Albert Cipriani

Dear Mantis,
You seem to be toying with me when what you suggest seems so disingenuous:
Warm is the opposite of cold, as dry is the opposite of wet, as light is the opposite of dark, as an oxygen atmosphere is the opposite of an anaerobic atmosphere. Do you honestly mean to tell me that these few environmental opposites explain the nearly infinite amount of speciation opposites? Because the environment has alternately gotten cold, dry, dark, or an influx of oxygen, life forms have had to evolved all these contradictory features:

• sexless to sexed?
• single cells to multiple cells?
• water-breathing to air-breathing?
• skeletons on the outside to skeletons on the inside?
• hard scales to soft feathers?
• earth-bearing limbs to air-bearing wings?

Even if you could somehow be right and a few environmental opposites could explain the multiplicity of opposing evolutionary paths that terrestrial life transverses, what could have caused all the evolutionary changes for oceanic life? The oceans aren’t alternately dry and wet, nor cold and hot, nor light and dark (their depths have always been pitch black), nor oxygenated vs. anaerobic.

Something like 95% of all life forms are sea creatures. Their environment has remained relatively constant compared to the environment terrestrial creatures have had to adapt to. Yet evolutionary change is just as pronounced in ocean populations. Ergo, the aquatic evidence belies your argument that environmental changes produce evolutionary changes.

Thank you for your candor here: I share and applaud your Christian sentiments.

But you demonstrate intellectual inconsistency when you attempt to skirt the issues raised by evolution by saying:
Sure we do. If there is no God. Then Nature is God. We, as a member of Nature, then, without any pretense of being adopted sons of God, should do as Nature does. Hitler ought to be our model. Social Darwinism becomes the Good News.

The fact that the logical conclusions of a belief in atheistic evolution seem repugnant to most people is proof that most people are parasitically theistic. Most atheists maintain silly theistic sentiments in spite of their intellectual refutation of such emotional niceties. You seem to be one such. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Ab_Normal

Can't resist... If there is no God, then there is no God. Period. Elevating nature to the position of god is called the naturalistic fallacy, if I recall correctly.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Abnormal,
You say,
I was speaking loosely, as when God spoke of us having “no false gods before Him.” Obviously if they are false gods they have no business being called “gods.” Obviously, if there is no God, I have no business calling Nature god. You are obviously poetically deprived. – Extending My Sympathies, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Ab_Normal

Well, yeah, I am a programmer.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Abnormal,
Allow me to help redress your occupational hazard with one of my own:

The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired. . .
Genesis 3:6

Creator Versus Creation
It’s a tribute to our God's magnanimity
and testimony to mankind’s parsimony
that mere creation, His mirror, can
compete against Him so successfully.

-- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Fiach

Warm is the opposite of cold, as dry is the opposite of wet, as light is the opposite of dark, as an oxygen atmosphere is the opposite of an anaerobic atmosphere. Do you honestly mean to tell me that these few environmental opposites explain the nearly infinite amount of speciation opposites? Because the environment has alternately gotten cold, dry, dark, or an influx of oxygen, life forms have had to evolved all these contradictory features:

I am aware that you are not educated in science and earth history. But it is simplistic and disingenuous to assume that conditions changed immediately from warm to cold or dry to wet. These climate changes occurred over many thousands or millions of years. That is plenty of time for mutations to be favoured or eliminated by the changes, that in many cases occurred in multiple stages. The atmosphere did not change from anaerobic to aerobic in a few hours. It took thousands of years for blue-green algae and stromatolites to slowly introduce the oxygen produced by the new photosynthesis, to even register. At first oxygen immediately oxidised iron and aluminium keeping it from accumulation. Gradually as all Iron deposits became the familiar reddish ore, Oxygen began to build up from fractions of a percent to near 20% over many years. The most oxygen sensitive organisms died off first. Those that were partially tolerant were the base population from which a minority that dealt with the toxic oxygen by using it in the aerobic metabolic process. Later this proved beneficial in energy production and the Oxygen using cells proliferated while the mere oxygen tolerant cells dwindled with a few still surviving today (Clostridium botulinum).

Changes like the wet to dry of the East African plain occurred over 3-5 million years. That allowed tree dwelling apes in forests to deal with the change to open woodlands by walking upright and carrying infants and food. As Open woods became savanahs, they were selected out for stronger legs, better running, arms to carry and to hurl sticks or rocks at predators. As it got drier and all grassland, it selected out groups of humans like baboons did at the same time. This social organisation allowed group defence with males on the periphery and females with the young in the protected center. Australopithicines were selected out to become Homo habilis whose nimble hands could chip stones to make cutting tools and axes.

We are not generally talking sudden changes for most of evolution. There were a couple of times (Cambrian, late Permian, late Triassic, late Jurassic, Cretaceous with end of the dinos) that some drastic change caused mass extinctions. Evolution then showed its second mechanism, Punctuated Equilibrium (a la Stephen Gould) that allowed the biological explosions of many new families of animals and plants.

BTW, the Catholic Church under il Papa, has accepted the fact of evolution without any gastric acidity. You can still believe in your God without denying physical phenomena that only conflict with the Bible not God. The Bible is proven errant and mythological. Don't let a book of lies threaten your faith. It need not. European Christian have accepted the material universe and God. Don't act like the superstition bound fundies. I mean well for you, Albert. Don't fear finding our more about our universe. You can look at evolution as merely being God's plan for speciations, and evidence backs it and not fundy Magical Creation.

