Fred Reed on Evolution

[Oecolampadius]

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.

So let's say my experiment involved mimicking certain kinds of natural phenomena--radioactivity, for example--that triggered the mutations. This wouldn't be hailed as a significant step in elucidating the workings of evolution?

 

[Keith&Co.]

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.

So let's say my experiment involved mimicking certain kinds of natural phenomena--radioactivity, for example--that triggered the mutations. This wouldn't be hailed as a significant step in elucidating the workings of evolution?

You're shifting the goalposts.
Proving that it was possible is not the same as producing the actual historical chain.
You kept asking for THE story of the botfly, then rejected one possibility.

Make up your mind, what do you want from science, and what do you think your experiment would supply to science?

 

[Oecolampadius]

I don't go around believing in things that are real.

So you don't believe in evolution?

 

[bilby]

I don't go around believing in things that are real.

So you don't believe in evolution?

That's correct. It doesn't need me to believe in it. I don't believe in gravity either; I just know that they are the best explanations we have for the phenomena they describe. (Well, technically that's untrue - Relativity provides a better explanation than gravity, but gravity is a close enough approximation for most everyday purposes, and makes the math easier).

 

[Keith&Co.]

I don't go around believing in things that are real.

So you don't believe in evolution?

I personally use 'believe' to refer to things i hold to be true without evidence.
So, no, I don't believe in evolution. Or gravity. Snowcones. Trump. Cellulitis.

 

[abaddon]

I don't go around believing in things that are real.

So you don't believe in evolution?

Belief implies an ideological commitment. People say "I believe in <whatever>" as a piece of their identity. They're contrasting themselves with others who chose another apparent "option" and believed something else. So we get believers in this and believers in that, and it just gets more tribal from there.

It goes back to what people were saying about a believer fulfilling personal needs instead of just forgetting himself (ie, forgetting his needs) and looking at nature for the answers in total disregard of personal and ideological issues.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Proving that it was possible is not the same as producing the actual historical chain.

Well no shit, Sherlock. The only way to produce the actual historical chain would be to climb into a time machine and follow the bot fly back in time. Since that's not possible, scientists offer hypotheses as to how evolution might work to produce certain species. A laboratory experiment mimicking natural phenomena that trigger mutations producing a mosquito-grabbing bot fly would prove that such mutations could in fact occur in nature.

 

[bilby]

Proving that it was possible is not the same as producing the actual historical chain.

Well no shit, Sherlock. The only way to produce the actual historical chain would be to climb into a time machine and follow the bot fly back in time. Since that's not possible, scientists offer hypotheses as to how evolution might work to produce certain species. A laboratory experiment mimicking natural phenomena that trigger mutations producing a mosquito-grabbing bot fly would prove that such mutations could in fact occur in nature.

We already know what mutations can occur in nature.

DNA is essentially just a chain of bases; There is nothing obvious or special about a particular sequence of bases that makes it possible to determine its ultimate effect on the behaviour or appearance of a population.

You might as well try to show how a particular piece of software was developed by looking at the possible ways that the pattern of 1s and 0s on a hard drive can change.

ANY sequence of bases is possible. Just as any sequence of 1s and 0s on a hard drive is possible. Only a tiny fraction of all possible sequences actually produce useful results.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Proving that it was possible is not the same as producing the actual historical chain.

Well no shit, Sherlock. The only way to produce the actual historical chain would be to climb into a time machine and follow the bot fly back in time.

And yet, that seemed to be what you were asking for the evolutionists to produce, Watson.

Since that's not possible, scientists offer hypotheses as to how evolution might work to produce certain species.

Yes. One of which you promptly shat upon.

A laboratory experiment mimicking natural phenomena that trigger mutations producing a mosquito-grabbing bot fly would prove that such mutations could in fact occur in nature.

Of course, we already know that they could occur in nature. We see mosquito grabbing bot flies. Exactly what would your experiment provide that we don't already have?

 

[bilby]

Well no shit, Sherlock. The only way to produce the actual historical chain would be to climb into a time machine and follow the bot fly back in time. Since that's not possible, scientists offer hypotheses as to how evolution might work to produce certain species. A laboratory experiment mimicking natural phenomena that trigger mutations producing a mosquito-grabbing bot fly would prove that such mutations could in fact occur in nature.

We already know what mutations can occur in nature.

DNA is essentially just a chain of bases; There is nothing obvious or special about a particular sequence of bases that makes it possible to determine its ultimate effect on the behaviour or appearance of a population.

You might as well try to show how a particular piece of software was developed by looking at the possible ways that the pattern of 1s and 0s on a hard drive can change.

ANY sequence of bases is possible. Just as any sequence of 1s and 0s on a hard drive is possible. Only a tiny fraction of all possible sequences actually produce useful results.

The number of possible sequences in an amount of DNA approximately equal to the length of the human genome (3x10⁹ base pairs, each with 4 possible bases) is (3x10⁹x4)!, or (3x10¹³)!, which is roughly 1.6x10^{1356570551809682}. The number of actual human genomes that have been produced so far is a mere 10¹⁰. Clearly even amongst the 10¹⁰ sequences already tested, there are many that are quite bad at making a working human being. And it is very clear that merely knowing what mutations could occur is not particularly helpful in understanding the phenotypical results of any given change.

