Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Oolon Colluphid · 09-22-2003, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Charles Darwin:
... If the cave fish's vision system rudiments derive from fish with functional vision, then there is no need for macroevolution.

lpetrich:
So CD accepts that evolution happens as long as it is "microevolution"?

Obviously.

�Macroevolution: evolution that no reasonable person denies.�

�Microevolution: evolution that not even creationists can deny.�

So the next question has to be, how much evolution constitutes �macroevolution�? Please, CD, no straw men here; what, for you, would we expect to find if �macroevolution� were true? Cetaceans being derived from land mammals, perhaps? Or land tetrapods being derived from fish? (Sez he who had At the Water�s Edge for his birthday (finally), and who has Clack�s Gaining Ground on order from Amazon

.)

Quote:

Charles Darwin:
If the giraffe's nerve derives from fish, then evolution is true, end of story.

To show that a giraffe had a fishy ancestor is not all that straightforward, so let�s break it down into smaller steps.

Could a giraffe not be derived from a, say, okapi-shaped creature, by the extent of �microevolution� that can give cave-critters useless eyes?

Could that creature not be derived from a more generalised artiodactyl, again by cumulative microevolution?

Could the artiodactyls not share an ancestor with other ungulates?

Could ungulates not share an ancestor with other mammals? If they did, what should we find?

Could mammals not be derived from reptiles, such as the cynodont therapsids?

Could reptiles not be derived from amphibians? And amphibians from osteolepiform fish?

During all those changes, could the (what is now the) laryngeal-vagus nerve not have been �dragged� down into the chest?

If your answer is �not� to any of those, please explain why not. And at each stage, what might we expect to find?

Come on Charles, what counts as �macro�?

And why can cumulative �micro� not cause it?

Please explain the nature of the impenetrable barrier between �kinds�.

In fact, since, as you see, it is crucial, please can you define �kind�.

Thanks.

TTFN, Oolon

NottyImp · 09-22-2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

What would pose a problem for creationism. I've already answered this several times. One more time: A compelling scientific theory of the naturalistic origins of the species.

This is nothing more than a "God of the gaps" argument. Why do you assume that in the abscence of what you consider to be a compelling naturalistic argument, the default explanation is that God did it? Why choose this one argument out of a multitude of possibilities?

This is in no way science, its faith and religion based purely on your personal belief system.

premjan · 09-22-2003, 01:54 AM

religion is subect-oriented while science is object-oriented. of course the human perceiver is the link between subject and object.

I think religion is just outdated philosophy for thinking about things. In fact much of philosophy is also outdated. Nowadays experiment measurement and quantification are the way things are done. Not religion, and usually not philosophy.

Jack the Bodiless · 09-22-2003, 01:59 AM

Quote:

No, I'd like to scientifically put special creation to the test. You appear to be telling me that I can't.

The only way I know is to show that evolution is compelling.

AGAIN you seem to be confusing your terms here.

Biblical special creation fails if COMMON DESCENT is compelling.

...And it is. Therefore we can safely discard special creation, yes?

Now, given that COMMON DESCENT has occurred, we can start investigating whether or not EVOLUTION is responsible for it.

If you are unaware of the extent of the evidence for common descent (which is indeed compelling to eveyone who has studied it in detail), then you are not yet ready for evolution.

But it seems that you have a very long way to go, and a great burden of ignorance to shed. Your comments about eye evolution are proof of that.

Soralis · 09-22-2003, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Excellent thoughts. And no, my point is not in the same category of your coin flipping analogy. Your final paragraph summarizes it better, though we'd need to add questions such as how many mutations are ever going to be helpful in getting to the giraffe; so that mutation rate alone is not sufficient. We'd need to consider how many mutations are harmful, or otherwise will never help get to the giraffe.

Thanks.

Ahh.. but you see there's a problem with that. As soon as you include a specific endpoint, and the probability of mutations that lead to that endpoint, you're right back to the coin flipping problem agian.

