Mmmm... Dawkins...

[BigV]

Originally Posted by wolf

So, it's all ordered, but we're not far enough away to discern the pattern?


(I actually find that thought comforting for some reason)

I find comfort here too. To me, it clearly has some order to it, and I feel I (or we) simply don't discern it (yet). I don't think that distance, per se, is the issue. Certainly distance has some influence on some areas of understanding, but too close, too far, etc, are somewhat oversimplified for my taste.

Arithmetic, for example, has structure, order, but until understanding is achieved it can seem like chaos. I know my youngest son would agree with me on this, as we're working through his multiplication flash cards. But lack of understanding shouldn't be mistaken for lack of order.

There are many, perhaps infinitely many, "Eurekas" out there. Ironically, each one leads to more questions.

[wolf]

Distance can be visual/perceptual, which is the way in which we, as mainly visual beings first assume ... or it can be emotional, spiritual, etc., etc., etc.

I meant the whole magilla.

[Troubleshooter]

Originally Posted by wolf

I meant the whole magilla.

What's a gorilla have to do with it? Other than to piss off anti-evolutionists.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Given a set of physical laws, points of local order can form in a chaotic environment. Conway's "Life" illustrates this. Starting with a completely random board, you will usually get small orderly areas appearing and disappearing, simply because for every rule set there are certain combinations of factors that have unique behaviors. The larger a chaotic field you have, the likelier it is that a particular combination of factors will appear somewhere in it.

HM - I don't think this argument counters noodle. In fact I think it supports his proposition. Conway's game of life starts with both chaos and order. The order is in the rules of the game. If the rules were something like - select a random cell and randomly turn it on or off, you would not see order appearing - until, of course, the virgin Mary appeared in the bits. :p

[Happy Monkey]

True, but it's the science that believes in physical laws and religion that believes in miracles (ie breaking the laws). The rules are part of the theory - in fact, the rules are the subject of all research in the end.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I propose that between chaos and rules there is a third venue, call it guidelines for want of something better. Like HS kids changing classes, chaos but limited by the guidlines(hallway).
I think evolving has guidelines for example;
Species has medium length legs and produces offspring with short, med-short, med-long and long legs.
Short legs = too slow, caught and eaten
long legs = too delicate, breaks, caught and eaten
med-long = OK, escapes
med-short = OK, escapes but not as often as med-long
So short and long are outside the guidelines and are eaten.
med-short and med-long are inside the guidelines and survive.
Logically the med-longs would eventually out last the med-shorts but there are other things that can come into play so both would survive.
As long as they are producing 4 sizes of offspring half will be enough food for predators. The med-shorts could be just fast enough to find shelter the med-longs can't use. The med-longs may taste better. God's will.
If there wasn't the possibility of guidelines we wouldn't have so many critters (especially insects) that are ALMOST alike.
Read chapter 7....quiz next class.
Sorry, got a little involved there.

[Troubleshooter]

There are two things that get confused in dealing with chaos. Randomness and chaos. Basically randomness is complete lack of order. Chaos is randomness within a given framework or guideline.

Giving birth to a child with darker skin than yours, mutation, is chaos.

The situation you describe has been catalogged in the case of Darwin's Finches. You can read some about them here, here, and here.

They show remarkable variation from generation to generation and have been observed for quite a while now.

[xoxoxoBruce]

My 7th grade science teacher said a child will be no darker than the darkest parent. Of course he also passed around a bowl of mercury so we could coat our pocket change to take home.

[Happy Monkey]

On pure genetics, your teacher was probably right (to a first approximation). Troubleshooter was talking about mutation, which doesn't follow those rules.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Are you sure mutation isn't spelled milkman?

[Lady Sidhe]

I like the Amber model: chaos is order so complex that we cannot understand it. What people mean when they say "chaos" is actually randomness.

*edit* I guess that kind of agrees with TS's earlier post which, because I didn't see it at first, I didn't take into account when replying.

[Carbonated_Brains]

Not to be snarky, but there have been so many definitions of "chaos" thrown around in this thread that it's merely an argument of terms at this point.

In the broad sense, chaos means disorder, and randomness is a manifestation of a chaotic system. There is no "order" behind chaos, because "chaos" is just a word we made up to define disorder! The question is "does the universe have order, or is it chaotic". Science points to a randomly assorted system with theoretical limits (there is an edge of the universe, for instance, and it began at a point). The body of evidence today suggests that the universe is chaotic with locally ordered subsystems. Entropy is NOT the same as chaos.

From a mathematical standpoint, chaos is a system with hypersensitivity to its initial conditions. There is no order, because it is mathematically impossible. But, chaotic disorder often comes in so-called "patterns", and can't be predicted, but can be generalized. I could provide a bunch of equations which "prove" (if you believe obtuse math) that chaos is definably disordered, but I did that a long time ago, and had a fine argument with Beestie about it.

My thinking is this:

There is a remote-controlled robot on Mars right now, so advanced that the world watched in rapt attention when it landed...billions in research funding was poured into it.

If you went back in time, to 1810, and described such a robot to anybody in the world, it would eclipse their sense of reason so completely, that it would be incomprehensible. Many would say that something so complex and advanced had to have been put there by God.

I believe in God. But I will choose science any day, over a catch-all no-responsibility claim like Intelligent Design.

[johningerslev]

Yeah - you're right. say evolution happened (and indeed is happening), how did that come about? how come things are programmed so stuff evolves? I like how humans are infinitely stupid - as soon as we find something out we're like "hey! we know why everything happens!" but actually we haven't got a clue!

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by johningerslev

Yeah - you're right. say evolution happened (and indeed is happening), how did that come about? how come things are programmed so stuff evolves?

Because things that don't adapt to changing conditions don't survive when conditions change.

I like how humans are infinitely stupid - as soon as we find something out we're like "hey! we know why everything happens!" but actually we haven't got a clue!

If scientists thought they knew why everything happened, they'd close up shop.

[johningerslev]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Because things that don't adapt to changing conditions don't survive when conditions change.

i asked 'why do things evolve?' you answered 'because things do evolve'!! (paraphrased) i didn't say HOW do things evolve, i mean WHY does it happen in the first place?