Fred Reed on Evolution

[rousseau]

After skimming over the article for a minute I felt like I'd be wasting my energy by actually reading it. It's premises are just so transparently wrong that I'd have to write an essay to seriously address them all.

Look, here's the answer you're looking for:

Evolution is real and does not require belief, it's how living things work. No serious scientist on the planet doubts this, people who have literally studied all known knowledge of living things.

Your bot fly. Whatever it does is certainly a result of evolution, or if not a social adaptation. People at this forum are not an exhaustive resource on how every species has evolved, but I imagine that if you do some objective, non-disingenuous Google searching you'll probably come up with a number of plausible explanations for it's behaviour. And that would save other people time and energy.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

After skimming over the article for a minute I felt like I'd be wasting my energy by actually reading it. It's premises are just so transparently wrong that I'd have to write an essay to seriously address them all.

Look, here's the answer you're looking for:

Evolution is real and does not require belief, it's how living things work. No serious scientist on the planet doubts this, people who have literally studied all known knowledge of living things.

Your bot fly. Whatever it does is certainly a result of evolution, or if not a social adaptation. People at this forum are not an exhaustive resource on how every species has evolved, but I imagine that if you do some objective, non-disingenuous Google searching you'll probably come up with a number of plausible explanations for it's behaviour. And that would save other people time and energy.

I like Bilby's rockfall analogy. You don't know the path and origin of every bit of rock so does that mean it was arranged that way by some divine force? Of course not.

 

[beero1000]

Keith&Co., bilby, and braces_for_impact--I appreciate the thoughtful replies.

Ouch. Was my complete dismissal not thoughtful enough? It's still tripe, and worse, it isn't even a good example of this brand of tripe. I'm not a biologist or even particularly imaginative and I could still come up with a plausible pathway for those characteristics to evolve in a few minutes. It took less time to think of than I spent writing this post.

Let's take a generic botfly - it lays its eggs on mammals, the eggs hatch, the larvae burrow in, etc, etc.

1. Clearly, the most dangerous part of the reproductive process for the adult botfly is actually depositing the eggs - mammals don't generally like being eaten alive by larvae and will try to swat the fly and/or destroy the eggs. Humans are the probably worst for this, being smart, social, and having opposable thumbs.
2. Not every fly will be the best at locating and identifying suitable hosts. Some might accidentally lay their eggs on rocks, plants, reptiles, or insects (or whatever) instead. Most of those mislaid eggs will be lost - but if the fly happens to lay an egg on something that then comes in contact with a mammal, transferring the eggs - jackpot!
3. The flies that happen to choose intermediate hosts that regularly contact mammals get the evolutionary benefit of getting their eggs on mammals without the risk of having to lay their eggs on mammals. The flies that preferentially lay eggs on non-mammals also don't face the risk of a serious evolutionary arms race, because botfly eggs don't really harm the intermediate hosts - it's a bit of an inconvenience, but it isn't OH MY GOD THIS THING IS BURROWING INTO ME. Double win.
4. So botflies that happen to lay their eggs on mosquitoes, ticks, etc will be evolutionarily advantaged - while their eggs might have a lower chance of hatching on a mammal, the adult fly will likely live much longer and lay many more eggs by not entering an egg-laying/fly-swatting evolutionary arms race. They leave all the risk to the blood-suckers, who are going to find and land on mammals regardless.
5. Now, the flies that are better at catching mosquitoes, ticks, etc, laying their eggs on them and releasing them unharmed to find mammal hosts are even more evolutionarily advantaged.

Give it a few (million?) years and see what happens.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Also, are you suggesting that people who believe in evolution and natural selection do so because it satisfies their emotional needs? Sure sounds like it.

I would disagree. It sounds to me like he's saying that people to DISbelieve in evolution and natural selection do so because they hew to their emotional needs rather than evaluate the mounds upon mounds of evidence for the theory.

Freudian slip, perhaps?

No, i think it was quite intentional.

I would think that honest people would want to believe something because it's true, regardless of whether it satisfies emotional needs.

That is pretty much what he's saying.
He's calling creationists dishonest.

