Confronting Friends and Family

[Hovik]

Language is another example of something governed by "laws" that is found in complex systems; but is not a part of any of its individual components. No one has yet come up with the full theory on linguistics. It's something we can observe, it's something we can use, it's something found in the system, but it's not in the components. It develops and grows without any permanent physical link to its components. It is implicit that a system such as ours will necessarily give rise to it, we don't know why, we don't know the rules (or if you like laws) and we can't predict its behaviour, at present.

There isn't a unifying theory of linguistics, but there are quite a few very good models out there. As for your assertion that we don't know the rules of language, you're pretty far from the mark. We actually understand quite a lot about language (although there are always a hundred questions popping up with every answer). Also, we can predict the behavior of language in certain respects.

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean by the statement "not part of any of its individual components." Care to elaborate on that a little bit? How are you defining "the system" and "components"?

[Aractus]

Wrong. Populations compete against themselves, as do individuals and species. In the end, howerver, competition doesn't matter. What matters is who lives long enough to have offsprings and who doesn't.

Sex disproves your theory. Sexual reproduction reduces the rate of reproduction by 50%. Therefore it must have some other quality that makes it extremely beneficial; it must serve the interests of the species more than it serves the interests of the individual...

You need to produce detailed, relevant evidence that this "mysterious force" exists before we start taking it seriously. What you have done so far is present some supposed "flaws" of the theory of evolution that have been explained several times by scientists far more successful and qualified than you or me.

Everything you don't understand is a "mysterious force"?

I'm not saying that life (or a substitute thereof) would pop up in any possible universe, I'm just saying that our universe is not as special as you think it is.

Well it's the only universe, that itself makes it pretty special right there.

---

NASA has discovered a new life form, a bacteria called GFAJ-1 that is unlike anything currently living in planet Earth. It's capable of using arsenic to build its DNA, RNA, proteins, and cell membranes. This changes everything.

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

I can't believe you're quoting that old news as if it's groundbreaking stuff. The six "fundamental" elements used in the building blocks of life are carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, sulphur, and phosphorus. GFAJ-1 is simply capable of substituting arsenic for phosphorus. Or at least that's what NASA claimed in January 2010, there are now papers that question their findings altogether link and link.

[Kirbmarc]

Sexual reproduction reduces the rate of reproduction by 50%. Therefore it must have some other quality that makes it extremely beneficial; it must serve the interests of the species more than it serves the interests of the individual...

A species to reproduces asexually is more vulnerable to parasites, or to environment changes. Sexual reproduction combines alleles and produces individuals who can adapt more easily, and therefore possibly survive longer and have more offsprings.

The rate of reproduction is not important if a slight change in the environment kills all the individuals of the species before they can reproduce.

And as I told you, there's no reason to talk about "interests". What is important is simply survival until reproduction.

Natural selection is simply a process of elimination of the genes of the individuals who don't live long enough to have offsprings.

Talking about "interests" is a biased way to approach evolution: it's an implicitly theleological approach. You implicitly assume that evolution has a purpose and from that you infer that it has a design.

Everything you don't understand is a "mysterious force"?

Every hypothesis that introduces an unnecessary element, like your hypothesis of a "design" behind evolution, can be labeled as "msyterious force".

Well it's the only universe, that itself makes it pretty special right there.

I'm sorry, but your argument is incoherent. You tried to prove that our universe is special because it sustains carbon-based life. When I showed you that this is a biased, groundless assumption, you backtrack and say the universe is special because it's the only one that exists (another biased assumption).

[KichigaiNeko]

he hasn't got an argument Kirby. He is seeking an education that he is too lazy to do for himself....

Happens a lot on this forum. i admire your patience though

[Hovik]

he hasn't got an argument Kirby. He is seeking an education that he is too lazy to do for himself....

Happens a lot on this forum. i admire your patience though

I appreciate his uncanny religious ability to utterly sidestep (or in my case, ignore outright) a question, though. He's got that part down pretty well.

[Kirbmarc]

he hasn't got an argument Kirby.

I disagree. I think he has an argument, and a much stronger one than the usual "intelligent design" fallacies.

Ultimately, however, his argument is based on a misunderstanding of how evolution works and has a strong anthropocentric bias.

Scientifically speaking, the idea of a "guided" evolution is not impossible, but it is an unnecessary hypotheisis, not to mention the staggering amount of evidence that show us that if there is a design behind evolution it's pretty confused and ineffectual one.

The main evidence against design is not only the fact that living beings retain obsolete features from their ancestors (a phenomenon known as vestigiality) but the extinction of 99.9% of all species that ever lived.

Daniel's idea of a "driving force" behind evolution is more vague and therefore can't be directly disproved, but it is based on a series of dated assumptions (like the ideas that individuals do not matter, and that all competition is intra-specific) that were revealed to be wrong years ago. He's criticising Darwin's original theory, not the theory as we know it today.

[Aractus]

A species to reproduces asexually is more vulnerable to parasites, or to environment changes. Sexual reproduction combines alleles and produces individuals who can adapt more easily, and therefore possibly survive longer and have more offsprings.

