• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

excreationist

Active member
Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

edit:

I realised that I already created a topic about flowers and bees... though this time I'm a lot more pro-guided evolution....

Photo-17-3-20-12-47-45-pm.jpg

This has evolved into:

Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
 
Last edited:

Worldtraveller

Well-known member
Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....
No, it doesn't.

Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....
If you think it would make more sense...in what way? Doesn't that mean that if it were guided it would make more sense, or is your assertion that because it doesn't make sense, it was guided? Pick one....

I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....
Argument from personal incredulity. Go do your homework before telling thousands of scientists they're wrong.

Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?
Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers....

All evolution is guided by the ambient environment. If you mean to say guided by intelligence than I would say that intellect (conscious as well as unconscious thoughts) evolve within the environment of the mind.

I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

That may be. But all biological organisms begin from a liquified state. Going back to a similar state during metamorphosis might be a modification of that process.

Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

Everything is coevolving with respect to other things. I think that butterflies were once moths that evolved to be active during the day instead of night in order to avoid being prey to bats.

As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

Are bees less complex than bats? Both have their respective advantages for flight as well as other features. Large wings can provide unique abilities such as absorbing radiation from the sun or species differentiation, which might not be as useful to communal bees.

I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

It isn't less unlikely just because it is so.

Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

My own opinion is that aesthetic as well as moral values are the product of cultural biases as to anything whatsoever that tends to promote human well being. The historical roots are often very deep and sometimes obscure.
 

atrib

Well-known member
Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?

There is no evidence to suggest this, your personal lack of knowledge, and incredulity notwithstanding. You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.

What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?

What if I were the king of a great kingdom, and had a personal harem of 2,000 wives?
 

excreationist

Active member
I guess it is impossible for me to convince you all of this... maybe you think my arguments are too weak. You have the assumption that all evolution can be explained in terms of naturalism. I believe that to skeptics these things can always be explained by coincidence, etc.

I guess you don't see anything particularly special in this picture - at least nothing that suggests an intelligent force behind it....

flowers.jpg
 

excreationist

Active member
Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.
Exactly... yes I have a theory that the millions of years wasn't real. That way a virtual evolutionary tree could be created easily (rather than literally having guided evolution)
The point of the game is to be "indistinguishable from reality" though there could be some clues of guided evolution
 

excreationist

Active member
....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.
 

Valjean

Well-known member
....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.
Yes, there is. How did you not learn this in high school? There are mountains of evidence for this process.
You're arguing from incredulity, and from ignorance of evolutionary theory. You're proposing a deus ex machina where there is no need, and certainly no evidence, for one.

Goddidit is an appeal to magic. You're proposing magic as a more reasonable "mechanism" than familiar, easily observed, testable biological mechanisms.

You're
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
....You are trying to inject a teleological cause into a phenomenon that is fully explained by undirected naturalistic process.....
So is there a step by step theory of how plants and insects coevolved into flowering plants, bees and butterflies? I am aware of this type of thing for the evolution of the eye.... though I also think the step by step process did virtually occur in a virtual evolutionary tree.
BTW I think there would be a lot of theistic scientists that believe in guided evolution.

You seem to be saying that there must have been a final goal for the things you see around you to exist, and base that assumption on the existence of beauty and interdependent complexity. But I have to ask whether your concept of beauty isn't based on a subjective species oriented perspective based on human interest. And ironically that your preference for intelligent design seems to be based on your/our limited ability to adequately comprehend nature's complexity. The problem is that in a universe where reality is defined by the inter-relatedness of things you are putting your faith in absolutes. There is no absolute standard for beauty. There is no perfect intelligence. These things are not necessary for the concepts of beauty and intelligence to exist. Plato was greatly mistaken.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

edit:

I realised that I already created a topic about flowers and bees... though this time I'm a lot more pro-guided evolution....

Photo-17-3-20-12-47-45-pm.jpg

This has evolved into:

Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?

