Fred Reed on Evolution

[Keith&Co.]

Again, this error shows his mindset is backwards. Instead of looking at the process, he's trying to define the process with words to serve his preconceptions.

Well, he is certain that he already knows all about the process. He's just paid too much attention to the wrong authorities authority figures.

 

[Oecolampadius]

Running an experiment in which you observed a population of flies evolve from direct-human-egg-laying to mosquite-egg-laying would tell you precisely nothing about actual bot fly evolution.

Well, what if I looked at the DNA of the direct-human-egg-laying bot flies and then compared it with the DNA of the mosquito-egg-laying bot flies and discovered a genetic mutation. What if I then took direct-human-egg-laying bot flies, surgically tinkered with their DNA to produce that mutation, turned them loose, and observed that they now had become mosquito-egg-laying bot flies. Wouldn't that prove that mosquito-egg-laying bot flies came about as a result of a mutation? Oops, sorry. I forgot. Science can't prove shit.

 

[Juma]

Running an experiment in which you observed a population of flies evolve from direct-human-egg-laying to mosquite-egg-laying would tell you precisely nothing about actual bot fly evolution.

Well, what if I looked at the DNA of the direct-human-egg-laying bot flies and then compared it with the DNA of the mosquito-egg-laying bot flies and discovered a genetic mutation. What if I then took direct-human-egg-laying bot flies, surgically tinkered with their DNA to produce that mutation, turned them loose, and observed that they now had become mosquito-egg-laying bot flies. Wouldn't that prove that mosquito-egg-laying bot flies came about as a result of a mutation?

That the change came about as a mutation is really not in dispute.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, what if I looked at the DNA of the direct-human-egg-laying bot flies and then compared it with the DNA of the mosquito-egg-laying bot flies and discovered a genetic mutation.

Um... A mutation is something in a creature's genetic code that was not passed on from a parent. Most of us, you and me, have between 30 and 50 estimated mutations in our DNA that didn't come from our parents.
Discovering that the DNA between two species is not the same is not really an informative discovery.

What if I then took direct-human-egg-laying bot flies, surgically tinkered with their DNA to produce that mutation,

You're drifting farther and farther away from any useful definition of 'mutation,' Deco.

turned them loose, and observed that they now had become mosquito-egg-laying bot flies.

If you identify THE GENE that causes this complicated behavior, you might be able to splice it in. I suspect, though, that it's several genes that are involved and your simplistic view needs a lot of work.

Wouldn't that prove that mosquito-egg-laying bot flies came about as a result of a mutation? Oops, sorry. I forgot. Science can't prove shit.

So, right, no, it would not 'prove' that conclusion.
It also would not SUPPORT that conclusion. At least, no more than just a general grounding in evolutionary theory supports the idea that everything we see in nature came about as a mutation or several mutations, and a process of selection.

But your experiment, as described, is just short of scientific illiteracy.

 

[bilby]

See, when you say things like this, everyone thinks you're a creationist. Evolution isn't a matter of complexity. Some creatures evolved to be less complex. Snails losing their shell to be slugs for example, or species that lose teeth.

You're really being obtuse here. The context of my statement was single-cell organisms evolving into multi-cellular organisms. If those first single-cell organisms all "evolved to be less complex," you wouldn't be here, would you?

Complexity doesn't enter into it - unless you can define what you mean by 'complex', it's really not helpful.

A unicellular organism has to do everything - detect food, move around, reproduce, avoid predators, protect itself from drying out, maintain a viable pH regardless of its surroundings, avoid or repair the damage from sunlight, etc., etc., Many unicellular organisms are therefore highly complex; their complexity is largely dependent on their environment.

Unicellular organisms can cooperate to reduce the number of things each individual has to do; Bacterial colonies grown in petri dishes have identifiable macroscopic structure because of this cooperation. Arguably, this allows them to be less complex. Organisms cooperating at this level are generally classed as unicellular organisms - but the colonies they form are multicellular, and are only considered 'colonies of unicellular organisms', rather than 'multicellular structures', as a matter of definition.

Slime molds are another level of cooperation, wherein individual cells merge, to form a macroscopic organism with shared cytoplasm, and many nucleii. They are clearly multicellular; but form from (and can revert to) unicellular components.

'True' multicellularity is usually defined by differentiation of tissues - cells become so specialized in doing a few things that they become incapable of doing others, and totally dependent on their (mostly genetically identical) brethren*. A cardiac muscle cell has the same basic genome as an axon, or an epithelial cell in the intestine, or a skin cell; But they are all very specialised, and cannot survive on their own - arguably because they are insufficiently complex. But of course, we know that it is possible for a multicellular organism to survive the loss of part of itself - Flatworms can be cut into many pieces, each of which can re-grow the missing parts to become a complete individual; And even humans can survive without a large fraction of their tissue - you can live without one lung, one kidney, your arms and legs, most of your intestines, half your liver, your appendix, your tonsils and a bunch of other stuff; You won't grow it back, but you will be able to survive.