For example, say you have an organism with a million base pairs, and say you have another organism, also with a million base pairs, but with only 1 base pair difference. Now, there are 3 million different point mutations that can happen in this (any one of the million base pairs has 3 different possibilities that it could be changed to). But only a single 1 of these changes would produce the second genome, making the probability 1/3,000,000. Which would also be the probability of a mutation happening at that point that wouldn't ever help get to the second genome. If you have 2 differences, then for the first change, there's a 2/3,000,000 chance of a mutatation changing to make it closer to the endpoint, and for the second mutation, it would be 1/3,000,000, leading to a probability of 1/4,500,000,000,000. It's the coin flip example, because you're assuming a specific result, and the probability that a specific change will lead to that specific result, rather then the probability of the mutation rate being sufficient to produce that result.

You could try to include something like that in probabilities of if it could work, in that a mutation may change another mutation to something else. Except what's being dealt with here is populations rather then individuals, so this would only make an impact if it happened with the offspring of the only individual with that allele remaining. And so, instead, selection would be what would really have an impact on this. But of course, factoring in selection into this could really make things complicated, because in doing so, you can no longer look at a mutation as simply a change, but have to look at what specifically that change would do. And not only that, but suddently the order, time, place, etc. of the mutations makes a difference, because the probability of mutation A surviving at setting A, and mutation B surviving at setting B will most likely be different then mustion B surviving at setting A and mutation A surviving at setting B. As well as the chance of a change surviving would at leastpartially, probably depend on what other changes exist at that time. Basically, you wouldn't just be able to use the two endpoints anymore, you'd have to factor in what the path would be.

Of course, that's a more detailed approximation. The one that I was originally mentioning was mainly more along the lines of the probability that the mutation rate with such conditions as I mentioned would be sufficient to lead to such a result. That could be used as a factor in how much selection would have to be biased toward these changes for them to survive, although that could be quite a more complex approximation.

Hmm.. although now that I think of it, there's a fairly simple way it could be represented. You could simply look at it as how often an allele involved in the end point, on average, was completely eliminated from a population, and had to have another mutation event to re-create it in the population. That would cover loss of alleles, and it would just be some factor >= 1 that could be multiplied by the number of mutations required in the first approximation. Where 1 would be that every mutation involved in the end product, once it happened, never got completely eliminated from the population. And something like 2 would be that on average every allele involved would go extinct within the population once, and re-created by a second mutation event.

Charles Darwin · 09-22-2003, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken
Charles,

Thanks for sticking with this thread. It's fascinating to follow the exchange mostly as a sideliner. I've considered your approach more effective than that of many anti-evolutionists, though I have to say that my respect for your position has suffered greatly in learning that you do not consider blind cave fish to be descendants of seeing fish. When challenged with phenomena like blind fish and flightless birds, your approach seems to be simply, "And so?" Even "scientific creationists" admit the cave fish as a legitimate example of "devolution" or micro-evolution. It doesn't take any hand-waving to understand the reality that blind cave fish are descendants of seeing fish, any more than to accept that a human born blind has parents or ancestors that could see, without knowing anything of the person's actual ancestry. I can't give you a mathematical formula that proves this to be the case, but I would be dumbfounded if anyone demanded it. Frankly, I am dumbfounded that you cannot accept the reality that blind cave fish have seeing ancestors. Your "And so?" approach is exasperating. It demonstrates that you simply won't allow any evidence to convince you against your pre-established notions.

If I were to present evidence that Spanish and Portuguese share a common ancestry, pointing out the geographical and linguistic proximity of the two, and were met at every point with this sort of "And so?" response with which you've answered the arguments for common descent on this thread, I would begin suspecting some sort of unexpressed agenda for rejecting my thesis. Perhaps I'm talking with a proud Portuguese citizen who does not want to admit his common linguistic and/or ethnic heritage with the Spaniards. Perhaps I'm talking with a super-Genesis-literalist who takes the Tower of Babel as the true explanation for the origin of all languages (even modern ones!). But it doesn't really matter: Spanish and Portuguese do in fact share a common ancestry, just as blind cave fish and seeing fish do, whether or not we can get into a time machine and see the development happen before our eyes. A skeptic would not be convinced if I showed him manuscripts progressively showing the divergence of Spanish and Portuguese from proto-Iberian or Latin, for example. I could present some general historical linguistic rules of thumb that are followed quite nicely in the progression of the two languages, but he would no doubt be able to dig into the manuscripts to show me how this or that word violates the rules. Something similar could be attempted to show that American English does not share common ancestry with British English. The English say "buttuh," the Irish say "butter," and Americans say "budder." Suddenly the picture gets murky, and laypersons could no doubt be confounded were such conundrums to be multiplied. But we all know that American English and British English ultimately share a common heritage.