Fiach

Fiach

The fact that the logical conclusions of a belief in atheistic evolution seem repugnant to most people

Most people accept the fact of evolution. Most Americans who believe in evolution (about50%) are Theists and Christians. Only 10% of Americans are atheists. 40% are theistic evolutionists, especially educated Catholics and Episcopalians. In Europe 90%+ Christians accept the fact of evolution. Of course their schools still teach science.

is proof that most people are parasitically theistic. Most atheists maintain silly theistic sentiments in spite of their intellectual refutation of such emotional niceties. You seem to be one such

You are so uncharitable, Albert. It is harder and harder for me to like you, while I will still try. I see no problem in maintaining some of the nice parts of religion. I see no problem accepting many of the wisdom of Jesus without calling him a god. I have no apologies for those of us who call ourselves "Cultural Catholics, philosophical Atheists" or "Cultural Anglicans, Philosophical Atheists." You are so black and white on everything that you can't understand this. Lack of belief in God does not mean that a Jewish Atheist cannot have a passover feast, light a menorrah (sp?). I once hiked the path of Columba the converter of the Picts along the Ness fault and Loch Ness to the Grampian, just to imagine what it might have been like for Columba the Missionary to Scotland/Pictland. You may call me a hypocrite if that makes you happy. I wish you success in dealing with your anger.

Fiach

Doubting Didymus

Albert: your approaching this 'opposites' thing from the wrong angle. The environment does not have to be a total dichotomy to produce opposing effects. I shall point out to you for each of the examples why evolution might sustain such different traits, and also why none of your examples are actual opposites.

sexless to sexed?

Sexless organisms have an advantage over sexad ones, because where we only pass on 50% of our heritable material, sexless organisms pass the whole lot. However, sexual organisms set free their genes. To expound: if two good mutations appear in two different asexual organisms, there is no method by which they will ever be able to meet. If the same thing happens in a sexual population, the two different good mutations could soon find themselves sharing adjacent seats in the offspring of the two people carrying the original copies. Both are fit forms in the eyes of evolution, and so evolution will not neccessarily favour either over the other.

Why this is not an opposite: there are organisms who are asexual, but still occasionally share tiny portions of dna with their neighbours. There are organisms that exist in repeating asexual cycles, but occasionally feel like producing gametes and reproducing sexually. There are sexual organisms (plants, in this case,) that self fertilise more often than not. All these intermediate forms show that there is no distinct gulf between these two extremes.

single cells to multiple cells?

Single cells (especially bacteria) have the advantage of not needing much in the way of systems. they can generally sustain themsleves simply by swimming around and soaking up their surroundings. Also, because they are small and simple, they can reproduce with great speed. Metazoans (multicellular organisms) have a different edvantage: bigness. jellyfish, a simple aggregate of a few different specialised cells, have simply by the power of plumpness lifted themselves out of competition with the little folk. The ecological principle of niche comes into play, and the pure lack of competition becomes a massive advantage. Some specialisation is needed, and the creature needs to develop some systems for getting nutrients inside of itself, but the bonus is worth it. Again, both good in different ways.

Not opposites: technically an organism composed of 2 cells is 'multicellular', but it is not much different inn practice to a single cell. What about 3? 4? There is no clear distinction you can draw between uni and multi celled organisms that can not be filled by an extant or extinct organism.

water-breathing to air-breathing?

Similar to the above, life began in the water, and adaptations to that lifestyle are self evidently desirable. Organisms that invade the land, on the other hand, have broken out of the rat race and found a niche with no competition. Eventually, when the land animals are common, the competition returns, and we hit a kind of equilibrium. It does not benifit sea animals to come onto the land anymore, and it does not help land animals to return to the water (with a few notable exceptions).

This is not an opposite either. there are a hundred other things that an animal could adapt to breathing. the two choices here are arbitrary.

skeletons on the outside to skeletons on the inside?

Skeletons on the outside are better than on the inside, they protect you like a suit of armour. Problem: they only work on little organisms. Big ones need an internal skeleton to hold themselves together. Horses for courses, Albert. Again, both of your oppositea are highly fit in the complete context of the organisms situation.

I will grant that this one is probably a true opposite, excepting only that is is entirely possible to have both. Case in point: armadillo.

hard scales to soft feathers?

Hard scales are excellent for defence, and the perfect skin covering for dwelling in the water. Like chainmail, defense without sacrificing mobility. Feathers are good for different purposes: heavier insulation and flight.

This is clearly not an opposite. There are a myriad of other types of skin covering that might be adopted, each for a different purpose. Hair is one, modified hair in the form of spines is another.

earth-bearing limbs to air-bearing wings?

flight is another case where an organism can lift itself out of the competition of its time. To fly is to have a powerful trump card against both predators and those who would compete for rescources. To stay on the ground has its own advantages: most of the food is still there, and in many cases, the opportunities to evolve flight is just not there.

Again, not an opposite. Limbs for swimming, limbs for clibming, limbs for gliding and limbs for scooting across the waters surface all exist. There are also a number of intermediate forms of half-flying creatures that bridege any divide you might percieve between earthbound and airborne.

As for this:
This kind of thing is very easy to say, but it's not a walk in the park to back it up. All you have here at the moment is an assertion: without god, I must act as nature wants me to. You have not given me any actual reason why I might want to do that, or why it should be an obvious thing to do. I can think of a couple of reasons why I shouldn't, actually. Sorry, but this one was dead in the water before anyone bothered to put it to words.

Fiach

I read it through. Aside from minor irrelevent technical points, I agree with the theme. I know how much work it takes to post such explanatory responses. There are many people who oppose science without realising that it need not conflict with their psychological need to worship Gods, with the lone exception being Islamo-Christian Fundamentalists.

Fiach

Doubting Didymus

Please don't hold your criticism back. If I have made any mistakes, no matter how small, I want to be told.