addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-right-10x10arrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscontroller-playcredit-cardcrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobe--smallglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramFill 1languagelaunch-new-window--smalllight-bulblinklocation-pinlockm-swarmSearchmailmediummessagesminusmobilemoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonprintShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahooyoutube
Mikhail
bragoria
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 84
Now that I have been mysteriously elevated to the status of Cube Master, I thought I'd share this article with you written by a Creationist a few months ago:

http://studiesinscrip...­

It's the usual tired arguments, but with the twist (get it?) of using the Rubik's Cube as an analogy. Over 43 quintillion combinations, it can't possibly be solved by chance, goddidit, blah blah blah... Rather than waste time addressing those points directly, I'll take a different approach: by hypothesising that the Rubik's Cube can be solved with a genetic algorithm.

There are numerous ways that this could be done, but here's a simple explanation: imagine a population of 10000 randomly scrambled Rubik's Cubes all having sex with each other. The offspring will share traits from both parents. Some cubes will resemble a solution more than others. Those that appear less like a solution will die off, leaving a new population of cubes making sweet love to one another. Mutations can also occur on rare occasions, which should make the sex more interesting.

Eventually, the entire population of cubes will evolve into the solution. Occasionally, mutations will result in non-solved cubes, but they will quickly die off, because no one will want to have sex with them.

This doesn't prove evolution, but it's a useful analogy.
Gringo
user 12675733
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 51
Fun analogy.

Just on a Rubik's cube sidetrack, I recently saw a Rubik's cube solving robot at the Osaka Science Museum.
Pretty cool.
Shane
user 8796258
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 87
Pick a number between 1 and 43 quintillion, now what is the chance you would have picked the number you did? Pretty small huh? Too small to have happened by chance, yet it happened! Must be a miracle!
Steve
user 7348027
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 373
Mikhail: Now that I have been mysteriously elevated to the status of Cube Master


By unanimous decision of all leadership team members who were present at the last meeting you were considered worthy of that honourific title. wink
Mikhail
bragoria
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 85
By unanimous decision of all leadership team members who were present at the last meeting you were considered worthy of that honourific title. wink
I reluctantly accept this heavy burden biggrin
A former member
Post #: 93
On the other hand if you had a rubic's cube that some how made a random twist every five seconds or so. Then when the cubemakes a correct move it is 'rewarded' by not being able to undo that move. Ever. This is a more apt analagy of evolution as it makes small rasndom steps and hgets rewards at each 'correct' one.

Paul Hannah
Peter B.
user 10984782
Toowoomba, AU
Post #: 232
I am a chef, so I like to think of evolution like this.
All around the world, 1000's of chefs are cooking fettucine carbonara everyday.
Mistakes are being made all the time with the end result either be chucked into the bin or served regardless to some poor unsuspecting customer.
One day a chef reaches for the wine to deglaze his pan and accidently grabs the tabasco sauce.
In his hurry he mistakenly adds the tobasco. Flames roar and he quickly grabs the bottle of wine and deglazes the pan, hoping nobody saw him.
Once the meal is served, the chef tastes what is left in the pan. Yummy, it tastes better then before.
From then on he adds tobasco to the carbonara every time.
Another chef is reducing his carbonara sauce and has left the heat up too high. The cream reduces to nothing, and in a panic, he adds more cream but realizes that he now has no time to thicken it.
In a moment of brilliance he suddenly decides to add some parmesan cheese to help thicken it.
It works, the cream thickens, looks more silky and tastes better.
Many years later the two chefs end up working together and the apprentice, who also works there, learns their secrets by watching them both.
He mixes the two methods together. After the initial experiment he finds the tobasco to be too metalic and the parmesan too rich.
Upon reflection he decides to add less cheese and the same amount of tobasco, but with a pinch of sugar to balance out the tobasco.
He shows all the other apprentices how to make the carbonara that way, and in turn, they all change the recipe to suit there own tastes. Eg, add shallots, not so many mushrooms, bigger chunks of meat, different types of meat, different types of pasta, napoli instead of cream, etc.
Eventually, some of these recipes can no longer be called Fettucine Carbonara.
Some recipes only contain one or two ingredients from the original and need renaming.
Some of these recipes will survive their makers to become famous recipes.
Thus the process starts again by some chef making another mistake.
That's the evolution of food anyway. It's how I understand evolution.


Vonnie
HappyHeathenGirl
Brisbane, AU
Post #: 1,083
That's quite a good analogy, Peter!
A former member
Post #: 1
The rubiks cube analogy demonstrates the fundamental flaw in the creationist’s ideology, and that is the idea of a predetermined end point that you are working towards, i.e. that the cube has to end up being solved. This way of thinking is actually viewing the whole process from the wrong perspective.

Evolution works forward in whatever direction the relative selective pressures are driving it and not backwards from a universally fixed point
.
Creationists apply the same incorrect assumptions to humans with the idea that we are the predestined (preordained) end point when in fact we are just the fortuitous result of the process of natural selection that will continue long after humans are extinct.

Once you come to terms with the idea that humans did not have to ever exist and that any number of other alternatives could have been possible, then you can start to get in the mindset that you need to have to fully appreciate the natural selection evolutionary process.
Heraklitus
user 5709480
Newcastle, AU
Post #: 791
Good point Grant.

I think that much of the end-point mindset is inherited from Aristotelian notions that were taken up by Thomas Aquinas and now embedded in much religious thought. These include the notion that any movement is impossible without a mover of some sort; and, more to the point here, with Aristotle's notion of Teleology (the 'Final Cause') which sorta works in reverse to the ordinary 'Efficient Cause'.

Teleology seems weird to those not immersed in religious thinking - like us. With it the notions of enfolding towards some end-state (like the acorn developing into the oak tree) seems perfectly natural. The end-state is viewed as pulling a thing towards it. Causality in reverse. They view most volition like this too. The thought of my arm being raised causes my arm to rise - the thought-content itself, mind you, and not the part within us that has that thought. Ditto for God's supposid creating activities.

For those that sees teleology as implicitly sensible it's almost impossible to grasp evolution; just as it's bloody hard for most of us - esp me - to grasp relativity which goes against so many ideas we take for granted.

It's something like this - though I was away from school the day they did philosophy biggrin

Herk
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy