics, biology, chemistry, mineralogy, and so on. This is how the world works. It is a chaotic, but self-organizing system. Just how God would have to be as well.
 

Demonslayer

Well-Known Member
This is exactly what we should expect from selection of inheritable traits. If a plant develops a random mutation that allows it to get closer to the optimum, it will get more light than its neighbors. Therefore, it will have a higher chance of making a progeny that inherits this trait. Until all plants will have the trait. Repeat until you get the optimum.

What you forget is that "lucky chance" is inherited, and therefore, from that moment on, is not chance anymore. It is a trait that kills whomever does not have it. Until everybody has it, and get ready for the next little lucky strike. Repeat until you get the complexity that amazes you and makes you think it must have created by a god.

I like this explanation.
 

Rajina

Member
Yes. Probably you are referring to the spirals we find in plants, since they follow a mathematical sequence. The reason organisms like plants lock into a mathematical symmetry is that this allows them to optimize sunlight intake. And this optimization is the solution of a mathematical problem that can be solved by a sequence of approximations converging to the solution.

This is exactly what we should expect from selection of inheritable traits. If a plant develops a random mutation that allows it to get closer to the optimum, it will get more light than its neighbors. Therefore, it will have a higher chance of making a progeny that inherits this trait. Until all plants will have the trait. Repeat until you get the optimum.

What you forget is that "lucky chance" is inherited, and therefore, from that moment on, is not chance anymore. It is a trait that kills whomever does not have it. Until everybody has it, and get ready for the next little lucky strike. Repeat until you get the complexity that amazes you and makes you think it must have created by a god.

Ciao

- viole
OK.. Let's start this from scratch assuming that we have a DNA of the first and simplest organism in hand. This DNA is composed of nucleo base sequences arranged in some particular order, so that it contains information required for the well functioning of that organism. A mutation causes a change in this sequence, which changes the information. If the change is favorable then it survives, otherwise it dies out.There are 3.2 billion nuctiobase sequences in a human genome. It requires billions of favourable mutations for the human DNA to evolve from bacterial DNA. If life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, what should have been the rate of favourable mutations??? while the chance for a random mutation to be favourable to an organism is very low.. And every favourable mutation need not be passed down to the offspring. :rolleyes:
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Evolution isn't a 'by chance' process. The mutations are by chance, the environmental selection isn't. .

exactly- so evolution relies entirely on chance to create millions of significant design improvements- that's the problematic part

Natural selection of a significantly superior design.. goes entirely without saying, it's why the Mustang outlived the Pinto. by fluke or ID- the superior design will do better.. no argument there!

So focusing on 'natural selection' is a complete distraction from the core question- how do significant design improvements come about in species?

most people see chance as a bit of a stretch
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
OK.. Let's start this from scratch assuming that we have a DNA of the first and simplest organism in hand. This DNA is composed of nucleo base sequences arranged in some particular order, so that it contains information required for the well functioning of that organism. A mutation causes a change in this sequence, which changes the information. If the change is favorable then it survives, otherwise it dies out.There are 3.2 billion nuctiobase sequences in a human genome. It requires billions of favourable mutations for the human DNA to evolve from bacterial DNA. If life on earth began 3.8 billion years ago, what should have been the rate of favourable mutations??? while the chance for a random mutation to be favourable to an organism is very low.. And every favourable mutation need not be passed down to the offspring. :rolleyes:

Since I am not biologist, chances that I say something sensible are not very high. But I would think they worked out something like that if we consider that the theory is pretty old and still pretty much alive. And I am generally skeptic of obvious defeaters of something estabilished for a long time.

What I read is that each one of has something like 50 mutations on the genetic code they got from their parents. That makes a pretty high amount of fresh mutations.

What would be interesting is to find out how many mutations the common ancestor of us and, say, pigs, needed to converge to a human phenotype. Considering the amount of time, and the fact that we share already some, maybe a lot, genetic information with pigs, It seems, prima facie, not an impossible thing.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me, can give you a better figure.

Ciao

- viole
 

Kelly of the Phoenix

Well-Known Member
I would imagine symbiosis speeds things up tremendously. Most cellular organelles came from other lifeforms. Our mitochondria have their own DNA (still). Essentially, our cells (or, rather, cells that now use mitochondria) long ago ate some bacteria that already had a good thing going on and POOF ... now OUR cells can have cool things going on.
 

