Birds, Bees, Butterflies and Flowers

[excreationist]

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....

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?

 

[Worldtraveller]

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]

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]

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]

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....

 

[excreationist]

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]

....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]

....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]

....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]

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....

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!

 

[Treedbear]

... It's easy to falsify evolution. Close to impossible to falsify the creator!

That's the beauty of it.

 

[excreationist]

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]

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 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]

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 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]

...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]

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]

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]

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...