That's a very exciting idea! If you're correct, you'll become very famous and win the Nobel Prize! But you'll need substantial evidence on your side. I'm worried about that? Secondly, I'm worried about how your theory could ever be falsified. It's easy to falsify evolution. Close to impossible to falsify the creator!
 

excreationist

Active member
Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)

Since I don't really think there were millions of years of history that suggests that fossils were planted...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59ckyiFyOX8&feature=youtu.be&t=53

"The Planet Earth" is my most immersive, detailed video game yet... I even put in a complete and wholly consistent fossil record, for the nerds.
 

T.G.G. Moogly

Formerly Joedad
Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?

On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)...

That's the thing about religious faith. The more arguments there are against it the truer it is. Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.
 

excreationist

Active member
Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?
Could you clarify whether "the great Simulator" means the simulation itself or the creator of the simulation?

On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.
And I guess in step by step evolution each change would have the same or higher fitness... though I guess ID proponents have been unable to argue that some of these step by step changes are problematic.
 

Valjean

Well-known member
Well I realised a major flaw in my theory... but your objections didn't test my faith at all (though I found it hard to think up counter-arguments)...

That's the thing about religious faith. The more arguments there are against it the truer it is.
...in the imaginations of believers.
Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.
But science isn't based on faith. It's evidence based, testable, predictive and falsifiable.

What absolutes are we talking about?
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
...in the imaginations of believers.

Religion takes useful concepts such as faith and idealizes them, distorting the meaning in order to introduce an element of mysticism that requires the expertise of an authoritarian elite. This goes back to Plato and the concept of Forms as the foundation of ontology and the basis our epistemological system of knowledge.

Scientific faith works the opposite way. Another example of why absolutes don't work.

But science isn't based on faith. It's evidence based, testable, predictive and falsifiable.

Science builds on the accumulated knowledge of past discoveries. I have faith in Einstein's theory of general relativity because I have faith in the scientific method and the people and institutions that propagate it. That's the useful definition of faith. It isn't any stronger by virtue of withstanding evidence against it, as with religious faith.

What absolutes are we talking about?

As I mentioned above, it goes back to Plato's concept of the world of idealized Forms. The absolute perfection of every category of things that exist. Everything we encounter being a less than perfect form. From there we get the monotheistic God, or Jesus Christ, as the perfect form of man. Omniscience as the perfect form of intelligence. Omni-benevolence as the perfect form of love. All are beyond the reach or complete understanding of rational human beings. Untestable, unpredictive and unfalsifiable. At least that's my understanding of the basic error in western thought and how the Christian mythology developed. It leaves one open to unsupportable theories and the acceptance of indefensible fantasies. And ultimately to disregard the value of reason and truth, but that might be getting us off topic.
 

Harry Bosch

Well-known member
Where did the great Simulator come from? What is the great Simulator's purpose? Is the great Simulator a product of evolution or simulation? How do we know the great Simulator is not a simulation?
Could you clarify whether "the great Simulator" means the simulation itself or the creator of the simulation?

On a slightly more serious note we can look at the OP's conjecture and understand it as nature offering up all manner of phenomena. Survival goes to the luckiest and the most well adapted.
And I guess in step by step evolution each change would have the same or higher fitness... though I guess ID proponents have been unable to argue that some of these step by step changes are problematic.

I'm a little confused here. Are you not an "ex-creationist"? And I've seen posts from you in the past where you spoke eloquently on science. And yet you are promoting intelligent design now? How in the world can you be an "ex-creationist" if you believe in ID? ID has no scientific data behind it, not theories that can be tested, cannot be falsified, and etc. It's not science. So, have you had a change of heart lately? And if so, what made you change your mind? Or perhaps you're just trying to create controversy?
 

atrib

Well-known member
I guess it is impossible for me to convince you all of this... maybe you think my arguments are too weak. You have the assumption that all evolution can be explained in terms of naturalism. I believe that to skeptics these things can always be explained by coincidence, etc.