So why do you reject the obvious conclusion that blind fish are descendants of seeing fish, a conclusion that even many scientific creationists accept? Is it that you recognize this as the top of a slippery slope that leads to a greater acceptance of common descent? If cave fish have seeing ancestors, then perhaps beetles with sealed wings have flying ancestors; deep-sea eye-stalk-toting blind crabs that withstand enormous water pressure may have seeing ancestors that cannot withstand such pressure; swift ostriches with powerful leg muscles may have flying ancestors that aren't as fleet of foot; and supremely capable swimmers like the penguins may have flying ancestors that can't match their diving abilities.

Evolutionists here touted the vestigial argument as being much stronger than it is. In fact, it seems to me that it falls apart on scrutiny. I have no particular problem with cave fish devolving from seeing fish. Though I would differ with you on it being a fact. "What happens when a function is discovered for the cave fish's 'rudiments' ?", is, I think, a valid question, even if such function is unlikely. But by asking the question I did not mean to imply that I believe that such function is inevitable, or required by creationism. Or that the cave fish could not have devolved from seeing fish.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ken
Finally, I want to suggest that much of the discussion on this thread has been muddled by conflation of common descent and evolutionary theory. There are two distinct questions:

1) Do all living creatures share a common ancestry with each other, and

2) If so, what are the causal mechanisms that have led to (1)?

Michael Behe would provisionally say "yes" to question (1), but he rejects a thoroughly naturalistic explanation for (2). I respect Behe for taking seriously the arguments for (1). I see again and again in your posts an assumption that if you can cast in doubt a naturalistic explanation for (2), then (1) falls along with it. Not so! In fact, a theistic evolutionist (TE) could turn your arguments against common descent against you using this approach:

CD: A pseudogene shared by chimps and gorillas but not by humans casts doubt on the notion that the three species share a common ancestry.
TE: Who are you to say what an Intelligent Designer would or wouldn't do? Perhaps the Designer had good reasons for bringing this about. The evidence for common ancestry on other grounds is overwhelming.

My suggestion would be to focus first on the evidence for and against (1) before arguing about (2). The difficulty of explaining echolocation or the bacterial flagellum naturalistically is irrelevant to the discussion of common ancestry. If the evidence does not support common ancestry, then there is no need to go on to (2). But if (1) appears to be the best explanation of the facts, then we are free to discuss whether an Intelligent Designer had a hand in the process. In short, just as evolutionists sometimes bring theology into their science to support naturalistic evolution, anti-evolutionists bring probability into the discussion to argue against common descent. If you want theology to stay out of the debate about naturalistic evolution, then you must check probability at the door when discussing common descent. Probability has precisely zero to do with common descent, if we allow for the possibility of non-naturalistic elements. Fair enough?

