Fred Reed on Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

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.

Quite true.
But the fact remains, no one is using an assumed chain of mutations of the bot-fly as evidence for evolution, are they?
So your incredulity that something 'so complex' could evolve isn't much of an argument against evolutionary theory. No one's presenting it as an established fact, so your objections are merely against plausibility.
Funny thing about statistics, though. If an event happened in the past, the odds of that event are 1:1.

Getting back to the murder analogy, it is presupposed that a murder did take place

Presupposed?

You were presented with a hypothetical case that required a murder, yes. IN the real world, the cause of death is not presupposed to be murder, the cause of death is identified and then plausible stories for what may have happened are suggested and further evidence is sought to confirm or deny the hypothetical situations.

and that one just can't figure out how the murder took place. But what if the presupposition is wrong?

What if the claim that there is a presupposition is what's wrong?

What if the dead man actually met his end by suicide, accident or misadventure, or natural causes?

There should be evidence to confirm any of those. Lacking evidence to confirm a murder, there won't be a prosecution.

 

[beero1000]

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.

The sad thing is that he isn't really even trying to understand.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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?

Not even slightly.
IF you're going to object to/reject evolutionary theory because the botfly's behavior is complex, then asking for a detailed run down is stupid. NO ONE is saying they know for fer-sure how it did happen, so it's not a basis for supporting evolution. Objecting to it because there's not a full story is a stupid objection to make.

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.

Nope.
If you manage to produce _A_ chain of mutations that created a specific sort of botfly, you would have merely shown that it was possible.
You would not have 'solved' the question of how it DID happen.
And creationists would complain that this just PROVED that evolution requires intelligent designers at every step. Silly, silly creationists, missing the point yet again.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Evolution is real and does not require belief

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

Do you believe that a squared plus b squared equals c squared?
There is a website where they prove that Pythagoras was inspired by the Devil, and they reject the Pythagoras Theorum. But the fact that they, personally, don't believe it does NOT make the theorum not real.

Your opinion is completely independent of what's real.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You get an "A" for effort, but it's still all too pat.

Make up your mind. You asked for a story. Now the story is no good.
Sounds like you just want to object for the sake of objecting.

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.

Well, SOME of their offspring might have a slight advantage in survival. That's all that evolution needs.

But what possessed the bot fly to grab the mosquito in the first place, and how would that trait be transmitted to their young?

Mutation and natural selection. Look 'em up.

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?

You miss the point.
Lots and lots of flies probably had lots and lots of options and laid eggs in lots and lots of places. Those that survived carried the genes that drove their parents to select the optimal places to leave eggs.
When they matured, they had a chance to mate with the survivors of the previous generation, slightly more likely to include those with the optimal-location genes.
This reinforced the mutation, which is now no longer a mutation but an in herited trait.

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?

THe others didn't die out. Not in one generation.
But those with a predisposition towards mosquitoes would have slowly dominated the neighborhood, over many, many generations.

As Reed put it, this would have been a rather "ambitious" mutation.

You wanna avoid trying to see evolutoin through Reed's eyes. Reed doesn't understand much of what he's talking about.

 

[Oecolampadius]

If you manage to produce _A_ chain of mutations that created a specific sort of botfly, you would have merely shown that it was possible. You would not have 'solved' the question of how it DID happen.

Jesus. You whine about being pressed to explain how the mosquito-grabbing bot fly evolved, and then when my experiment shows that such a mutation can occur, you whine about that too.

 

[Oecolampadius]

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.

The sad thing is that he isn't really even trying to understand.

*wink*

 

[Lion IRC]

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?

Yes, that's right. If science can't back its claim that the botfly 'evolved' then we can question whether it did in fact evolve.

Random, spontaneous mutations. Unseen first causes. Chance. Accidents. Mystery...

Pardon me for being skeptical.

 

[Oecolampadius]

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?

This is the most intelligent question you've posed in this thread.

 

[Sarpedon]

One of the problems is that Oecolampadius is looking at it from the wrong perspective. As someone who believes that the end state: the way things are now, and by extension, he himself, are intentional, he can't understand the randomness of the process. To him,everything must be a step in the process, clearly understandable and unavoidable.

The reality is quite different. There are so many possibilities involved, and the bot fly is only the result of one of them. Had anything been different, we might have a very different fly. The fact that he can see what there is, but can't imagine what there might have been, gives the illusion of order and predetermination.

The terrifying fact, the one that people don't like to think about, is how easily it would have been that they would not have existed. If my mother, for example, had become an electrician like she wanted, instead of being forced by societal pressures to become a nurse, she wouldn't have met my father and I wouldn't exist. Someone else would (perhaps). It is the same for the fly as it is for me, and you too. But this is an uncomfortable fact. People prefer to think that they MUST have existed, thus they falsely think of what exists now as being necessarily the only way.

Once someone discards this faulty and egocentric way of looking at things, this and so many other problems simply vanish. The bot fly is, and you are. If you stop pretending that you are important, you will see that the fly isn't important either. You need to think that the fly was made because you need to think that you were made so that you can feel important.