1. Butterflies could not have evolved wings and birds their bright plumage without an intelligent designer guiding such evolution.

2. An intelligent designer, vastly more sophisticated than its creation, just happens to exist.

Do you see the blinding contradiction or double standard in your rationalization? You refuse to believe that naturalistic processes (that are well documented and well understood) could have driven the evolution of butterflies and birds, but you have no problem in believing that an invisible, vastly sophisticated designer (for which there is no evidence) just somehow exists.
 

excreationist

Active member
1. Butterflies could not have evolved wings and birds their bright plumage without an intelligent designer guiding such evolution.
No I didn't say that was the best argument.... I talked about the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants

2. An intelligent designer, vastly more sophisticated than its creation, just happens to exist.
I think the intelligent force AI is less sophisticated than the simulation as a whole...

Do you see the blinding contradiction or double standard in your rationalization? You refuse to believe that naturalistic processes (that are well documented and well understood) could have driven the evolution of butterflies and birds, but you have no problem in believing that an invisible, vastly sophisticated designer (for which there is no evidence) just somehow exists.
Yes it is invisible just like the players of The Sims are invisible to the sims. I think the billions of people on earth combined are more sophisticated than the designer. After all if you watch "Two Minute Papers" the AI is capable of amazing things even though it is only a fraction of as powerful as a human brain.

I just suspect too many things have evolved for it to have all happened naturalistically at once...
 

excreationist

Active member
I'm a little confused here. Are you not an "ex-creationist"?
Yeah I guess I'm leaning towards creationism at this point in time - like intelligent design - and theistic evolution also seems to be a form of creationism.

And I've seen posts from you in the past where you spoke eloquently on science. And yet you are promoting intelligent design now? How in the world can you be an "ex-creationist" if you believe in ID? ID has no scientific data behind it, not theories that can be tested, cannot be falsified, and etc. It's not science. So, have you had a change of heart lately? And if so, what made you change your mind? Or perhaps you're just trying to create controversy?
Well I've come to believe I'm probably in a computer game. Based on my experiences I think I have been in contact with an intelligent force. That means that guided evolution is possible. But maybe the universe was set up in a way that evolution can happen by itself (though that is theistic evolution which still apparently counts as creationism).
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.
Exactly... yes I have a theory that the millions of years wasn't real. That way a virtual evolutionary tree could be created easily (rather than literally having guided evolution)
The point of the game is to be "indistinguishable from reality" though there could be some clues of guided evolution

That's not a theory, it's a supposition, of maybe more of a what if.

Here's a question for the evolutionary engineer: Why wait so long to get a tree. Why start with a single celled thing and work up from there, when you could have the finished product on day 1?
 

excreationist

Active member
.....Here's a question for the evolutionary engineer: Why wait so long to get a tree. Why start with a single celled thing and work up from there, when you could have the finished product on day 1?
Well I believe the intelligent force behind the simulation doesn't want its existence to be obvious:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-evidence

The millions of years of evolutionary history gives the impression that life could have evolved naturalistically.

On the other hand I think the Bible was written in a way so that it seems there is a lot of evidence for modern YEC:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20409-Why-YEC-can-seem-plausible

Perhaps the purpose of modern YEC is for believers to sometimes go straight from YEC to atheism and skip what I think could be the actual truth... a young earth with a virtual evolutionary history of hundreds of millions of years....
 

DBT

Well-known member
It's getting too complicated. If the world, life and everything looks like a case of natural evolution, it most probably is a case of natural evolution.
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
.....Here's a question for the evolutionary engineer: Why wait so long to get a tree. Why start with a single celled thing and work up from there, when you could have the finished product on day 1?
Well I believe the intelligent force behind the simulation doesn't want its existence to be obvious:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-evidence

The millions of years of evolutionary history gives the impression that life could have evolved naturalistically.

On the other hand I think the Bible was written in a way so that it seems there is a lot of evidence for modern YEC:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?20409-Why-YEC-can-seem-plausible

Perhaps the purpose of modern YEC is for believers to sometimes go straight from YEC to atheism and skip what I think could be the actual truth... a young earth with a virtual evolutionary history of hundreds of millions of years....