That theory, as far as I'm concerned, has been pretty much disproven. You can't account for the cost of sexual reproduction due to survivability factors. In fact, the only thing that sexual reproduction produces that is of any real benefit in this scenario are "robust genes", but that in itself doesn't account for the cost of sexual reproduction. The theory I "most agree" with regarding why we have it is the fact that sexual reproduction is social and encourages the mate to care for the vulnerable child. But it's still not enough to account for sex because you need a very complicated and intelligent organism for this to be of benefit, and there are a lot of species that do not benefit from their mate providing any external material support.

Having only 50% of your species reproduce instead of 100% is a hugly significant change.

Talking about "interests" is a biased way to approach evolution: it's an implicitly theleological approach. You implicitly assume that evolution has a purpose and from that you infer that it has a design.

That's not my argument at all.

Every hypothesis that introduces an unnecessary element, like your hypothesis of a "design" behind evolution, can be labeled as "msyterious force".

I never said that. I said that what we generally label as evolution is just a function/feature of the system, it is not the system. The system would predict the element of evolution to feature prominently, it would also predict a very diverse range of species, and a very rapid growth rate of evolution, etc.

I'm sorry, but your argument is incoherent. You tried to prove that our universe is special because it sustains carbon-based life. When I showed you that this is a biased, groundless assumption, you backtrack and say the universe is special because it's the only one that exists (another biased assumption).

You've misunderstood my argument. We only have one universe, whether or not you could introduce another atom into our own universe to replace carbon, we still just have one universe. Life is built on the properties inherent in the design of our universe. Our universe doesn't just allow the right "rules" we need of crystallography and carbon, but it also produces the life-enabling stars such as our sun to form; and planets that can support life such as ours to form; and allows life to self-start somehow; and allows evolution to take place and be rapid; ... etc.

Even if you have a multiverse (which we don't), all that gives you is another layer of complexity. It would simply mean that at the beginning of my list above "Our mulitverse has the right properties to produces a universe that's just right like ours, ..." It doesn't make the "design" of the universe any less wonderful or unique or special.

[thesummerqueen]

How has that been disproven? Do you understand the backbending efforts a lot of botanists and biologists go through to keep certain species of produce alive because they reproduce asexually and are extremely susceptible to being decimated by one good disease?

[The Grand Nudger]

That theory, as far as I'm concerned, has been pretty much disproven. You can't account for the cost of sexual reproduction due to survivability factors. In fact, the only thing that sexual reproduction produces that is of any real benefit in this scenario are "robust genes", but that in itself doesn't account for the cost of sexual reproduction.

You just explained what the metrics were, and why it does. Congratulations.

The theory I "most agree" with regarding why we have it is the fact that sexual reproduction is social and encourages the mate to care for the vulnerable child. But it's still not enough to account for sex because you need a very complicated and intelligent organism for this to be of benefit, and there are a lot of species that do not benefit from their mate providing any external material support.

Care to source that for me, because I didn't realize that anyone was proposing something so blissfully ignorant for us to agree or disagree with..and I like a good laugh. Honestly, since when was the vulnerable state of the eukaryotic child the explanation for sexual reproduction?

Having only 50% of your species reproduce instead of 100% is a hugly significant change.

That would be significant, howsabout you alert the press the next time a female gives birth to a child without "the other 50%"?

[Kirbmarc]

That theory, as far as I'm concerned, has been pretty much disproven.

Really? By what evidence? It's a pretty sound theory. Species who reproduce asexually are very vulnerable to parasites and even slight changes in the environmwent, and there's plenty of evidence for that.

Such as:

backbending efforts a lot of botanists and biologists go through to keep certain species of produce alive because they reproduce asexually and are extremely susceptible to being decimated by one good disease?

aid that what we generally label as evolution is just a function/feature of the system, it is not the system.

What "system"? The law of physics?

Life is built on the properties inherent in the design of our universe.

You said it yourself. What we call "life" is built on the properties of the universe. If those properties were different, we would have something else.

Your argument is pretty much a retelling of the classic anthropic principle, an argument that has been shown to be biased (and a tautology) by pretty much every self-respecting philosopher of science.

Moreover, studies (like Stenger's paper thar I have already cited on this thread) have shown that if even if we change the properties of our universe by a factor of 25%, those changed properties still produce stars and Earth-like planets.

So basically carbon-based life would be 25% likely. Not such a small probability.

Even if you have a multiverse (which we don't)

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

"Our mulitverse has the right properties to produces a universe that's just right like ours, ..." It doesn't make the "design" of the universe any less wonderful or unique or special.

In a multiverse, many possible universes would be produced, so it very likely to produce one that supports carbon-based life.

Even if an universe that supports carbon-based life is only 0.00001% likely (and it has been shown that such a universe is much more likely thsn that) a billion universes in a multiverse (and if we had multiverse, we'd have far more universes than that) would very likely produce roughly one thousand life-supporting universes.