Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 59 posts

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#31

Post by lotsofmangos »

Retra wrote: post #28
lotsofmangos wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure that describing creationists to be in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance is anything to do with the argument presented by the article. Also, I was not addressing the article, I was addressing the comment of pcunite and their problem with the language used in one particular sentence, which is something I partly agree with and is nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy o…

But rhetoric is useful to teaching, and especially to writing popular articles. (I even learned what 'benighted' means today.) Maybe it's not that useful to creationists. Almost anybody else would be able to see past it and get some real content. I don't think most creationists would be bothered to do that either way.

Rhetoric is a two way street. It can be just as damaging as it can be beneficial.

Also, the observation that almost anyone other than a creationist would be able to get past a line that specifically insults creationists, is not that surprising.

edit - It is a great article, that for the most part deals with a very complex subject really well. I am just saying that the philosophical point scoring in the introduction added nothing to it and has then had a damaging effect on the discussion of it here, where that sentence has triggered the largest thread, to the detriment of the rest of the actual content.

If creationists are supposed to just get over being insulted, presumably atheists can also get over a single comment by a creationist asking not to be.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#32

Post by Retra »

Xcelerate wrote: post #24

Wow, this was a very good article (I don't often say that). I have long had a rather uncomfortable feeling about this idea that many chance mutations eventually produce some that are close to some objective function -- for essentially the same reason given in the article. There's just too many combinatorial possibilities to explore in the rather small time that the universe has been around (I mean, we're comparing li…

A long time ago, I was trying to imagine how complex structures could evolve out of randomness, I came up with something I called "hinge evolution." Let the relevant behavior of a system be a function of the contact area between the two planes of the hinge, and the genetic variation be represented by the action of hinge. You can vary the hinge angle a lot while only causing minor shifts in the contact area, but if you close the hinge, there will be a giant discontinuous spike in the contact area. So I believed it wasn't absurd to think that things didn't have to evolve in continuous fashion: you could have 'silent' evolution happening in the background, but when certain conditions are met, a major shift in structure could happen all at once.

This article elucidates a much better explanation.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#33

Post by Retra »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #31
Retra wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But rhetoric is useful to teaching, and especially to writing popular articles. (I even learned what 'benighted' means today.) Maybe it's not that useful to creationists. Almost anybody else would be able to see past it and get some real content. I don't think most creationists would be bothered to do that either way.

Rhetoric is a two way street. It can be just as damaging as it can be beneficial. Also, the observation that almost anyone other than a creationist would be able to get past a line that specifically insults creationists, is not that surprising. edit - It is a great article, that for the most part deals with a very complex subject really well. I am just saying that the philosophical point scoring in the introduction a…

Maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm perfectly content to live in a world where people experience an intellectual and social disadvantage for believing in nonsense.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#34

Post by Rexxar »

zornthewise wrote: post #14
Rexxar wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?

What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.

I don't have answer on the "Why". I think that this question is not a scientific question because the answer could no be proved/invalidated by experiments. It's a philosophical question and some people find the answer in religion or philosophy, some just admit they don't know and others just don't care.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#35

Post by eli_gottlieb »

Retra wrote: post #21
lotsofmangos wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I half agree with you. I do think that the language used to describe religious viewpoints includes off the cuff insults far too often. The word benighted was unnecessary in that sentence and does detract from the article. I don't think it was egregious enough to demand the article not be posted, but I do agree that it is a form of philosophical point scoring that serves neither the article, nor the wider discussion.…

Ignoring the argument in order to preach "nice makes right" also detracts from the argument...

Except that "[coherent-under-consequential-reflection] nice makes right" is a fairly accurate description of moral affairs, if not of epistemology.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#37

Post by janvidar »

dropit_sphere wrote: post #10
solipsism wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

That's not the important distinction. Religion is also trying to figure out reality. If science thought it could detect fairies, then science would study fairies. The distinction is rather in method; science uses (hopefully) well-designed experiments and peer review; religion uses...other methods.

Well, religion tells you the answer, so there is no point in looking.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#38

Post by Rexxar »

Retra wrote: post #19
Rexxar wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.

There are not two different problems. And more importantly, religion has never actually answered a "why" question in a reasonable manner. So it is objectively useless. It is not how you answer "why" questions. Assuming your distinction is actually meaningful, here's a question for you: "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"

"How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"

Maybe the answer is that there is no scientific answer to a "why" question ? The question has no scientific answer. In maths, some equations have no solution, some proposition are not provable with common axioms. The "why questions" are just question without scientific answer.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#39

Post by Retra »

Rexxar wrote: post #30
Retra wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose religion will tell you why those things are true?

Personally, religion didn't tell me anything. But they are giving an explanation to non-scientific question to a lot of people.

In my experience, religion is usually answering scientific questions, not non-scientific ones. And the explanations they give hardly explain anything at all.

Re: The Strange Inevitability of Evolution

#40

Post by alexqgb »

lotsofmangos wrote: post #23
Retra wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the argument in order to preach "nice makes right" also detracts from the argument...

I am not sure that describing creationists to be in a state of pitiful or contemptible intellectual or moral ignorance is anything to do with the argument presented by the article. Also, I was not addressing the article, I was addressing the comment of pcunite and their problem with the language used in one particular sentence, which is something I partly agree with and is nothing whatsoever to do with the accuracy o…

While it would certainly be wrong to call children idiots when teaching them basic arithmetic I'm not convinced it's entirely out of place when you're explaining the same thing to grown adults.
Post reply on HN