This is almost too silly to warrant a response. You propose an omnipotent all powerful being, creator of the universe, who purposely gives us no evidence of its existence, and your evidence that such an entity exists is that there is no evidence.
 

excreationist

Active member
It's getting too complicated. If the world, life and everything looks like a case of natural evolution, it most probably is a case of natural evolution.
I'm saying that the simulation can involve deep learning...

Even though the neural network mentioned below is only a fraction as powerful as our brain I think what it can do is incredible - it even learnt to put leaves on the trees.... the concept of a realistic naturalistic world could be the parameters and some example species could be inserted into the calculated evolutionary tree.... it could start with the appearance of the species then reverse-engineer what the DNA could be....

Well that's my thought experiment....

https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/nvidia-ai-winter-summer-car/
nvidia-nips-research_street-scene-768x768.jpg
 

Bronzeage

Super Moderator
Staff member
Has anyone proposed that our solar system is an atom in the thumbnail of a giant being and we may all have a solar system in our thumbnails, yet?
 

Worldtraveller

Well-known member
Let's briefly entertain your (idiotic) assertion: How would you be able to tell the difference with evidence we find? The whole universe could have been created last tuesday with our memories and 'history' in our brains.
Exactly... yes I have a theory that the millions of years wasn't real. That way a virtual evolutionary tree could be created easily (rather than literally having guided evolution)
The point of the game is to be "indistinguishable from reality" though there could be some clues of guided evolution
If there is nothing to distinguish it, then why shouldn't we continue to figure out how it works, based on evidence that is intended to make it look like evolution is a real thing (this makes your supposed AI and asshole at the very least).

Also, you need some falsification criteria. Evolution in this case at least has Occam's razor going for it.

So good job, you completely missed the point. Yet you seem to think yourself clever enough to 'discover' something you think no one else has noticed after thousands of years looking?
 

excreationist

Active member
If there is nothing to distinguish it, then why shouldn't we continue to figure out how it works, based on evidence that is intended to make it look like evolution is a real thing
Yeah I think there is a coherent evolutionary tree that we could treat as if it had no grand plan... though I suspect it was more "lucky" when creating amazing designs than what normally would have happened... maybe....?
(this makes your supposed AI and asshole at the very least).
Nowhere near as bad as the OT God in this Richard Dawkins quote:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-the-god-of-the-old-testament-is-arguably-the-most
Deception can be seen as playing "hide and seek".
Also, you need some falsification criteria. Evolution in this case at least has Occam's razor going for it.
Well my belief in an intelligent force was mainly from personal experiences that would be seen as coincidences... and there's physics that is compatible with the simulation hypothesis...

So good job, you completely missed the point. Yet you seem to think yourself clever enough to 'discover' something you think no one else has noticed after thousands of years looking?
Well some other people believe in guided evolution... and God not being too obvious - I guess so that it requires faith...
 

excreationist

Active member
I guess I could just say that I don't understand the evolution of butterflies and flowers, etc, and I am amazed by it... I guess I can't really make further conclusions of whether an intelligent force definitely guided it...
 

DBT

Well-known member
Abstract

''The evolutionary success of an organism is a testament to its inherent capacity to keep pace with environmental conditions that change over short and long periods. Mechanisms underlying adaptive processes are being investigated with renewed interest and excitement. This revival is partly fueled by powerful technologies that can probe molecular phenomena at a systems scale. Such studies provide spectacular insight into the mechanisms of adaptation, including rewiring of regulatory networks via natural selection of horizontal gene transfers, gene duplication, deletion, readjustment of kinetic parameters, and myriad other genetic reorganizational events. Here, we will discuss advances in prokaryotic systems biology from the perspective of evolutionary principles that have shaped regulatory networks for dynamic adaptation to environmental change.''

