I am not talking about religious traditions, I am talking about philosophy. You are not following the discussion, somehow. Even in the referrents, you do not seem to get it. Quetxalcoatl and Zeus are out of the running, as being creature in the cosmos, not Creators, and Krishna per se in an incarnation of one aspect of Brahm.
Your dismissal of the Great Monkey Thesis makes it difficult to progress, since it is an illustration of the assumption that randomness promotes order, and therefore, criticism of it is important.
I did make a typo that might have been confusing. It should have been:
The fallacy is that the random distribution of elements is merely accomplished through juxtaposition, and incidentally patterns that appear meaningful arise. But in the real world of complexity, random juxtaposition will not suffice. The systems have to be ordered in such a manner as to function together, and in succession, within given parameters.
I will, however, translate as well:
The problem with "randomness producing order" is that it can only produce the kind of order that results from juxtaposition, as in taking a jumble of letters and producing a meaningful sentence. The kind of order that exists in the universe, and especially in the biosphere, depends upon more than juxtaposition. It depends on the creation of mechanisms that must be more or less precisely constructed to work, and that are frequently interdependent with other mechanisms, to produce a whole.
The exchange of genetic material is not sexual reproduction.
You have to follow the idea. Mutations are incremental; most are either neutral or actually harmful; many are not even passed on. Thus, it is very rare to have an evolutionarily significant mutation. Somehow, they manage to add up to things like complexity and diversity, and even greater intelligence and freedom from the limitations of a particular environment. The idea that it occurs randomly is ludicrous. It is not the kind of "order" created by randomness...... |