At any rate the ball--or rather in this case the bot fly--is still in your court. No one has yet walked me through the process that would have caused these creatures to begin grabbing mosquitoes and laying eggs on them in the first place.

That doesn't put the ball in our court, though.
You (or Reed?) are rejecting the theory of evolution because you think this particular behavior is too complex to evolve. Incredulity isn't evidence against the theory. If this is one of the things Reed demands that evolutionists explain in order for him to accept the theory, i can see why he gets the impression that evolutionists aren't interested in answering his questions.

If you simply don't know how this came about, fine; I'll simply agree that I don't know either. Maybe we haven't thought it through thoroughly enough, or maybe there's another piece of the puzzle we need to find before we can figure it out.

OR maybe figuring out this particular behavior and the EXACT chain of events leading to its development isn't a particularly useful line of questioning.

I mean, it would be one thing if there were people who DID say that WE ABSOLUTELY KNOW how the botfly developed and THAT is proof of evolutionary theory.
But no one's saying that, are they?
So arguing against something no one's presenting is not terribly honest, is it?

 

[braces_for_impact]

Not too mention it again, but I think it bears hearing out. We've had these same arguments with other organisms, where we have found out the manner in which they evolved.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY[/YOUTUBE]

So, this brings us back to square one then right? If we have some that we can explain, and some we can't, then what does that mean for the theory itself? In that case it seems pretty self evident that knowing the evolutionary path of any particular organism does nothing to vindicate or refute the theory.

The rockfall analogy was excellent. I'm using that in the future.

So what does invalidate evolutionary theory? Maybe that's a better question, if it's asked in good faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So what does invalidate evolutionary theory? Maybe that's a better question, if it's asked in good faith.

Anything that the theory cannot actually explain... Of course, that's limited to things that the theory even pretends to explain.

We don't hold Chemistry Theory responsible for the origin of the Earth as a planet in the solar system.
We don't hold Gravity Theory responsible for explaining static cling, or the fact that something might stick to a surface rather than fall to the ground.
We don't hold Economic Theory responsible for explaining why the guy on the $20 bill looks constipated.
So, if no one says 'evolutionary theory explains where life originated' then problems with the theories of the origins of life aren't problems for evolutionary theory.
IF no one actually claims we can fully explain the bombadier beetle, with absolute certainty, then problems with bombadier and incredulity aren't problems for evolutionary theory.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If we accept for the sake of argument that a mysterious intelligence is creating all this fancy chemistry that is ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, toenails, etc., complete with the environments that support them, what exactly is being claimed here? What do I now know that I didn't before I "discovered" this new power? What new knowledge do I have? How can I apply this knowledge?

It's like claiming that everything is made of a new mysterious substance. What's the point exactly? There isn't one, except that my emotional needs have now been met because people agree with me. Is that the point of these creationist arguments?

 

[Valjean]

First, the article conflates abiogenesis with evolution, then a depiction of science as plausibility, rather than evidence based, then more abiogenesis, then some questions about coloration any 8th grader could answer, then some complaints about the ToE being an ideology and giving no clear answers.

The article then goes on to state: "Third, evolutionists are obsessed by Christianity and Creationism, with which they imagine themselves to be in mortal combat. This is peculiar to them. Note that other sciences, such as astronomy and geology, even archaeology, are equally threatened by the notion that the world was created in 4004 BC."He has the sides completely reversed. What he's describing are the creationists. Its they who are obsessed with scientific threats to their world-view. Science pays no attention at all to creationism, unless directly challenged.

Where does Reed come up with this claptrap? It's a creationist meme, right out of Answers in Genesis.

He goes on to complain about scientists being ignorant true believers, citing their inability to explain abiogenesis.
Reed then waxes philosophical, and tries to look at the Big Picture. He tries to paint himself as a scientific sophisticate, but succeeds only in further illustrating his utter ignorance of scientific methodology.

Here I became exasperated and gave up.
Reed conflates science and faith. He sees them as competing ideologies. He doesn't understand scientific method. He doesn't understand evolution theory. This whole article is an uninformed rant.