''Environmental adaptation of biological systems can be considered from three evolutionary perspectives: (i) acclimation of existing cellular machinery to operate optimally in a new environmental niche; (ii) acquisition of entirely new capabilities through horizontal gene transfer or neofunctionalization of gene duplications and (iii) reorganization of network dynamics to appropriately adjust existing physiological processes to match dynamic environmental changes. The first type of adaptation can arise through two types of events that differ dramatically in duration.

Simple mutations can greatly increase fitness over very short time frames (within one or few generations). Prominent examples of short-term adaptive events include resistance to drugs (10, 11) and altered nutrient conditions (12).

Alternatively, complex mutations in multiple loci may accumulate over very long time frames, such as the evolution of acidic protein surfaces in halophilic archaea (2, 13, 14). While the initial transfer of adaptive genes by HGT occurs rapidly (15), full integration of laterally transferred component(s) typically occurs over longer time frames (10s of millions of years), where HGT events often require regulatory rewiring to function optimally in the context of existing cellular networks (16). Finally, physiological readjustment occurs both because of genetic and physiological robustness to withstand stress that accumulates over many generations and latent genetic variance that is revealed after environmental perturbation (17).''
 

excreationist

Active member
Abstract

''The evolutionary success of an organism is a testament to its inherent capacity to keep pace with environmental conditions that change over short and long periods....
I'm more interested in (clear and concise) explanations about how butterflies and bees could have coevolved with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants... and why there seems to be so much complexity, beauty and variety...
like how bees do dances to communicate flower locations, build hexagonal hives, have yellow and black stripes (that some other life forms mimic), have a stinger, etc... maybe if I read/watch a lot I would understand it a bit better....
 

Valjean

Well-known member
Abstract

''The evolutionary success of an organism is a testament to its inherent capacity to keep pace with environmental conditions that change over short and long periods....
I'm more interested in (clear and concise) explanations about how butterflies and bees could have coevolved with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants... and why there seems to be so much complexity, beauty and variety...
like how bees do dances to communicate flower locations, build hexagonal hives, have yellow and black stripes (that some other life forms mimic), have a stinger, etc... maybe if I read/watch a lot I would understand it a bit better....
This is basic biology. I'm surprised you didn't study mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, &c, in school.
http://talkorigins.org/
 

excreationist

Active member
This is basic biology. I'm surprised you didn't study mechanisms like natural selection, sexual selection, &c, in school.
http://talkorigins.org/
"....explanations about how butterflies and bees could have coevolved with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants..."

I mean specifics.... not just general mechanisms.... normally in school you'd learn about limited changes in finches or fruit flies, etc. What I'm asking isn't as straight forward as the examples I'd normally learn....
 

DBT

Well-known member
Butterflies, bees, etc, and plants co-inhabit the same environment, adapting and evolving in response to their interactions with each other and the overall conditions of their environment. None of them are separate from each other or the conditions under which they live.
 

excreationist

Active member
Well this web page is pretty good on the flower side of things:

https://science.jrank.org/pages/2761/Flower-Evolution-flowers.html

This looks into issues to do with evolutionary theories and flowers:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141017-how-flowers-conquered-the-world

That is one of the longest scientific articles I've read for a long time. I liked how it used fairly easy to understand language. And it notes current problems people have with their theories. It seems to have a lot of other interesting biology articles there too....
 

Worldtraveller

Well-known member
I guess I could just say that I don't understand the evolution of butterflies and flowers, etc, and I am amazed by it... I guess I can't really make further conclusions of whether an intelligent force definitely guided it...
You could, but that would require work, investment in time, learning some biology, and actual effort.

Instead, you say it's 'amazing', throw up your hands and go with your gut.

You sure you're not a trumper?
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
Abstract

''The evolutionary success of an organism is a testament to its inherent capacity to keep pace with environmental conditions that change over short and long periods....
I'm more interested in (clear and concise) explanations about how butterflies and bees could have coevolved with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants... and why there seems to be so much complexity, beauty and variety...
like how bees do dances to communicate flower locations, build hexagonal hives, have yellow and black stripes (that some other life forms mimic), have a stinger, etc... maybe if I read/watch a lot I would understand it a bit better....

