Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

Non-random survival of randomly varying replications- believe it or not!

I would say that anyone who accepts evolutionism would also accept the following story as being perfectly valid.

In his essay The Deniable Darwin, David Berlinski recounts the following:

I IMAGINE THIS story being told to me by Jorge Luis Borges one evening in a Buenos Aires cafe.

His voice dry and infinitely ironic, the aging, nearly blind literary master observes that "the Ulysses," mistakenly attributed to the Irishman James Joyce, is in fact derived from "the Quixote."

I raise my eyebrows.

Borges pauses to sip discreetly at the bitter coffee our waiter has placed in front of him, guiding his hands to the saucer.

"The details of the remarkable series of events in question may be found at the University of Leiden," he says. "They were conveyed to me by the Freemason Alejandro Ferri in Montevideo."

Borges wipes his thin lips with a linen handkerchief that he has withdrawn from his breast pocket.

"As you know," he continues, "the original handwritten text of the Quixote was given to an order of French Cistercians in the autumn of 1576."

I hold up my hand to signify to our waiter that no further service is needed.

"Curiously enough, for none of the brothers could read Spanish, the Order was charged by the Papal Nuncio, Hoyo dos Monterrey (a man of great refinement and implacable will), with the responsibility for copying the Quixote, the printing press having then gained no currency in the wilderness of what is now known as the department of Auvergne. Unable to speak or read Spanish, a language they not unreasonably detested, the brothers copied the Quixote over and over again, re-creating the text but, of course, compromising it as well, and so inadvertently discovering the true nature of authorship. Thus they created Fernando Lor's Los Hombres d'Estado in 1585 by means of a singular series of copying errors, and then in 1654 Juan Luis Samorza's remarkable epistolary novel Por Favor by the same means, and then in 1685, the errors having accumulated sufficiently to change Spanish into French, Moliere's Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme, their copying continuous and indefatigable, the work handed down from generation to generation as a sacred but secret trust, so that in time the brothers of the monastery, known only to members of the Bourbon house and, rumor has it, the Englishman and psychic Conan Doyle, copied into creation Stendhal's The Red and the Black and Flaubert's Madame Bovary, and then as a result of a particularly significant series of errors, in which French changed into Russian, Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich and Anna Karenina. Late in the last decade of the 19th century there suddenly emerged, in English, Oscar Wilde's The Importance of Being Earnest, and then the brothers, their numbers reduced by an infectious disease of mysterious origin, finally copied the Ulysses into creation in 1902, the manuscript lying neglected for almost thirteen years and then mysteriously making its way to Paris in 1915, just months before the British attack on the Somme, a circumstance whose significance remains to be determined."

I sit there, amazed at what Borges has recounted. "Is it your understanding, then," I ask, "that every novel in the West was created in this way?"

"Of course," replies Borges imperturbably. Then he adds: "Although every novel is derived directly from another novel, there is really only one novel, the Quixote."


And there you have it. To argue against that story is to argue against evolutionism. But therein lies the problem. To accept that story as even possibly valid demonstrates a lack of grasp on reality- but then again so does the acceptance of evolutionism.

8 Comments:

  • At 11:36 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "I would say that anyone who accepts evolutionism would also accept the following story as being perfectly valid."

    Perfect example of a straw man argument, a fallacy of diversion, a red herring, ignoratio elenchi. Bravo! [clapping] Bravo! [applause]

     
  • At 5:13 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Then tell us Zachriel, if you can, why couldn't that story be valid?

    Why would someone think that the diversity of life "evolved" from simple replicators is a valid concept yet the story in the OP appears much more plausible but can't be valid?

    Or are you just upset that your stupid fascination with the fantasy of evolutionism has been exposed? I would be upset also...

    BTW:

    A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

    So do you or do you not think that life's diversity arose via non-random survival of varying replicators? That is the very heart of the story. Therefore it would be a misrepresentation to say I erected a straw man.

     
  • At 10:38 PM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "Why would someone think that the diversity of life "evolved" from simple replicators is a valid concept yet the story in the OP appears much more plausible but can't be valid?"

    The validity of the story is irrelevant to the validity of biological evolution. That's why it's a straw man argument.

     
  • At 11:09 PM, Blogger Joe G said…

    joe g: "Why would someone think that the diversity of life "evolved" from simple replicators is a valid concept yet the story in the OP appears much more plausible but can't be valid?"