Rajina

Member
Since I am not biologist, chances that I say something sensible are not very high. But I would think they worked out something like that if we consider that the theory is pretty old and still pretty much alive. And I am generally skeptic of obvious defeaters of something estabilished for a long time.

What I read is that each one of has something like 50 mutations on the genetic code they got from their parents. That makes a pretty high amount of fresh mutations.

What would be interesting is to find out how many mutations the common ancestor of us and, say, pigs, needed to converge to a human phenotype. Considering the amount of time, and the fact that we share already some, maybe a lot, genetic information with pigs, It seems, prima facie, not an impossible thing.

Maybe someone more knowledgeable than me, can give you a better figure.

Ciao

- viole

I am also not a biologist. And I am not against evolution theory.

I found your reply more sensible and it doesn’t matter whether you are a biologist or not.


What I am trying to say is that it is extremely improbable that mutations which are random, blind and unintentional combined with natural selection resulted in the formation of 3.2 billion unit long sequence of chemical alphabets which is sensible and can be decoded, which is responsible for the growth and well functioning of a complex system like human body.

Compare our genetic code to a computer program that 3d prints a well functioning system. Do you think that such a program can be generated through random key stokes, deleting the ones with unfavorable outputs and editing on the ones with favorable outputs? Such a program can only come from an intelligent source. Of course the intelligent source would have created it through key strokes, but those key strokes are not random, they are well planned. Please think about it.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Therefore, symmetry might be the necessary result of some optimization processes favored by natural selection. For instance, a sphere optimizes its surface to contains the most volume and it is highly symmetric.
Or there's Langrangian mechanics (a formulation of classical physics essential to the formulation of quantum physics). The entirety of this approach to the dynamics of natural systems is founded upon the fact that its state is determined via an optimization process: that of least action. The calculus of variations is basically the generalization of optimization problems of functions to optimizing functionals to understand the evolution of a system's state in physics.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Or there's Langrangian mechanics (a formulation of classical physics essential to the formulation of quantum physics). The entirety of this approach to the dynamics of natural systems is founded upon the fact that its state is determined via an optimization process: that of least action. The calculus of variations is basically the generalization of optimization problems of functions to optimizing functionals to understand the evolution of a system's state in physics.

:)

Nature is lazy, it seems. Or, to be more accurate, it likes global solutions that have no difference, to the first degree of approximation, from possible nearby solutions. Yet, those possible solutions need to be, well, possible, And if you suffocate them, by removing the possibility of having nearby solutions, they go nuts. Like a nice and straight laser beam that spreads all over the place if you enclose it is an a very narrow tunnel and you prevent it, thereby, from having nearby alternative paths.

I think this is one of the most fascinating things in the universe. It is also one of the reasons why I hold a certain ontology of time.

Ciao

- viole
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
I am also not a biologist. And I am not against evolution theory.

I found your reply more sensible and it doesn’t matter whether you are a biologist or not.


What I am trying to say is that it is extremely improbable that mutations which are random, blind and unintentional combined with natural selection resulted in the formation of 3.2 billion unit long sequence of chemical alphabets which is sensible and can be decoded, which is responsible for the growth and well functioning of a complex system like human body.

Compare our genetic code to a computer program that 3d prints a well functioning system. Do you think that such a program can be generated through random key stokes, deleting the ones with unfavorable outputs and editing on the ones with favorable outputs? Such a program can only come from an intelligent source. Of course the intelligent source would have created it through key strokes, but those key strokes are not random, they are well planned. Please think about it.

Since the one who wrote the program originated ultimately from a strain of unintelligent DNA, i would have to say yes. Those key strokes are ultimately the product of unintentional mechanisms. I also believe that we have no alternative to do anything that breaks the law of physics. And that includes adding new, unexpected and irreducible to prior states information in the Universe. In other words: the final product of typing a novel on a computer, could have have been inferred by the physical state of the Universe eons ago. In principle. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, lol. That should include our so called free will, then.

You see intelligent beings doing complex unintelligent things and mechanisms , while I see unintelligent things and mechanisms forming intelligent things.

Who is first and more fundamental? Nobody knows.

My metaphysical position is clear. Unconscious naturalistic processes are more fundamental. We have evidence of biochemistry producing working brains, while we have no evidence of working brains creating biochemistry.

Ciao

- vlole
 
Top