Fred Reed on Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Why? We can see that chemical A bonds with chemical B in conditions C. So we can predict that if we have A, B and C, we will get AB.
What SORT Of information could we possibly acquire that would tell us that A + B + C = AB ONLY because an intelligence says so?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

But that's the claim being addressed. That there's one god, who is responsible for all creation, therefore is responsible for ebola, and one has to ask why.
If it's avoidable, that has no bearing on the question, why bring it up?

 

[bilby]

Rock analogy:

Sounds good but rocks will "always" predictably fall down by the laws of nature.

And life will always evolve, by the laws of nature. If reproduction produces close, but not perfect, copies of parents; and if some individuals have a better chance of reproducing than others due to slight differences between them, then evolution is as unavoidable as gravity. Which of these things do you think is not the case?

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.

In principle, it is possible to calculate the exact trajectory of every rock in a rockfall; But in practice the results can differ wildly due to tiny errors in the measurement of the initial conditions; so it's not practical to do this. The same is true for evolution - we can't measure the exact effects of every mutation or environmental change, so the details are obscure; but that doesn't in any way cast doubt on the overarching theory, any more than our practical difficulties in determining the trajectory of a given rock casts doubt on gravity.

If so ; then this would mean there is an arrangement which could suggest the universe has plausible design.

No, it wouldn't. It would just suggest that matter has consistent properties.

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

Actually, the science IS there - it not only tells us that we cannot predict the detailed trajectories of the rocks, but it tells us WHY (the simple mathematics of chaos) and that same science also tells us how to work out what level of detail IS possible.

The idea that science might one day come to know everything is false; But the idea that science can define the limits of what can be known is true. And we know that those limits do not permit the existence of a creator god, nor of any interventionist gods.

 

[Learner]

Why? We can see that chemical A bonds with chemical B in conditions C. So we can predict that if we have A, B and C, we will get AB.
What SORT Of information could we possibly acquire that would tell us that A + B + C = AB ONLY because an intelligence says so?

What we see now is "not enough", thats why scientists still say they "don't know".

But that's the claim being addressed. That there's one god, who is responsible for all creation, therefore is responsible for ebola, and one has to ask why.
If it's avoidable, that has no bearing on the question, why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up first, I was just making an example of a counter point. For example to such notions; God created the mountains and then man decides to climb up and then unfortunately freezes to death, God is then said to be responsible because of the extreme cold.

 

[bilby]

What we see now is "not enough", thats why scientists still say they "don't know".

But that's the claim being addressed. That there's one god, who is responsible for all creation, therefore is responsible for ebola, and one has to ask why.
If it's avoidable, that has no bearing on the question, why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up first, I was just making an example of a counter point. For example to such notions; God created the mountains and then man decides to climb up and then unfortunately freezes to death, God is then said to be responsible because of the extreme cold.

OK; So why would you say that God is NOT responsible in this example?

Did he not know how to make the mountain warmer? Did he not know that the man would climb up there? Did he not care about the man freezing to death? Did he know, and care, but not have the power to fix the problem?

If God is all knowing, and all powerful, then he IS responsible.

If you know someone is freezing to death, and you know that you could prevent it, but you decide not to do so, then you are being cruel. Is your God cruel? If so, why would you want to worship him? Either way, how can he possibly NOT be responsible?

 

[Keith&Co.]

What we see now is "not enough", thats why scientists still say they "don't know".

But quite a few think they DO know.
Thing is, those that believe and practice science did not use science to come to their belief. The very nature of science precludes a conclusion of a supernatural being. It's not a falsifiable claim, thus it can never be a scientific stance.

But that's the claim being addressed. That there's one god, who is responsible for all creation, therefore is responsible for ebola, and one has to ask why.
If it's avoidable, that has no bearing on the question, why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up first, I was just making an example of a counter point.

Except it's not a 'counter' point if it's completely off topic.
It's just making god-noise for the sake of your god-noise.

For example to such notions; God created the mountains and then man decides to climb up and then unfortunately freezes to death, God is then said to be responsible because of the extreme cold.

No, that's not an example that fits with such notions. That's the consequences of man making a choice. Whether or not there is a god, the consequences remain the same for the act.
Men did not choose to make Ebola. Men do not create, according to those who insist that all creation must be the product of a creative supernatural being with intent.
So if ebola exists, it's because God wants it to exist.
But when asked why God would make Ebola, we get lots of lines about mysteries and ineffable plans and it's avoidable and how dare we question God and other bullshit that either shifts the blame or only pretends to answer the question.

 

[Learner]

OK; So why would you say that God is NOT responsible in this example?

Did he not know how to make the mountain warmer? Did he not know that the man would climb up there? Did he not care about the man freezing to death? Did he know, and care, but not have the power to fix the problem?

If God is all knowing, and all powerful, then he IS responsible.

If you know someone is freezing to death, and you know that you could prevent it, but you decide not to do so, then you are being cruel. Is your God cruel? If so, why would you want to worship him? Either way, how can he possibly NOT be responsible?

