Ask questions via twitter! Message any question to @answers on twitter. We'll publish the question and send you a reply each time there's a new answer.
Next Question

Answered Question

 
 M¢25  Funded By Mahalo ? |  November 05, 2009 03:03 PM

Is the premises of naturalism for Darwinism, illogical?

Darwinism premise of naturalism: 1.Nothing produces everything 2. Non-life produces life 3. Randomness produces fine-tuning 4. Chaos produces information 5. Unconsciousness produces consciousness 6. Non-reason produces reason.

Each of these premises seems illogical. Explain the logic of naturalism, if possible.
Interesting Question?  Yes (0)   No (0)   
RSS
 
 

Best Answer  Chosen by Asker

 
November 05, 2009 04:06 PM
1) Tough to defend, impossible to tell at this point if there really was Nothing first.
2) Abiogenesis. Scientists have recreated living things from non-living things.
3) Today's SuperComputers have developed from vaccuum tubes and punch cards, subtle seemingly random improvements here and there, where a technician has decided some other random process might work better. If it didn't, the idea was discarded. If it did, the idea was further improved on.
4) Chaotical searches have produced information frequently. If you're unfamiliar with the Dewey Decimal system, and just grab at a book, you might hit the one you want. There's really nothing inherent in order that will prevent information from being extracted, it will just be faster if your search is more logical. Take for instance, Google's "I'm feeling lucky"
5) I know many people that spend hours unconscious every day, only to regain consciousness for a brief period to say hello. :)
6) Can't really define non-reason to defend this argument, sorry.

Hope this helps. :)
Source(s):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://www.google.com/

Asker's Rating:


Helpful Answer?  (1)   (0)   

Helpful: davepamn

Tip konsiders for this answer
Permalink | Report
   Reply  
 
 
 
November 05, 2009 10:10 PM
Which way is the random arrow pointing: Towards more chaos or more order?

Are organisms become more complex or less complex?

Report
 
 
 
November 05, 2009 11:34 PM
The order is distilled from the chaos because of natural selection; that the too chaotic dies off, the ordered survives to reproduce.

Organisms have become more complex, but that's not to say that the future will not allow them to become less complex. Consider the Sabre Tooth Tiger, who died out because they were too bulky and complex for their environment. It's possible evolution will take us to an electron-based lifeform in billions of years, free from the complexities of a body.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 04:07 AM
Sabre Tooth Tiger, probably died off, from a catastrophic event and probably not natural selection.

If natural selection was the cause of extinction then it would be a gene defect, a disease, a famine, or a fine tuned predator. If natural selection was the cause of the Sabre Tooth extinction then some random in the environment prospered against the cat and the animal died.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 11:08 AM
Right, the standard Tiger took its place because the Sabre Tooth Tiger was too bulky for the environment - it required more energy to stay alive because of its massive size, and would die off in winters, where a lesser sized creature could make it through. STT's very genetics is what kept it from survival. In this case the more complex organism dies off.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 03:07 PM
Can a rock turn into a plant? Inanimate objects do not transform into animate objects without design. A robot does not randomly assemble its parts into a cognitive sentient being. A robot designer and engineer assembles the parts into a working machine with limited functional constraints that mimck human motion. Human motion being the most dexterous goal to achieve.

DNA is interesting. DNA assembles genes. Genes cause differentiation. Complexity in the gene differentiation seems to work without conflict, contradiction, and disruption. The complex system works and their is complex systems within larger complex systems.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 04:07 PM
The rock does not turn directly into the plant, no. But Abiogenesis says Simple Chemicals become Polymers which become Replicating Polymers, => Hypercycle => Protobiont => Bacteria. These bacteria can then evolve.

If a robot were to reassemble its parts over millions of years, randomly, it will make something better than human movement. It needs no designer, only chaos over time.

Sounds like a concept I've heard before, associating DNA with God. It's not disproven yet. Give science time.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 07:48 PM
Innovation occurs at the edge of chaos because things are changing. However, innovation requires "Brain power" to transform. A group of circuits put into a tumbler for a million years will yield dust. Lower level organizations does not random self assemble into higher level organizations and functionality without power and knowledge. The Blind watchmaker is a mythical analogy plague with anti-intellectual conclusions.

I rather look as nature being simple alogrithms producing complex behavior. The process that the CA samples all known CA systems suggest that natural selection is not random. Random selection would take more time than is currently available in existence to find the pattern capable of not disrupting the system and return the system into chaos. The biological pattern may be the result of Cellular automa sampling through all the simple CA programs and displayed the results as complex biological patterns.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 07:51 PM
Write a simple algorithm for random creating a DNA strand. Then test the DNA strand against known gene expressions. See if the system creates the right combinations of genes to support a stable and functional organism. The challenge you will have is creating a stable system. You may create a gene sequence using Genetic algorithm goal and fitness equation, but the genes properties may be hostile to life.

Report
 
 
 
November 06, 2009 08:21 PM
Then life evolves in a different way. Maybe dolphins become sentient, instead of apes. Maybe organisms are less complex. Life is vague.

Report
 
 
 
November 07, 2009 05:54 AM
If brain size equated to cognitive capacity then Whales would be at the top.

Whales do exhibit amazing sonar capablities and communication system.

Whales do not develop theories that put men on the moon. There are constraints between the species as to the scope of reason power.

Great Apes have the ablity to sign language with an wide vocabulary of words. However, a Great Ape can not write a book.

Dogs have the ability to perform tricks upon command, but a dog can not run a circus by itself.

Report
 
 
 
November 07, 2009 02:29 PM
I think it's just a matter of cognitive function not having clicked over yet. I know it's just a theory, but if Planet of the Apes ever came to fruition, I think a lot of religious texts would need some rewriting.

Report
 
 

Answer this Question

How tips and payments work

This question has already been resolved. You may add an answer to it but you will not be eligible to win best answer or any associated tips.

Ask a Question


140 characters left
Top of Page
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal

Top Members

This Week All Time
  • buddawiggi
    buddawiggi
    2nd Degree Black Belt
    26830 Points
    M$782.84 Earned
  • kty2777
    kty2777
    Purple Belt with a Brown Tip
    5313 Points
    M$198.17 Earned
  • opher
    opher
    Purple Belt
    4027 Points
    M$170.67 Earned
   See All
 

Most Popular Tags

mahalo(1580)
iphone(460)
music(458)
google(351)
food(312)
online(289)
beer(277)
money(260)
movies(253)
apple(249)
aotd(235)
health(217)
video(201)
free(201)
dog(200)
   See All
 

Categories

Welcome New Members


 
 
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.

Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.

Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More

 
 

Please log in to use this function.