Yes. The lack of scientific understanding is obvious.

Now show me your mechanism and your mechanic if evolution and natural selection simply aren't enough to satisfy emotional needs.

The mechanisms of the ToE seem pretty intuitive and obvious to me, and no 'mechanic' seems necessary. As for emotional needs, if you can't live with insignificance, you've got a bigger problem than I can deal with.

 

[braces_for_impact]

If we accept for the sake of argument that a mysterious intelligence is creating all this fancy chemistry that is ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, toenails, etc., complete with the environments that support them, what exactly is being claimed here? What do I now know that I didn't before I "discovered" this new power? What new knowledge do I have? How can I apply this knowledge?

It's like claiming that everything is made of a new mysterious substance. What's the point exactly? There isn't one, except that my emotional needs have now been met because people agree with me. Is that the point of these creationist arguments?

Yep. Pretty much it's a pressure valve to try and relieve cognitive dissonance.

 

[Malintent]

If we accept for the sake of argument that a mysterious intelligence is creating all this fancy chemistry that is ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, toenails, etc., complete with the environments that support them, what exactly is being claimed here? What do I now know that I didn't before I "discovered" this new power? What new knowledge do I have? How can I apply this knowledge?

It's like claiming that everything is made of a new mysterious substance. What's the point exactly? There isn't one, except that my emotional needs have now been met because people agree with me. Is that the point of these creationist arguments?

Yes. That is the point of those creationist arguments. Emotional appeal.

 

[Learner]

Rock analogy:

Sounds good but rocks will "always" predictably fall down by the laws of nature. In theory I suppose imho, if one had the most super advanced mathematics and had the incredible means to input every calculation of every instance possible of the rocks properties and its surrounding potential influences to then possibly give a particular expected result. If so ; then this would mean there is an arrangement which could suggest the universe has plausible design.

Unable to predict the rocks just may mean the science isn't there yet in this regard. (in context)

 

[Learner]

If we accept for the sake of argument that a mysterious intelligence is creating all this fancy chemistry that is ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, toenails, etc., complete with the environments that support them, what exactly is being claimed here? What do I now know that I didn't before I "discovered" this new power? What new knowledge do I have? How can I apply this knowledge?

I could apply this knowledge on a much smaller scale to ; a "non mysterious intelligence" creating fancy tall buildings and bridges , railroads and cars , medicines and building tools. Certain rules and caution are needed to enage or to use these creations made by man.

People have fallen from buildings and bridges , hit by trains and cars , overdosing on pills and cutting themselves on tools that have been known to be serious. These are avoidable just as your quote above imo.

 

[Malintent]

Rock analogy:

Sounds good but rocks will "always" predictably fall down by the laws of nature. In theory I suppose imho, if one had the most super advanced mathematics and had the incredible means to input every calculation of every instance possible of the rocks properties and its surrounding potential influences to then possibly give a particular expected result. If so ; then this would mean there is an arrangement which could suggest the universe has plausible design.

Unable to predict the rocks just may mean the science isn't there yet in this regard. (in context)

Yes. And to expand on your point, I don't believe in "Random". Only, "too complicated to track or fully understand the path from cause to effect".

 

[Peez]

I am a little late to the party, but...

Many people have shown up here and elsewhere to coyly take on the mantle of unbiased outsider and suggest that there are problems with evolutionary theory that scientists just cannot address, and that this casts doubt on biological evolution. They then go ahead to ignore actual science and stubbornly refuse to accept any explanation. I am not saying that this is the case here, but nobody should be surprised if this is suspected.

Anyhow, nothing here is new: just one of those tired creationist canards that gets trotted out again and again.

Index to Creationist Claims

CB200. Some systems are irreducibly complex.

CB200.1. Bacterial flagella are irreducibly complex.

CB200.2. Blood clotting is irreducibly complex.

CB200.3. Protein transport within a cell is irreducibly complex.

CB200.4. The immune system is irreducibly complex.

CB200.5. The metabolic pathway for AMP synthesis is too complex to have evolved.