CD: An HERV shared by chimps and gorillas but not by humans casts doubt on the notion that the three species share a common ancestry.
TE: Who are you to say what an Intelligent Designer would or wouldn't do? Perhaps the Designer had good reasons for bringing this about. The evidence for common ancestry on other grounds is overwhelming.
CD: Overwhelming?
TE: Yes. Look at all the similarities between the species.
CD: Why does this surprise you? Do you think the species comes from different worlds? Of course not; they operate within a common environment, with the same energy sources, subject to the same natural laws, etc. They even consume each other.
TE: Yes, yes. But that doesn't explain all the needless similarities. The pentadactyl pattern for example. Why should different species have the same pattern for so many different uses? That's powerful evidence for common descent, though an Intelligent Designer makes it all possible.
CD: Why is it that you think your Designer would not use archetypes, such as the pentadactyl pattern?
TE: Because they are not necessary.
CD: Not necessary for what?
TE: They are not optimal. Surely, the 5-bone pattern is not the optimal design for all those different uses.
CD: Not optimal in what sense? What is your criteria that you believe the Designer ought to optimize?
TE: Function, fitness, and all that, of course.
CD: How would you redesign the bat's wing to make it better?
TE: I haven't the foggiest, but surely you're not saying all those pentadactyl patterns are optimal for their respective functions?
CD: I haven't the foggiest. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. My point is that you are not making much sense.
TE: How so?
CD: You claim there is overwhelming evidence for common descent.
TE: Yes, overwhelming.
CD: But, in fact, this "evidence" is based on your claim of off-optimal designs which you cannot prove.
TE: But ...
CD: Wait, that's not the worst of it. Even if you were able to prove some designs are not optimal for function, you are ignoring the bigger picture. Remember, your Designer is designing a network of species. If one species is too "optimal", to use your word, maybe it will gobble up too many of its prey.
TE: Hmmm ...
CD: But we're still not to the worst of it. Even if you were able to prove that the bigger picture is not optimal, you must first assume some criteria for your judgement. You say there is overwhelming for common descent, but this "evidence" is contingent on your assumption that the Designer ought to maximize function and fitness. Where did this come from?
TE: Umm, evolution?
CD: That's right. Of course, evolution does not say that under their theory, designs must be optimized for reproductive fitness. It is a blind process so it settles for designs that are good enough. The point is that this is their criterion, and their only criterion. Not only is it the only criterion for evolution; it becomes the only criterion for a Designer as well.
TE: So when evolutionists say the proof of evolution lies in what they deem to be bogus designs, they are begging the question.
CD: Right. And likewise, that evidence for common descent you cite is also circular. You see, you began by asking me the question: "Who are you to say what an Intelligent Designer would or wouldn't do?" But, in fact, it is you who are saying what the Designer would or would not do. You don't like what you observe in nature, so you believe God wouldn't have make it that way. This is your evidence for common descent. But since evolution is ludicrous, you invoke your Designer to step in, being careful to keep him at a distance from those designs you don't like.

Dr Rick · 09-22-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
What is astronomical is the number of possible DNA modifications possible. My point was that your random biological variations must find their way through an enormous space of alternatives.

Those extant variations that confer a survival and reproductive advantage tend to survive and replicate ("find their way through"), and those alternatives that don't tend to die-off. New variations, called mutations, are subjected to the same selective pressures as the old ones, and face the same dichotomy that determines if they will "find their way through an enormous space of alternatives" or not.

Quote:

I'm asking, what is the probability that this evolution could occur assuming reasonable numbers?

That's like asking, "what is the probability that the Titanic would hit an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sink assuming reasonable numbers?"

Well, CD; what is it? Since you can't possibly provide the numbers, should we assume that the event couldn't have occured?

Quote:

Translation: When all else fails, fall back on the "fact" of evolution. You've got to be kidding me?, no good evidence? Do I have to repeat 20 posts? But then again, what does evidence have to do with it? After all, I'm merely questioning an event that "is occurring." The probability is one! See, this is where evolution has taken us. This is not science.

Yours is still an argument from ignorance; we do not and may never know all of the probabilities involved in either evolution or the sinking of the Titanic by hitting an iceberg on its first voyage, but that doesn't mean that either event didn't or couldn't happen, and that does not mean that studying either one of them "is not science."

Quote:

Sorry, I don't follow. What fallacy is this? Let's see, evolution claims that the most complex things we know of arose all by themselves. They have no actual details showing how this happened. The DNA code and echolocation are supposed to have arisen by themselves. How? Well, we don't know, but it is a fact. And now *I* am the one guilty of a fallacy by questioning this claim?

It's the fallacy of the argument from ignorance into which you then insert the god of gaps.

And your assertion is wrong: we do have actual details of evolution, including observing mutations and witnessing speciation, unlocking the genetic code that revealed similarities and homologies exactly as evolution predicts them, and seeing some species die while others flourish both now and in the fossil record.

Quote:

...we'd need to add questions such as how many mutations are ever going to be helpful in getting to the giraffe; so that mutation rate alone is not sufficient. We'd need to consider how many mutations are harmful, or otherwise will never help get to the giraffe.

Those questions do not make "getting to the giraffe" impossible or even improbable, because those mutations are acted upon by the forces of selective pressures which would have the effect of eliminating those organisms with harmful mutations while conserving those with beneficial ones.

Quote:

...the idea of such complexity arising all by itself is ludicrous.

You keep asserting that, but never explain why when the mechanisms of mutation and natural selection are so obvious.

Quote:

IYour are VERY skeptical of the hypothesis that a single designer was responsible for all those conflicting designs. That is fine, I can't argue with you. For you evolution is a fact.