I should have said - the theist perspective - He did not design mountains as the purpose to freeze people to death or gravity so that man should fall from great heights.

I have to accept what is said; God "does" take responsibility for man being vunerably exposed to potential evil and disaster as noticed by His "regret" for making man in the first place, mentioned in Gen 6.5.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

But quite a few think they DO know.
Thing is, those that believe and practice science did not use science to come to their belief. The very nature of science precludes a conclusion of a supernatural being. It's not a falsifiable claim, thus it can never be a scientific stance.

But that's the claim being addressed. That there's one god, who is responsible for all creation, therefore is responsible for ebola, and one has to ask why.
If it's avoidable, that has no bearing on the question, why bring it up?

I didn't bring it up first, I was just making an example of a counter point.

Except it's not a 'counter' point if it's completely off topic.
It's just making god-noise for the sake of your god-noise.

For example to such notions; God created the mountains and then man decides to climb up and then unfortunately freezes to death, God is then said to be responsible because of the extreme cold.

No, that's not an example that fits with such notions. That's the consequences of man making a choice. Whether or not there is a god, the consequences remain the same for the act.
Men did not choose to make Ebola. Men do not create, according to those who insist that all creation must be the product of a creative supernatural being with intent.
So if ebola exists, it's because God wants it to exist.
But when asked why God would make Ebola, we get lots of lines about mysteries and ineffable plans and it's avoidable and how dare we question God and other bullshit that either shifts the blame or only pretends to answer the question.

You are attempting to have an intelligent discussion with someone who follows emotion wherever it leads. I don't believe such an exchange will produce anything significant, just more of the same. Before the magic apple story ebola was a very nice little beasty that didn't hurt anyone or anything.

 

[bilby]

OK; So why would you say that God is NOT responsible in this example?

Did he not know how to make the mountain warmer? Did he not know that the man would climb up there? Did he not care about the man freezing to death? Did he know, and care, but not have the power to fix the problem?

If God is all knowing, and all powerful, then he IS responsible.

If you know someone is freezing to death, and you know that you could prevent it, but you decide not to do so, then you are being cruel. Is your God cruel? If so, why would you want to worship him? Either way, how can he possibly NOT be responsible?

I should have said - the theist perspective - He did not design mountains as the purpose to freeze people to death or gravity so that man should fall from great heights.

I have to accept what is said; God "does" take responsibility for man being vunerably exposed to potential evil and disaster as noticed by His "regret" for making man in the first place, mentioned in Gen 6.5.

5And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Well, when an all powerful and all knowing being is unhappy about the state of things, he has only himself to blame. Seriously.

I have no time for people who whine about how grieved at their heart things make them, when those things are entirely of their own creation.

I don't even have much sympathy for humans who get themselves into that position - but at least they sometimes have ignorance of the consequences of their actions as an excuse.

What's God's excuse for being a whiny bitch, rather than doing something to fix the problem - or better still, not creating the problem in the first place?

 

[Learner]

But quite a few think they DO know.
Thing is, those that believe and practice science did not use science to come to their belief. The very nature of science precludes a conclusion of a supernatural being. It's not a falsifiable claim, thus it can never be a scientific stance.

They would have to be careful when they say they do know (No such God can exist) . Best "be safe" from taking on the "burden of proof."

Except it's not a 'counter' point if it's completely off topic.
It's just making god-noise for the sake of your god-noise.

Completely off you say . Ok

No, that's not an example that fits with such notions. That's the consequences of man making a choice. Whether or not there is a god, the consequences remain the same for the act.
Men did not choose to make Ebola. Men do not create, according to those who insist that all creation must be the product of a creative supernatural being with intent.
So if ebola exists, it's because God wants it to exist.
But when asked why God would make Ebola, we get lots of lines about mysteries and ineffable plans and it's avoidable and how dare we question God and other bullshit that either shifts the blame or only pretends to answer the question.

I don't see the intention ; Ebola is not mentioned in the scriptures or any Roman etc records ,strangely enough not until it was or there abouts discovered so much later in 1976. Ebola seems imo to be resulting of a much more recent change in conditional circumstances from the place of its origin. A poor area no doubt.

 

[Learner]

You are attempting to have an intelligent discussion with someone who follows emotion wherever it leads. I don't believe such an exchange will produce anything significant, just more of the same. Before the magic apple story ebola was a very nice little beasty that didn't hurt anyone or anything.

Joeson old chum, I am just trying do my bit to help the religious thread(s) move along.

edit :

This is not the religious thread . I am off the topic then.

Sorry about that!

 

[Keith&Co.]

They would have to be careful when they say they do know (No such God can exist) . Best "be safe" from taking on the "burden of proof."

That's funny.
In referrring to 'those who think they know', I was referring to those who believe in one or more gods, not the atheists.
"those who believe" and stuff like that there.
And, yes, they often do try to wiggle on the whole 'burden of proof' thing.

Except it's not a 'counter' point if it's completely off topic.
It's just making god-noise for the sake of your god-noise.

