Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Principia · 02-27-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Keith: How did any particular species of mouse-like creature realize that it needs to transform itself into a bat-like creature in order to survive?

Did those "mouse-like" creatures realize they "need" to transform? Hmm... One could almost say that a mouse is a "mouse-like" creature. So why are there mouse-like creatures in present times? Did they not get the message to "transform?"

Quote:

How did this mouse-like animal know that it MUST begin developing a highly sophisticated ear structure right now, for its future survival needs?

Once again, show me how mice (since they are obviously mouse-like creatures) have "highly sophisticated ears."

Quote:

If neither the mouse-like creature or nature knew anything about the future, how, and why, did this intricately planned, superbly designed, well orchestrated, intelligent, and obviously purposeful chain of events occur?

Once again, you haven't met all of the mouse-like creatures which have died. Why did "superbly designed, well orchestrated, intelligent, and obviously purposeful chain of events" kill so many living things just to design a pair of ears?

Quote:

Did it just happen?

It did happen.

Principia · 02-27-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Keith: The space shuttle is more complex than the first airplane built and flown by the Wright brothers. This is what I meant by complexity. I don't want to get too technical, or too long-winded.

No, by all means. Please take your time and explain to us what exactly do you mean by these colloquialisms like "sophisticated" and "complicated" and "miraculous." At present, I have to tell you quite honestly that you are not doing so well in this discussion. You have ignored repeated attempts to provide scientific evidence. You have evidently no research program of your own. And yet, here you are, proselytizing about how "miraculous" evolutionary processes are. Do you have a point any more?

So let's start here. How are space shuttles "more complex" than the Wright plane. Because you know, a curious intelligent person would want to know what specific features to translate over to biological examples in your analogy. Is it that the space shuttle came later in time? Is it because the space shuttle flies at higher altitudes than the Wright plane? What?

Quote:

It is self evident that to the extent that a species of bat requires its ears to survive, it will need every essential part of the ear to be working.

Repeating an unsupported claim does not make it true;nor does appealing to "self-evidence" satisfy the curious mind. In particular, the problem with your statement is that an "essential part" does not have to be either present or absent, functional or non-functional in some mutually exclusive sense. It can be substituted for other parts and it can function poorly. But I am sure you are aware of this option.

Quote:

If one of these essential ear parts has not kept up its developmental pace at any point along the development of the ear (in relation to all the other ear parts), the ear won't function, and the species will not survive.

False. Many living organisms do not have bat ears, or a mammalian auditory system. Explain to us how they survive even today.

Furthermore, bat ears for certain species of bats are useless for the purpose of predation, if they cannot generate the sound to perform echolocation. It would seem then, by your illogic, that laryngeal echolocation is quite necessary for these bats' reproductive success. Yet, explain to us why certain species of bats do not echolocate.

Keith · 02-27-2003, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy

"Are you saying that they knew a large object would hit the earth and radically change the environment and decided to do nothing about it and that is why they are extinct? Keith, do you have any idea how wierd your ideas are? Have you given them any thought at all?"

I'm not. Here is what you seem to be saying. Some species can anticipate their future survival needs and change accordingly before it's too late. Some cannot. Please explain why some can, while some cannot. Why did some mice start to become bats?

Keith

Keith · 02-27-2003, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"Could you back up your assertion that "if nature is devoid of purpose, speaking of utility is incoherent?"

Utility for what/who? How have you decided what utility means here? Does it mean more capable of reproducing? If so, are you now admitting that the process of evolution has a goal?

Keith

Keith · 02-27-2003, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Happy Wonderer

"Advantage is for an individual (which is why I said "you"), not for "Nature" or "bat kind." If an individual would gain no reproductive benefit from improving a function, there is no reason to expect to see that function improve in the general population.

When everybody "sees" well enough to detect any posible prey, then better "seeing" bats are no more likely to reproduce than the average bat. This is what I mean by "seeing" reaching a certain point of utility. We can use other words if you like, but I think my point is clear."

Well this is all interesting but I thought nature displays no purpose. If the goal of evolution is to create life-forms and insure their survival then I was right in my OP. It doesn't matter whether it is an individual that is gaining an advantage or a population. It is still purposeful.