Your belief is not an hypothesis because it is not testable; your only proposed verification of it would be the falsification of another, separate one (evolution), which is no verification at all.

Evolution is verifiable, predictive, and potentially falsifiable. Much evidence supports it, and none to date refutes it. Your argument against it has been one from ignorance built upon not knowing the probabilities, but that is not a scientific rebuttal any more than it would be a scientific rebuttal to any other event whose total probablities remain unknown.

Quote:

If you had been following this thread you would know that what I have "mustered" is scientific problems with evolution.

Arguing that we don't know the probabilties of the events that had to occur is an argument from ignorance, not a scientific refutation. A scientific refutation would be presenting evidence of life that couldn't have evolved through the path of descent with modification defined by evolution: examples would be a horse with feathered wings, or finding a rabbit fossilized in Pre-Cambrian strata.

Quote:

What would pose a problem for creationism. I've already answered this several times. One more time: A compelling scientific theory of the naturalistic origins of the species.

What you propose is not science.

The belief of creationism is not falsifiable that way, because the possibilty (actually it's a fact, though you deny it) of "naturalistic origins" wouldn't make creationism any more or less false. It would provide no evidence that creationism didn't occur, just that it or "natural origins" could have.

You are not proposing a scientific theory with creationism, as it is not verifiable, predictive, or falsifiable.

Quote:

The only way I know [to scientifically put special creation to the test] is to show that evolution is compelling.

That is not the way to test a scientific theory. You can't scientifically test creationism because creationism is not a scientific theory. It can not be tested on its own; you are relying on the veracity of another theory to discredit creationism, but that is not a potential falsification of creationsim, because you have no way to show that creationism didn't occur, and because it makes no testable predictions, it can't be disproven.

Quote:

There is no question that ID is asking a scientific question and using scientific means to get at the answer.

You've just shown us that it is not, because, like creation, it is not testable. :banghead:

lpetrich · 09-22-2003, 11:46 AM

CD: An HERV shared by chimps and gorillas but not by humans casts doubt on the notion that the three species share a common ancestry.

Actually, it's no difficulty -- that gene was lost by the ancesstors of Homo sapiens after they split off from the ancestors of the chimps and gorillas.

TE: ...The evidence for common ancestry on other grounds is overwhelming.
CD: Overwhelming?
TE: Yes. Look at all the similarities between the species.
CD: Why does this surprise you? Do you think the species comes from different worlds? Of course not; they operate within a common environment, with the same energy sources, subject to the same natural laws, etc. They even consume each other.

The similarities are far beyond what is necessary to survive.

Also, there are lots of differences, and the pattern of similarities and differences fits a treelike pattern remarkably well. Why don't we find some creature with a bird's beak, a bat's wings, insect-like antennae on its head, and hemocyanin as its blood oxygen carrier? A designer that liked variety can surely create something like that -- especially an omnipotent one.

CD: Why is it that you think your Designer would not use archetypes, such as the pentadactyl pattern?

A very powerful designer concerned with creating good adaptations would create a new one specially suited for some job rather than kludging an old one. I know that from my own experience as an intelligent designer.

TE: They are not optimal. Surely, the 5-bone pattern is not the optimal design for all those different uses.

It's 5 digits, not 5 bones. And it is indeed suboptimal for the extremities of hoofed animals. Many of them have various numbers of extra digits alongside their main weight-bearing ones; extra digits that have no apparent function and that are often much narrower than the main weight-bearing digits.

Present-day equines have a single hoof on each foot and two splints, one on each side of the main digit. However, these splints occasionally become extra side digits, and most extinct equids had similar extra side digits.

Furthermore, some artiodactyl hooves like cow hooves converge on the overall shape of a horse hoof, looking like a horse hoof split in the middle. This seems like a kludgy workaround -- especially for some alleged superbeing that can easily give cows single hooves.

CD: Wait, that's not the worst of it. Even if you were able to prove some designs are not optimal for function, you are ignoring the bigger picture. Remember, your Designer is designing a network of species. If one species is too "optimal", to use your word, maybe it will gobble up too many of its prey.

That's Walter ReMine's favorite argument. However, an equilibrium would still be reached. Pandas extract only 1/6 of the nutrients that they could from bamboo; WR had argued that this was a good way of keeping pandas from eating all the bamboo. However, if pandas were given 100% of possible efficiency, then the same grove of bamboo would be able to support 6 times as many individual pandas; each one would need to eat only 1/6 as much bamboo to survive.