And of course, we can see how there is no 'bright line' dividing unicellular organisms from multicellular ones; there's no hurdle to cross, that must be done in one leap. The process of transitioning from completely free-living unicellular organisms, to becoming multicellular organisms with highly differentiated tissues and organs is a series of steps, that can happen over millions of years - you are not likely to see it in your laboratory, unless you first develop an anti-aging serum that allows you to live for millions of years.


*And often incorporating completely different species as well - the healthy human body contains more non-human cells than it does human ones, and would die without them. Biology is messy and complicated; we do ourselves no favours by trying to force everything into neat categories, such as 'unicellular and multicellular' or 'simple and complex' or 'same species and different species' or even 'alive and not alive'. These are entirely human constructs and are descriptive, not proscriptive. When reality doesn't fit our definitions, it's not reality that's got it wrong.

 

[Oecolampadius]

If you identify THE GENE that causes this complicated behavior, you might be able to splice it in.

And a GENE is a section of DNA, is it not?

 

[Oecolampadius]

Many unicellular organisms are therefore highly complex

But if they stayed unicellular organisms without evolving into even more highly complex multi-cellular organisms, you wouldn't be here, right? That was the point.

 

[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.

*wink* *hint*

 

[Oecolampadius]

'this is what we think happened, and it's because of the following observations...'?

I agree with you here, and this is the position I myself take, except that I believe that the process might entail more than we know at present. Fred Reed is a bit over the top (he's a gonzo journalist, so what do you expect), but I was intrigued by his claim that by simply asking questions about evolution he was denounced as a creationist, so I wanted to give it a whirl myself.

Oecolampadius out.

*wink*

 

[bilby]

Many unicellular organisms are therefore highly complex

But if they stayed unicellular organisms without evolving into even more highly complex multi-cellular organisms, you wouldn't be here, right? That was the point.

That you can include the phrase I bolded in your reply strongly suggests that you either failed to read, or completely missed an important point of, my post.

It is not accurate to describe multicellular organisms as 'complex' in comparison to unicellular organisms. The categories you are using do not map to anything that exists in the real world, and they are confusing you. You need to let go of your preconception that the world of biology is neat and amenable to being cleanly categorized, or you will never be able to grasp any of it.

The categories 'complex' and 'simple'; and even the spectrum 'less complex ----> more complex' are human constructs that do not map accurately to reality; Their usefulness is limited, and applying them as foundational premises, when discussing topics outside their range of usefulness, will lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Evolution is about change; But it is NOT about progress.

But sure, if humans had not evolved, then humans wouldn't be here. So what?

If Joe the Lottery winner hadn't won the lottery, then Joe wouldn't be a millionaire. But that doesn't imply that nobody would have won the lottery; nor that millionaires wouldn't exist.

 

[Keith&Co.]

by simply asking questions about evolution he was denounced as a creationist, so I wanted to give it a whirl myself.

Except it's not simply asking questions about evolution that makes you look suspiciously like a creationist. It's the assumptions apparent in your questions, and the statements you make.

Like complexity. If you're going to ask CREATIONIST questions about evolution, then don't be surprised about being denounced as such.

Or when you lump the beginning of life into the science of how life changes.

Or when you quote Reed in the manner we've seen before, as a creationist pretending to be open minded at the start...

 

[Oecolampadius]

But if they stayed unicellular organisms without evolving into even more highly complex multi-cellular organisms, you wouldn't be here, right? That was the point.

That you can include the phrase I bolded in your reply strongly suggests that you either failed to read, or completely missed an important point of, my post.

It is not accurate to describe multicellular organisms as 'complex' in comparison to unicellular organisms. The categories you are using do not map to anything that exists in the real world, and they are confusing you. You need to let go of your preconception that the world of biology is neat and amenable to being cleanly categorized, or you will never be able to grasp any of it.

The categories 'complex' and 'simple'; and even the spectrum 'less complex ----> more complex' are human constructs that do not map accurately to reality; Their usefulness is limited, and applying them as foundational premises, when discussing topics outside their range of usefulness, will lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Evolution is about change; But it is NOT about progress.

But sure, if humans had not evolved, then humans wouldn't be here. So what?

If Joe the Lottery winner hadn't won the lottery, then Joe wouldn't be a millionaire. But that doesn't imply that nobody would have won the lottery; nor that millionaires wouldn't exist.

A minute too late, bilby. Done with your Yoda-isms.

 

[Keith&Co.]

A minute too late, bilby. Done with your Yoda-isms.

Yoda-isms?
Bibly's one of the more patient and knowledgeable posters on the forum. His willingness to explain, his facility at explaining, and his wide range of knowledge, those are qualities i want to have when i grow up.
Reducing them with a dismissive wave of the hand says a lot more about you and any possible open-mindedness than it ever will about him.

 

[beero1000]

The really ironic thing here is that no one in the thread has actually denounced Oecolampadius as a creationist. Lots of people saying he's using creationist arguments and techniques though...

I guess it's the lack of attention to detail that's his real problem.

 

[bilby]

'this is what we think happened, and it's because of the following observations...'?