Keith

Keith · 02-27-2003, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Salmon of Doubt

"If 'anticipation' and 'prediction' came into this at all, surely the families involved should have realised that they were about to be made extinct, and all the individuals would have just laid down and died, or not bothered to reproduce.

But because we're talking about RANDOM events here, this doesn't come in to it at all. The families that died just happened to be ill adapted to the conditions when they suddenly changed, so they died."

I agree. I'm just using words like "anticipation" and "prediction" to illustrate how absurd it seems that certain species just somehow happen to do all the right things at all the right times and thereby survive--even as other species fail to make all the right moves at all the right times.

Keith

Happy Wonderer · 02-27-2003, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Well this is all interesting but I thought nature displays no purpose. If the goal of evolution is to create life-forms and insure their survival then I was right in my OP. It doesn't matter whether it is an individual that is gaining an advantage or a population. It is still purposeful.

Keith

Where have I said anything about the "goal of evolution is to create life forms and ensure their survival?" Methinks I smell a red herring and a straw-man. Even if individual bats & rats & Unicorns had a conscious "goals" to survive & reproduce, how would that make reproduction a goal of "Evolution?" If my goal is to score lots of points at soccer, does that become a goal of Evolution as well?

How is the random mutation that causes an individual bat to have better echolocation in any way "purposeful?" It doesn't have a goal of crowding out its peers, it just happens to be more successful at having kids. This is a completely goal-less win. The weeds in my garden don't intend to strangle out my flowers, but their sheer mass has that effect. Got it?

You said:

Quote:

If one of these essential ear parts has not kept up its developmental pace at any point along the development of the ear (in relation to all the other ear parts), the ear won't function, and the species will not survive.

It sounds as if in a way you may now be acknowledging that this statement is not correct? Good, that is a start.

HW

HW

Keith · 02-27-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Salmon of Doubt

"The ear parts DIDN'T evolve independently! They were all evolving at the same time, and if certain relative sizes of ear parts happened to make an individual hear better, then the animal found more food.

This has been explained already several times by different people. Do you really not understand what we are saying? Or are you being deliberately obtuse and consistently misunderstanding things to get more people to argue?"

I'm not referring to size of ear parts as much as the complexity. The reason I used the space shuttle/Wright bros. first successful airplane in my description of complexity, is that in some ways, the evolution of aircraft and space vehicles resembles the evolution of life-forms. In aircraft, like bats, the various wing parts, for example have to evolve in sync with all of the other wing parts. If a 747 wing had to use some wing parts from a pre-747 plane, this would probably be less than ideal!

But with evolution there is no intelligent, purposeful designer to "guide" the development of bat ears, wings, or anything. It is all left to random mutations. Would you want to fly on a plane that had been designed by some highly random process?

Keith

Monkeybot · 02-27-2003, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Well this is all interesting but I thought nature displays no purpose. If the goal of evolution is to create life-forms and insure their survival then I was right in my OP. It doesn't matter whether it is an individual that is gaining an advantage or a population. It is still purposeful.

No. Evolution is DESCRIPTIVE. It has no goals; it merely state facts. Different species appear because of changes in the gene pool. The gene pool changes because certain variations become more advantageous than others. Certain variations are more advantageous because they aid in surviving and reproducing. If these variations didn't confer an advantage in survival, well... they wouldn't survive. It's not a goal, it's a fact.

Happy Wonderer · 02-27-2003, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Keith
Utility for what/who? How have you decided what utility means here? Does it mean more capable of reproducing? If so, are you now admitting that the process of evolution has a goal?

Keith

This statement seems unresponsive to me. You claim if nature is devoid of purpose, speaking of utility is incoherent. Support that claim.

If nature is devoid of purpose, speaking of the utility of this butter knife is incoherent.
If nature is devoid of purpose, speaking of the utility of the velicorapter's teeth is incoherent.
Only if nature has a purpose can we understand if 3.1417 is a useful approximation for pi.

See my point? The head and tail of your statement have no logical join.

HW

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.