On a more mundane level, this argument can be disposed of as all irreducable complexity arguments:
There are organisms that exist that fulfill every necessary step in the process required to produce the fly:
There are animals that lay eggs.
There are animals who's eggs stick to other animals, and are spread by them.
There are animals who lay their eggs directly onto other animals, who spread them.
There are animals who lay their eggs directly onto other animals, who are then parasitized by the larva, spreading and nourishing them.
The bot fly is an animal that lays its eggs on another animal, which then spreads them to another animal, which they then parasitize.

You pretend each thing is in isolation, but it isn't.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you manage to produce _A_ chain of mutations that created a specific sort of botfly, you would have merely shown that it was possible. You would not have 'solved' the question of how it DID happen.

Jesus.

No reason to bring zombies into this.

You whine about being pressed to explain how the mosquito-grabbing bot fly evolved,

Well, fair's fair. You whine when we DO and you whine when we DON'T and you whine when we tell you the question's kinda stupid.

and then when my experiment shows that such a mutation can occur, you whine about that too.

Incorrect, Deco.
I was the one who phrased your result as 'can occur.'
You presented that experiment as having solved evolution. But it would not.
And i've seen enough creationists respond to scientific discovery to anticipate their response, especially if the scientists try to present it the way you did. I.E., badly.

- - - Updated - - -

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?

This is the most intelligent question you've posed in this thread.

But, no answer, just a backhanded compliment?

Gosh, how surprising...

 

[bilby]

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.

No, you wouldn't. Because there isn't a riddle here that needs to be solved; And because those who think that there is would simply dismiss your results, saying "That's in a lab, it says nothing about what actually happened millions of years ago".

It is futile to chase the moving goalposts of the irrational community.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Mutation and natural selection.

But won't creationists simply say that those are the tools the Triune God Revealed in the Holy Scriptures used to bring about His creation?

 

[bilby]

Evolution is real and does not require belief

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

I don't go around believing in things that are real. My desk is real; It supports my computer and monitor, and I don't need to even think about it - I certainly don't feel any compulsion to spend half of every Sunday banging on about how worshipful it is, just in case I walk into the office on Monday to find my computer and monitor lying on the floor.

 

[bilby]

If you manage to produce _A_ chain of mutations that created a specific sort of botfly, you would have merely shown that it was possible. You would not have 'solved' the question of how it DID happen.

Jesus. You whine about being pressed to explain how the mosquito-grabbing bot fly evolved, and then when my experiment shows that such a mutation can occur, you whine about that too.

Yup. That's what talking to religious people is always like - The goalposts are racing along at an uncatchable pace, and any attempt to answer their whining questions simply leads to more whining.

 

[bilby]

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?

Yes, that's right. If science can't back its claim that the botfly 'evolved' then we can question whether it did in fact evolve.

Random, spontaneous mutations. Unseen first causes. Chance. Accidents. Mystery...

Pardon me for being skeptical.

And if science can't back its claim that the oddly-shaped rock split during its fall to the canyon floor, then we can question whether it did in fact fall.

Random, spontaneous rockslides. Unseen erosion. Chance, Accidents, Mystery...

I agree, gravity is clearly inadequate.

The rocks are on the canyon floor because God put them there.

 

[bilby]

Mutation and natural selection.

But won't creationists simply say that those are the tools the Triune God Revealed in the Holy Scriptures used to bring about His creation?

Pretty much.

This is how religion ALWAYS responds to new data.

First, they say that it cannot be true, because scripture says it isn't true.
Then they say it might be true, but only because the devil made it so to mislead us.
Then they say that it is true, because scripture says it is true - and always did.

The whole process can take anything from about 60 years to about 600, depending on how obvious the phenomenon is once it has been pointed out.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Once someone discards this faulty and egocentric way of looking at things, this and so many other problems simply vanish. The bot fly is, and you are. If you stop pretending that you are important, you will see that the fly isn't important either. You need to think that the fly was made because you need to think that you were made so that you can feel important.

This sounds like some kind of Eastern mysticism (Quick, Grasshopper, what is the sound of one hand clapping?). Where did I ever say the bot fly was made?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Mutation and natural selection.

But won't creationists simply say that those are the tools the Triune God Revealed in the Holy Scriptures used to bring about His creation?

Depends on the flavor of creationist.
Some would say mutation/natural selection work because god.
Some would say that limited amounts of mutation/natural selection work because god.
Some would say that there is no evolution, that mutation/natural selection DON'T work because god.

Science says mutation/natural selection work. And any question of god/gods is beyond the scope of empirical research.

 

[Keith&Co.]

This sounds like some kind of Eastern mysticism (Quick, Grasshopper, what is the sound of one hand clapping?).

I wouldn't exactly call a koan 'mysticism.' It's supposed to be an aid to meditation.

Where did I ever say the bot fly was made?

Well, you parrot a creationist. You demand rather silly answers on the subject of science. You react to hypotheticals as a creationist. You don't quite understand the science you're questioning. Seems like a safe bet, at least as a working conclusion, until better evidence is presented.