If there's a God involved directing things it seems like more of a limiting influence than a source of increased complexity and diversity. Think about that. Nothing beats random mutation coupled with natural selection. I think even a God would find beauty in it. It's even being utilized for AI.

ETA - Actually why would beauty even occur to a God. I know why human beings think things are beautiful. They speak to our place in the world. About our survival needs. If I thought beauty was something that came from a God I'd have to believe that God appreciated beauty. But God isn't of this world and so doesn't have those needs. The same thing goes for intelligence. Why would a tri-omni God need intelligence? Intelligent design is a human thing. Trial and error. Discovery. Theorizing. You know, rational stuff that requires a brain.
 

atrib

Well-known member
I guess I could just say that I don't understand the evolution of butterflies and flowers, etc, and I am amazed by it... I guess I can't really make further conclusions of whether an intelligent force definitely guided it...

Your lack of understanding of how evolution works can be fixed through education. But this takes real work, unlike the wishful thinking you apparently like to engage in. Again, there is a tried and tested naturalistic explanation for the processes that shape the evolution of living things, and there is no evidence to support the supernatural scenario you hypothesize about. The odds of your hypothesis being true are so infinitesimally small that they can safely be ignored.

Lets consider this hypothetical scenario: You know there was a slice of pie in the fridge when you left for work this morning. The pie is gone when you return home, and your wife informs you that she saw your son eating it. It would be irrational to believe that the slice of pie was taken by a supernatural entity from outside the universe in the face of all the information available to you. Just as irrational as believing that the natural world is shaped by the machinations of an unseen supernatural entity, when a good naturalistic explanation exists that explains how living things evolve.
 

excreationist

Active member
You could, but that would require work, investment in time, learning some biology, and actual effort.

Instead, you say it's 'amazing', throw up your hands and go with your gut.

You sure you're not a trumper?
Me thinking it is amazing is partly an emotional response.... and learning how it works would make it feel more rewarding...
 

excreationist

Active member
.....Actually why would beauty even occur to a God. I know why human beings think things are beautiful. They speak to our place in the world. About our survival needs. If I thought beauty was something that came from a God I'd have to believe that God appreciated beauty. But God isn't of this world
I believe I'm probably in a video game and the intelligences behind it come from a world similar to our own. From personal experience I think an intelligent force can have a sense of humour... see https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?21819-A-God-without-compelling-evidence

and so doesn't have those needs. The same thing goes for intelligence. Why would a tri-omni God need intelligence? Intelligent design is a human thing. Trial and error. Discovery. Theorizing. You know, rational stuff that requires a brain.
I think the intelligent force could be an AI. I don't necessarily believe the tri-omni thing. I think "god" can involve "tough love". I think that it isn't really all powerful - it is reluctant to perform miracles.
 

Treedbear

Well-known member
You could, but that would require work, investment in time, learning some biology, and actual effort.

Instead, you say it's 'amazing', throw up your hands and go with your gut.

You sure you're not a trumper?
Me thinking it is amazing is partly an emotional response.... and learning how it works would make it feel more rewarding...

Well, it is certainly a plus that living in Australia where it seems every other critter was designed to kill you and you can still maintain a sense of wonder.
 

excreationist

Active member
Your lack of understanding of how evolution works can be fixed through education.
Well in post #38 I talked about some things I learnt about the evolution of flowers....

But this takes real work,
Not necessarily.... some websites are very educational but also pretty entertaining....

unlike the wishful thinking you apparently like to engage in. Again, there is a tried and tested naturalistic explanation for the processes that shape the evolution of living things,
I know the general process... I'm looking for specifics about flowers, butterflies, bees, etc.

and there is no evidence to support the supernatural scenario you hypothesize about. The odds of your hypothesis being true are so infinitesimally small that they can safely be ignored.
Well I'm looking into it. I like to reason about these things for myself....