 

[Oecolampadius]

And yet, that seemed to be what you were asking for the evolutionists to produce, Watson.

Where did I do this?

One of which you promptly shat upon.

What did I shit upon?

Of course, we already know that they could occur in nature. We see mosquito grabbing bot flies. Exactly what would your experiment provide that we don't already have?

But you're assuming that the phenomenon of mosquito-grabbing bot flies is due to a mutation, a mutation which you haven't proven to have taken place. My experiment would empirically show how such a mutation could have come about. And it would shut the creationists up--as least as far as mosquito-grabbing bot flies are concerned.

 

[bilby]

Where did I do this?

One of which you promptly shat upon.

What did I shit upon?

Of course, we already know that they could occur in nature. We see mosquito grabbing bot flies. Exactly what would your experiment provide that we don't already have?

But you're assuming that the phenomenon of mosquito-grabbing bot flies is due to a mutation, a mutation which you haven't proven to have taken place. My experiment would empirically show how such a mutation could have come about. And it would shut the creationists up--as least as far as mosquito-grabbing bot flies are concerned.

No, it wouldn't.

It has been clearly shown that the question of mosquito grabbing botflies (and every other instance of so-called 'irreducible complexity') is in no way damaging to the theory of evolution, and in no way supports creationism - and yet the creationists have notably failed to shut up.

If being shown that they are mistaken hundreds of times didn't do it, why would one more example be expected to make the difference?

 

[Oecolampadius]

Belief implies an ideological commitment. People say "I believe in <whatever>" as a piece of their identity. They're contrasting themselves with others who chose another apparent "option" and believed something else. So we get believers in this and believers in that, and it just gets more tribal from there.

It goes back to what people were saying about a believer fulfilling personal needs instead of just forgetting himself (ie, forgetting his needs) and looking at nature for the answers in total disregard of personal and ideological issues.

I am looking at nature for the answers--which means asking questions about how evolution works instead of taking it as an article of faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

And yet, that seemed to be what you were asking for the evolutionists to produce, Watson.

Where did I do this?

Here:

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.

Note, you didn't ask for what might have, or could have, or reasonably could be used to explain an example... It certainly seemed to me like you're asking for the history.

One of which you promptly shat upon.

What did I shit upon?

the post you quoted when you said:

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

Of course, we already know that they could occur in nature. We see mosquito grabbing bot flies. Exactly what would your experiment provide that we don't already have?

But you're assuming that the phenomenon of mosquito-grabbing bot flies is due to a mutation, a mutation which you haven't proven to have taken place.

No, not assuming it was a mutation. Concluding, based on the observations made so far with so many, many life forms, that it was a series of mutations, constantly improved by selection, that created any genetically-driven behavior that's expressed in any life form which displays DNA that shows a common ancestry with other life forms that do not exhibit that behavior.

And proven? Nothing in science is proven. Proof is for math. Science only does 'the best explanation we've found so far for the observations collected to this point.' Proofs are permanent. So if something is 'proven' to be true, it's not even hypothetically possible that it'll be falsified. So you can prove that 2+2=4, but you can't prove evolution. Or gravity. There are theories and they'll be accepted until better theories are produced. But not proven.

My experiment would empirically show how such a mutation could have come about.

Yes. Emphasis on 'could have.' The creationists will still demand evidence for 'did happen.'

And it would shut the creationists up--as least as far as mosquito-grabbing bot flies are concerned.

No, it never would.
THey work backwards from 'goddidit' to the evidence, so they can discard any evidence that wouldn't lead to the conclusion they champion.

Really, that's what they do. They will find a way to justify that your experiment either doesn't do shit, or it actually proves THEIR case is stronger, because you drove it to happen.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Belief implies an ideological commitment. People say "I believe in <whatever>" as a piece of their identity. They're contrasting themselves with others who chose another apparent "option" and believed something else. So we get believers in this and believers in that, and it just gets more tribal from there.

It goes back to what people were saying about a believer fulfilling personal needs instead of just forgetting himself (ie, forgetting his needs) and looking at nature for the answers in total disregard of personal and ideological issues.

I am looking at nature for the answers--which means asking questions about how evolution works instead of taking it as an article of faith.

Do you understand, yet, why looking at Reed is a mistake?

 

[Oecolampadius]

Do you understand, yet, why looking at Reed is a mistake?

Reed--The Prince of Fucking Darkness!

 

[abaddon]

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.

Do you imagine they just started laying eggs on mosquitoes at some point and it was a mutation that made them start doing that?

 

[bilby]

Do you understand, yet, why looking at Reed is a mistake?

Reed--The Prince of Fucking Darkness!

Nah, just a guy who is embarrassing himself by being very publicly wrong about some well established science.

 

[blastula]

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?

Innate behaviors are determined by genetics and genes evolve. What's the big mystery?

 

[Oecolampadius]

And proven? Nothing in science is proven.

So when Redi set up his famous scientific experiment proving that maggots came from eggs laid by flies and that they were not spontaneously generated from rotting meat, he really didn't prove anything?

but you can't prove evolution

Not even if I produced life in a test tube and got it to evolve?