CD: ... You say there is overwhelming for common descent, but this "evidence" is contingent on your assumption that the Designer ought to maximize function and fitness. Where did this come from?

From this designer being celebrated as the designer of high-quality adaptations.

Muad'Dib · 09-22-2003, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Moorehead, Kaplan [Ed.s], *Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinan Interpretation of Evolution,* 1967. Keep in mind that my point was not the challenge itself, but the circular response.

Thanks for that. I'll look it up in the library this weekend. To be honest though, I was also interested in references to the responses by biologists (the ones you refer to as circular). Are all such replies covered in subsequent editions of the book (if any)?

Also, would it be useful or interesting to you if I were to write a rebuttal to the book's claims, if I think such a response is appropriate? Or are you more interested in making evolutionists look suspicious?

Regards,
Muad'Dib

Charles Darwin · 09-22-2003, 08:34 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question that ID is asking a scientific question and using scientific means to get at the answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally posted by Dr Rick
You've just shown us that it is not, because, like creation, it is not testable. :banghead:

I realize these distinctions may not be important to you, but what I was arguing against was TE, not ID.

09-22-2003, 01:54 AM	#513
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	religion and science religion is subect-oriented while science is object-oriented. of course the human perceiver is the link between subject and object. I think religion is just outdated philosophy for thinking about things. In fact much of philosophy is also outdated. Nowadays experiment measurement and quantification are the way things are done. Not religion, and usually not philosophy.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-22-2003, 11:46 AM	#518
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	CD: An HERV shared by chimps and gorillas but not by humans casts doubt on the notion that the three species share a common ancestry. Actually, it's no difficulty -- that gene was lost by the ancesstors of Homo sapiens after they split off from the ancestors of the chimps and gorillas. TE: ...The evidence for common ancestry on other grounds is overwhelming. CD: Overwhelming? TE: Yes. Look at all the similarities between the species. CD: Why does this surprise you? Do you think the species comes from different worlds? Of course not; they operate within a common environment, with the same energy sources, subject to the same natural laws, etc. They even consume each other. The similarities are far beyond what is necessary to survive. Also, there are lots of differences, and the pattern of similarities and differences fits a treelike pattern remarkably well. Why don't we find some creature with a bird's beak, a bat's wings, insect-like antennae on its head, and hemocyanin as its blood oxygen carrier? A designer that liked variety can surely create something like that -- especially an omnipotent one. CD: Why is it that you think your Designer would not use archetypes, such as the pentadactyl pattern? A very powerful designer concerned with creating good adaptations would create a new one specially suited for some job rather than kludging an old one. I know that from my own experience as an intelligent designer. TE: They are not optimal. Surely, the 5-bone pattern is not the optimal design for all those different uses. It's 5 digits, not 5 bones. And it is indeed suboptimal for the extremities of hoofed animals. Many of them have various numbers of extra digits alongside their main weight-bearing ones; extra digits that have no apparent function and that are often much narrower than the main weight-bearing digits. Present-day equines have a single hoof on each foot and two splints, one on each side of the main digit. However, these splints occasionally become extra side digits, and most extinct equids had similar extra side digits. Furthermore, some artiodactyl hooves like cow hooves converge on the overall shape of a horse hoof, looking like a horse hoof split in the middle. This seems like a kludgy workaround -- especially for some alleged superbeing that can easily give cows single hooves. CD: Wait, that's not the worst of it. Even if you were able to prove some designs are not optimal for function, you are ignoring the bigger picture. Remember, your Designer is designing a network of species. If one species is too "optimal", to use your word, maybe it will gobble up too many of its prey. That's Walter ReMine's favorite argument. However, an equilibrium would still be reached. Pandas extract only 1/6 of the nutrients that they could from bamboo; WR had argued that this was a good way of keeping pandas from eating all the bamboo. However, if pandas were given 100% of possible efficiency, then the same grove of bamboo would be able to support 6 times as many individual pandas; each one would need to eat only 1/6 as much bamboo to survive. CD: ... You say there is overwhelming for common descent, but this "evidence" is contingent on your assumption that the Designer ought to maximize function and fitness. Where did this come from? From this designer being celebrated as the designer of high-quality adaptations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.