.....Just as irrational as believing that the natural world is shaped by the machinations of an unseen supernatural entity, when a good naturalistic explanation exists that explains how living things evolve.
Well if this is a video game it is easy for intelligent forces to intervene.... though I don't believe I can prove this to skeptics - maybe because there isn't real evidence....
 

Valjean

Well-known member
The mechanisms of evolution are the same for a human and a flatworm. Unless you're a specialist in a particular species the individual steps would probably not add anything very interesting.

YouTube is full of videos explaining mechanisms of evolution.
 

ronburgundy

Well-known member
Guided evolution makes more sense to me than the naturalistic evolution of birds, bees, butterflies and flowers.... I recently learnt that caterpillars liquify in their cocoon....

Note that flowers (plants with sexual organs) seem to have coevolved with bees and butterflies... (then later some birds)

As far as butterfly evolution goes I thought it would make more sense to just turn into something like a bee... rather than go on a tangent to evolve into complex butterflies which might have trouble evolving the ability to fly....

I guess it just goes to show that naturalists will believe that anything could evolve even if it seems to me to be quite unlikely....

Also why is it that birds, butterflies and flowers can often be seen by humans as being very beautiful? Is it just by chance? (well I guess some animals and plants are a bit ugly) I thought only food and the opposite sex would involve selection pressures to look attractive....?

edit:

I realised that I already created a topic about flowers and bees... though this time I'm a lot more pro-guided evolution....

Photo-17-3-20-12-47-45-pm.jpg

This has evolved into:

Was there an intelligent force guiding evolution in a simulation?


What if the millions of years of evolution never happened? What if a virtual evolutionary tree was generated by an intelligent force including the coevolution of metamorphosizing butterflies that help with the sexual reproduction of flowering plants?

Some of your questions and comments reveal two misconceptions about evolution: 1) That everything was selected for, 2) selection operates on very specific phenotypic traits. Many if not most things are just byproducts of other things being selected for. There is no evolutionary reason why butterflies in particular are attractive to humans. That is random happenstance. Butterflies rich colors and patterns were selected for b/c they serve several functions like camouflage, mate attraction, warnings to predators. Humans are attracted colorful things in general for a number of reasons, including that color often signifies a potential food source (like fruit standing out against a background of green forest). And patterns and symmetry catch our eye, b/c almost all multicellular live has some form of symmetry and asymmetrical faces can be a signal of genetic disorders in potential mates. Patterns often signify something that can be predicted or manipulated to change the outcome, and that this doesn't apply to really to butterflies and humans our pattern recognizing mental machinery is just "on" all the time and too "stupid" to save energy by only applying when relevant. Many behavioral traits are overly general and wind up getting applied to areas of live where they aren't useful, precisely b/c evolution is not designed, guided, or finely tuned, but is usually just good enough to get by with lots of inefficiencies and many traits under or over specified/generalized relative to the what they are actually selected for.
 

skepticalbip

Well-known member
^ ^

Surely you can see that the human face was "intelligently designed" with the nose bridge and ears "intelligently" placed so as to securely hold a pair of glasses in the exact proper place to correct vision problems. :D
 

excreationist

Active member
The mechanisms of evolution are the same for a human and a flatworm.
Actually it seems there are different mechanisms... (maybe?)
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/different-patterns-of-evolution/
e.g. allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric speciation....
And there's these things people wrote on Facebook:
"Fisher's Runaway, Sexy Son, Handicap Principle, my favorite Sensory Exploitation", "drift, or correlated traits under selection, or phylogenetic inertia"

Unless you're a specialist in a particular species the individual steps would probably not add anything very interesting.
Well in this thread I'm looking for specialist information about species such as butterflies....

YouTube is full of videos explaining mechanisms of evolution.
Good... I like watching educational YouTube videos....
 
Top