I agree with you here, and this is the position I myself take, except that I believe that the process might entail more than we know at present. Fred Reed is a bit over the top (he's a gonzo journalist, so what do you expect), but I was intrigued by his claim that by simply asking questions about evolution he was denounced as a creationist, so I wanted to give it a whirl myself.

Oecolampadius out.

*wink*

'Creationist' isn't a denunciation - it's a description. If Fred Reed claims that evolutionary theory is false, then the probability that Fred Reed is a creationist approaches 1 - And the probability that he doesn't understand evolutionary theory also approaches 1.

The theory of evolution can be summarized in a syllogism:

P1 Offspring resemble their parents, but are not completely identical to them
P2 Differences between organisms affect the number of offspring they have
P3 Which offspring are favoured will vary between environmental niches
P4 Large numbers of generations have occurred since reproduction first began
C Populations will have become specialized to their environments, and each environmental niche will tend to give rise to populations with different specializations.

You need to show that one of the propositions is false, or that the argument is invalid, if you are to claim that it is unsound.

'Simply asking questions' of technical experts in a technical field, when those questions serve only to highlight his lack of the basic understanding required to ask useful questions, strongly suggests that he has an agenda - that rather than seeking the truth, he is seeking confirmation of his pre-existing ideas. The dominant pre-existing idea in this area of study is creationism - so it is hardly surprising that people who try to challenge the theory of evolution WITHOUT FIRST LEARNING WHAT IT IS are assumed to be creationists.

Argument from Incredulity remains a logical fallacy.

 

[bilby]

That you can include the phrase I bolded in your reply strongly suggests that you either failed to read, or completely missed an important point of, my post.

It is not accurate to describe multicellular organisms as 'complex' in comparison to unicellular organisms. The categories you are using do not map to anything that exists in the real world, and they are confusing you. You need to let go of your preconception that the world of biology is neat and amenable to being cleanly categorized, or you will never be able to grasp any of it.

The categories 'complex' and 'simple'; and even the spectrum 'less complex ----> more complex' are human constructs that do not map accurately to reality; Their usefulness is limited, and applying them as foundational premises, when discussing topics outside their range of usefulness, will lead you to incorrect conclusions.

Evolution is about change; But it is NOT about progress.

But sure, if humans had not evolved, then humans wouldn't be here. So what?

If Joe the Lottery winner hadn't won the lottery, then Joe wouldn't be a millionaire. But that doesn't imply that nobody would have won the lottery; nor that millionaires wouldn't exist.

A minute too late, bilby. Done with your Yoda-isms.

Sorry, too late for what? If you have now read and understood my earlier post, and withdraw your ignorant criticism of it, then I accept your apology.

 

[braces_for_impact]

The really ironic thing here is that no one in the thread has actually denounced Oecolampadius as a creationist. Lots of people saying he's using creationist arguments and techniques though...

I guess it's the lack of attention to detail that's his real problem.

I know for many of us, it's because we've seen this particular bit

I agree with you here, and this is the position I myself take, except that I believe that the process might entail more than we know at present. Fred Reed is a bit over the top (he's a gonzo journalist, so what do you expect), but I was intrigued by his claim that by simply asking questions about evolution he was denounced as a creationist, so I wanted to give it a whirl myself.

Over and over and over again.

Very, very rarely do we see questions asked in good faith, or charity given to answers. Instead what we see is lots of preconceptions, and people denouncing a theory or trying to produce "gotcha" questions regarding a theory they obviously don't correctly understand. When you try to correct them, they get all prissy and insist they were "just asking questions". Maddeningly, each one does so as if they're the first one to have such an idea. Also annoying, is the insistence that they are on a voyage of truth, when they are obviously present under false pretenses.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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.

I don't think it's that complicated. Believers simply believe what feels good to them. Their feelings are their beliefs, no knowledge necessary. In fact, believing is a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Look at all the pseudoknowledge that religious people create with their feelings. All that pseudoknowledge and no real knowledge. Suggesting that a creator uses natural selection and evolution in its creation is a perfect example of offering up more worthless pseudoknowledge.

 

[bilby]

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 don't think it's that complicated. Believers simply believe what feels good to them. Their feelings are their beliefs, no knowledge necessary. In fact, believing is a substitute for intellectual curiosity. Look at all the pseudoknowledge that religious people create with their feelings. All that pseudoknowledge and no real knowledge. Suggesting that a creator uses natural selection and evolution in its creation is a perfect example of offering up more worthless pseudoknowledge.

"How dare you suggest that my God is non-existent! My God is not non-existent; He's just useless!"

 

[Peez]

Running an experiment in which you observed a population of flies evolve from direct-human-egg-laying to mosquite-egg-laying would tell you precisely nothing about actual bot fly evolution.

Well, what if I looked at the DNA of the direct-human-egg-laying bot flies and then compared it with the DNA of the mosquito-egg-laying bot flies and discovered a genetic mutation. What if I then took direct-human-egg-laying bot flies, surgically tinkered with their DNA to produce that mutation, turned them loose, and observed that they now had become mosquito-egg-laying bot flies. Wouldn't that prove that mosquito-egg-laying bot flies came about as a result of a mutation? Oops, sorry. I forgot. Science can't prove shit.

lol!

Peez