    Zachriel:
    The validity of the story is irrelevant to the validity of biological evolution. That's why it's a straw man argument.

    I never said the validity of evolution relied on the validity of the story. All I said is that evos shouldn't have an issue with the story because anyone who believes all of life's diversity owes its collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms- via non-random survival of randomly varying replicators- would surely believe the nonsense spewed in the story.

     
  • At 8:53 AM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    Does the fact you are now not posting my comments mean you have rationalized an exit strategy for yourself?

    Do you really think Zachriel and others will believe I just gave up and went away?

    I had at least expected a royal declaration that I was no longer welcome (even Uncommon Descent did that). I guess you could rationalise something like I was being "dishonest" or a bore.

    If this is the end, so be it.

    I will give you some credit. It looks like you actually expended effort in an attempt to find supporting evidence that "Evolutionists" actually say what you claim they say (Evolution #6). Your frustrations from that effort was all but tangible and you ended up with nothing more than what you started with.

    My focus was to provoke you into thinking instead of just arguing. To think about what you are for, not just what you are against.

    You provided an opening when you challenged an alleged "double standard" in a forum where you are in full control. You were the only one who could possibly employ a double standard. And, of course, you did.

    I suspect I managed to get through. What you do with this new insight will be a testament to your character (or lack thereof).

    The final two proposals do look like they belong on a level playing field, don't they? It is sad if the game has to end before the first kickoff.

    Here they are, one more time, for you to think about...

    JOE'S proposal...
    1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.

    2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.

    3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.

    4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.



    DAVE'S proposal...
    1. The universe exists. No assumption is made on the method of the universe's creation (before the Big Bang).

    2. About 4.6 billion years ago the earth was formed by natural processes generally agreed upon within the scientific community.

    3. Within the 1.5 billion years following earth's creation, living organisms appeared. Since there isn't a scientific consensus, the only assumption is that it occurred via natural processes.

    4. All indigenous, earth based organisms descended from the original life described in #3. ("Common Descent")

    5. Common Descent was, and is, achieved through changes in the properties of organism populations that are a result of naturalistic mechanisms. These mechanisms are sufficient to account for the existence and function of all natural organisms on earth.

     
  • At 11:03 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    Thought Provoker:
    Does the fact you are now not posting my comments mean you have rationalized an exit strategy for yourself?

    No I just really dislike people who act like children by repeating their nonsense.

    Thought Provoker:
    Do you really think Zachriel and others will believe I just gave up and went away?

    Seeing you really have said much I would doubt that anyone would notice if you left.

    Thought Provoker:
    I will give you some credit. It looks like you actually expended effort in an attempt to find supporting evidence that "Evolutionists" actually say what you claim they say (Evolution #6). Your frustrations from that effort was all but tangible and you ended up with nothing more than what you started with.

    Reality demonstrates I supported my point just fine. You must be the frustrated one by having reality handed to you.

    Thought Provoker:
    My focus was to provoke you into thinking instead of just arguing.

    You failed because I always think instead of just arguing. It appears to me that evos do not think but would rather just argue.

    And once again I addressed your proposals several times and demonstrated thay are a crock of BS. What else do you want from me? I cannot offer anything if you do not respond to what I have already posted pertaining to your "assumptions".

     
  • At 11:55 AM, Blogger Zachriel said…

    joe g: "No I just really dislike people who act like children by repeating their nonsense."

    If you are suppressing comments, you need to be upfront about it. I have seen several of my own comments become desaparecidos.

     
  • At 12:21 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe wrote...
    "And once again I addressed your proposals several times and demonstrated thay are a crock of BS. What else do you want from me? I cannot offer anything if you do not respond to what I have already posted pertaining to your 'assumptions'".

    I will be more than happy to respond to all of your arguments as long as you reciprocate.

    I responded to several of your criticisms to my proposal including my wording. I have even changed my proposal's wording to be more similar to the wording you used because of your criticisms.

    I have offered to answer any direct question to clarify any of my definitions.

    You have responded to exactly one criticism of your proposal and have ignored all of my simple, straight-forward questions about it.

    This is the double standard I was talking about.

    Shall we try again?

    Please start a new thread with our two proposals. You post up to two criticisms and/or questions, I will respond. Then I will post up to up to two criticisms and/or questions and you will respond.

    We can do that back and forth.

    Deal?

     

Post a Comment

<< Home