CB300. Complex organs couldn't have evolved.

CB301. The eye is too complex to have evolved.

CB302. The ear is too complex to have evolved.

CB303. The brain is too complex to have evolved.

CB310. The bombardier beetle is too complex to have evolved.

CB311. Butterfly metamorphosis is too complex to have evolved.

CB325. The giraffe neck could not evolve without a special circulatory system.

CB326. The woodpecker tongue could not have evolved.

CB341. Snake venom and hollow fangs could not have evolved simultaneously.

CB350. Sex cannot have evolved.

Peez

 

[Keith&Co.]

Rock analogy:

Sounds good but rocks will "always" predictably fall down by the laws of nature. In theory I suppose imho, if one had the most super advanced mathematics and had the incredible means to input every calculation of every instance possible of the rocks properties and its surrounding potential influences to then possibly give a particular expected result. If so ; then this would mean there is an arrangement which could suggest the universe has plausible design.

No.
Not at all.
THe fact that we can perceive the operations of the universe in ways that we can more or less predict ONLY suggests an arrangement if one is already predisposed to seeing the hand of the arranger at work.

If we could statistically predict every hand in a game of poker, that would not mean we can assume the dealer arranged each winning hand he dealt.

Unable to predict the rocks just may mean the science isn't there yet in this regard. (in context)

Yes, or Chaos Theory is right and there's an upper limit to what can be predicted.

 

[Keith&Co.]

People have fallen from buildings and bridges , hit by trains and cars , overdosing on pills and cutting themselves on tools that have been known to be serious. These are avoidable just as your quote above imo.

I think you've got it backwards in your tu quoque attempt, here.

No one's using the suffering associated with ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, etc. to determine whether or not there is a creator.
But IFF one accepts that ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, etc are the product of intelligent design, then what the fuck sort of creator does that leave us with?

You claim there is an intelligent designer who created ebola for a purpose. Why do you believe that?
HOW can you believe that?

 

[Keith&Co.]

They defend furiously the evolution of life in earth’s seas as the most certain of certainties.

I'd like to know where he's finding evolutionists who insist that we know where life started.

I'd still like to know this, just in case Oecolampadius ever slides by again....

 

[Learner]

No.
Not at all.
THe fact that we can perceive the operations of the universe in ways that we can more or less predict ONLY suggests an arrangement if one is already predisposed to seeing the hand of the arranger at work.

If we could statistically predict every hand in a game of poker, that would not mean we can assume the dealer arranged each winning hand he dealt.

Yes, or Chaos Theory is right and there's an upper limit to what can be predicted.

Fair point.

I would ponder - or rather someone who is more inclined and advanced a level, studying this notion of interest , pondering on the thought that perceptions could become more clear with newly aquired knowledge and much advancement in science, indicating to the individual that the arrangement is quite predictable enough to suggest an arranger stemming from how one would see for example in "program logic" (as covered on some threads) - concluding these laws of logic of expected behaviour for every element ... each with its own unique properties making the universe.

 

[Learner]

I think you've got it backwards in your tu quoque attempt, here.

No one's using the suffering associated with ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, etc. to determine whether or not there is a creator.
But IFF one accepts that ebola, botflies, hemorrhoids, etc are the product of intelligent design, then what the fuck sort of creator does that leave us with?

You claim there is an intelligent designer who created ebola for a purpose. Why do you believe that?
HOW can you believe that?

I was not claiming ebola etc was a designed purpose. All the above is most likely found in poor less healthy environments.

Avoidable.

 

[Learner]

I am a little late to the party, but...

Many people have shown up here and elsewhere to coyly take on the mantle of unbiased outsider and suggest that there are problems with evolutionary theory that scientists just cannot address, and that this casts doubt on biological evolution. They then go ahead to ignore actual science and stubbornly refuse to accept any explanation. I am not saying that this is the case here, but nobody should be surprised if this is suspected.

Anyhow, nothing here is new: just one of those tired creationist canards that gets trotted out again and again.

I think Behe's ideas of 1996 may need updating if he is still proposing exactly as he has.

Been reading two of your links out of interest.