Completely off you say . Ok

Yes. Do you have any support for the idea that you're being on-topic? Feel free to argue your point.

I don't see the intention ; Ebola is not mentioned in the scriptures or any Roman etc records ,strangely enough not until it was or there abouts discovered so much later in 1976. Ebola seems imo to be resulting of a much more recent change in conditional circumstances from the place of its origin. A poor area no doubt.

Would that make it any less of God's responsibility, if we're talking those creationists who insist nothing can be created without God's direct intervention?

 

[Keith&Co.]

This is not the religious thread .

No, no, it really is. There's just not much reason to reject evolutionary theory unless one's religious, of one flavor or another.

 

[Oecolampadius]

This is what happens when you think you have the answer already and then you work backwards from there.

So what answer did I already have that I'm working backward from?

Look, surely you agree that if I can't figure out how a murder took place then it means a murder never took place, right?

On the contrary, I'd say that if you can't figure out how a murder took place that it wouldn't mean that a murder never took place.

 

[Keith&Co.]

On the contrary, I'd say that if you can't figure out how a murder took place that it wouldn't mean that a murder never took place.

So on that note, if we can't figure out the exact steps by which the botfly evolved, that wouldn't mean that it didn't evolve, right?

 

[Oecolampadius]

So on that note, if we can't figure out the exact steps by which the botfly evolved, that wouldn't mean that it didn't evolve, right?

It wouldn't necessarily mean that it didn't evolve, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that it did evolve either. Getting back to the murder analogy, it is presupposed that a murder did take place and that one just can't figure out how the murder took place. But what if the presupposition is wrong? What if the dead man actually met his end by suicide, accident or misadventure, or natural causes?

 

[Oecolampadius]

The question about how the botfly evolved is a stupid question, because answering it would leave you no more knowledgeable than before

And this is a stupid statement. Are you kidding? If I did a laboratory experiment in which I induced mutations in bot flies that lay eggs on human hosts and got them to lay their eggs on mosquitoes, I would be lionized as one who solved yet another riddle in evolutionary development.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Evolution is real and does not require belief

So if it's real we shouldn't believe it?

 

[PyramidHead]

So on that note, if we can't figure out the exact steps by which the botfly evolved, that wouldn't mean that it didn't evolve, right?

It wouldn't necessarily mean that it didn't evolve, but it wouldn't necessarily mean that it did evolve either. Getting back to the murder analogy, it is presupposed that a murder did take place and that one just can't figure out how the murder took place. But what if the presupposition is wrong? What if the dead man actually met his end by suicide, accident or misadventure, or natural causes?

You'd have to test it scientifically and by appealing to other established facts to find out what really happened. The framework that evolution provides for biology is such that you can't refute it by pointing to individual cases where it doesn't seem to work. That would be like saying the dead man actually materialized out of nowhere, and was never alive in the first place. You'd have to discard a whole bunch of previously verified knowledge to accommodate such a wild hypothesis. If we know nothing else about the dead man, we know that he used to be alive and something happened to him that killed him. In biology, we have the same amount of data to support the claim that whatever organism we observe in the natural world, we know that it must have evolved from something simpler. Just as we have zero examples of dead men who were not once alive, we have zero examples of complex organisms that didn't evolve from simpler ones.

 

[Oecolampadius]

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.

You get an "A" for effort, but it's still all too pat. Yes, if bot flies lay their eggs on different things, the bot flies that happen to lay their eggs on mosquitoes will have their offspring survive when the mosquitoes land on human hosts. But what possessed the bot fly to grab the mosquito in the first place, and how would that trait be transmitted to their young? I can imagine a haywire mutation in which programmed mating behavior involving one insect's grabbing another to mate with it could have resulted in an insect's grabbing another to lay eggs on it instead of mating with it. But what would cause it to grab a member of another species? So was there a grab-a-mosquito mutation, a grab-a-ladybug mutation, and so on, with the grab-a-mosquito mutation winning out while the others died out? As Reed put it, this would have been a rather "ambitious" mutation.

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

You get an "A" for effort, but it's still all too pat. Yes, if bot flies lay their eggs on different things, the bot flies that happen to lay their eggs on mosquitoes will have their offspring survive when the mosquitoes land on human hosts. But what possessed the bot fly to grab the mosquito in the first place, and how would that trait be transmitted to their young? I can imagine a haywire mutation in which programmed mating behavior involving one insect's grabbing another to mate with it could have resulted in an insect's grabbing another to lay eggs on it instead of mating with it. But what would cause it to grab a member of another species? So was there a grab-a-mosquito mutation, a grab-a-ladybug mutation, and so on, with the grab-a-mosquito mutation winning out while the others died out? As Reed put it, this would have been a rather "ambitious" mutation.

That's actually a pretty mundane explanation in the world of evolutionary biology. You could imagine any number of mutations encoding any number of arbitrary behaviors, most leading to the death of the organism, but one giving it a novel way of getting a leg up on the competition--and this one only has to happen once in several million years for it to be preserved, if it actually works.