People miss the point when they argue evolution versus creationism. Creationists aren't arguing biological science -- they're arguing social science. And they're very much right on that count: evolution and "survival of the fittest", revered to highly, results in eugenics, nationalism, and atrocities. Meanwhile, people arguing evolution are pointing at the science, which is pretty well in the bag[1]. But given the two different conversations being had, it shouldn't be a shocker each side is utterly failing at convincing the other.
The sad part is how obvious that realization is, if you take even the briefest of moments to look on both sides of the conversation.
[1] I'm still curious to see an example of chromosomes being added or removed from an animal and having that be a good -- or even neutral -- thing. Given evolution, it must have happened, since we don't have the same number of chromosomes as our evolutionary siblings.
llimllib
· 1 year ago
Your argument is that Creationists are arguing that social darwinism is evil? Why all the talk about the eye and "irreducible complexity" then? How can that possibly be an argument that evolution results in eugenics?
> I'm still curious to see an example of chromosomes being added or removed from an animal and having that be a good -- or even neutral -- thing
If you're allowing evolution+selection as an axiom, as you seem to be, the evidence that different beings have different numbers of chromsomes alone is sufficient as proof that it's good or neutral. QED
Robert Fischer
· 1 year ago
The irreducible complexity and wacky physics stuff is just a paltry nod to the biological aspect of the debate, but it's really not central -- in fact, you only really hear that kind of stuff brought up when creationists try to engage in debates with scientists. However, if you watch their propaganda (like "Expelled!"), it's very clear that the real issue is a social/political one, not a biological one.
re: the chromosome thing. I'd just like to see an example of it, because it bugs me. And using the theory as proof of the theory is giving that theory a lot of clout...be careful: you might almost look like you're taking it on faith. ;D
llimllib
· 1 year ago
It seems to me that it's very important to creationists to be regarded as having science on their side, but I can accept that it's perhaps selection bias, esp since I don't actually know any creationists. I'll update my probability distribution accordingly (although you likely think that's meaningless :)
> And using the theory as proof of the theory is giving that theory a lot of clout
But that's not what I did; I cliamed that the assertion "chromosomes being added or removed from an animal [is]... a good... or neutral thing" follows trivially from accepting the theories of evolution and natural selection.
Analagously, it would not be fallacious to claim that, in a mathematics that includes the Peano axioms, the theory S(S(0)) == 2 follows trivially from those axioms.
Robert Fischer
· 1 year ago
Don't confuse science and math. Science is empiricism while math is pure logic. The theory of evolution isn't axiomatic: should we find evidence to the contrary, it has to be disregarded. In mathematics, if you prove something directly from the axioms, it's unassailable. Nothing in science is unassailable -- the history of science shows over and over again that universally accepted theories have been overturned.
Therefore, it's silly at best and counterproductive at worst to ever use a scientific theory as proof that something must be true. At best, you can say that we would expect it to be true. We would expect to see a chromosome added or removed from an offspring and that offspring to 1) be able to pass those characteristics to *its* offspring, and 2) be able to survive and reproduce with at least the same efficacy as its peers. But, AFAIK, that hasn't happened. In fact, too many or too few chromosomes are at fault for a whole series of diseases, most of which start with infertility. This has always bugged me.
re: probabilistic distribution. My problem with your probability distribution is that it's epistemological smoke and mirrors. It's a fine theory of how to live life, but worthless as an epistemological statement. How do you determine the probability of a statement being true? As a case in point, you're going to update your "probability distribution" basically on some kind of perceived authority on my part. That's a pretty lousy basis from which to assert fundamental truth, but you can use your probabilistic "epistemology" as lipstick on that pig. You get to sound smart and sophisticated while actually sidestepping the whole problem of how you actually know anything.
llimllib
· 1 year ago
> Therefore, it's silly at best and counterproductive at worst to ever use a scientific theory as proof that something must be true.
But that's the misunderstanding here; I didn't claim that evolution and/or selection are true, and especially not that they will always be true!
All I said was that *if* they are true, *then* the claim follows.
> But, AFAIK, that hasn't happened
And my argument is that, if you accept evolution and natural selection (provisionally, for this argument, and not in any way implying that they are totally and universally True) then it is a simple proof that it has happened. A sketch follows:
1) N creatures have m different numbers of chromosomes 2) Life evolved from a single source (alternatively <m sources, but I don't think we need to go *there*) 3) Selective pressures only favor evolutions which are beneficial to reproduction 4) Because m > 1, at some point a species was selected which had a different number of chromosomes than its evolutionary parent 5) By point 3, this selection must have been beneficial. QED
It is a distinguishing characteristic of evolution that it can, in general, only be inferred from the available evidence. It works by selecting on *lots* and *lots* of evolutions over *lots* and *lots* of time, so it should not be surprising that we have never been able to witness any particular evolution.
(Also, I'll leave the epistemological argument for another debate :)
Robert Fischer
· 1 year ago
Scientific theories, at best, say that "if X is accepted, then we would expect to find Y". It never, ever says "If X is accepted, then Y must be true". Using a scientific theory to provide any kind of proof -- much less a "simple proof" -- of the occurrence of an event is simply flat-out backwards, and conflating the processes of science and mathematics dumbs down our collective scientific and mathematical sensibilities.
All of this boiled back to a statement about taking evolution as "axiomatic", which I certainly don't, so I suppose it's all for moot.
Saying that we haven't seen a particular evolutionary process because evolution happens over time is a fine way to excuse it. In this case, it's a bit thinly stretched, because we're not talking about a gradual change -- we're talking about a change in a single offspring from its parent. A species doesn't "gradually" develop an entirely new chromosome (although they *may* grow or shrink without harm). In any case, it's a fine rationalization for the lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence should still be a bit concerning.
After all, if X is a necessary condition for natural process Y, yet nature has never demonstrated X and science cannot produce X, then certainly that lowers the odds of Y being true. And the longer we watch nature without seeing X and the more advanced science gets without being able to produce X, the worst off it looks for Y, so a sense of urgency is warranted for fans of Y. And given the sheer significance credited to this particular Y, it would be really nice for its odds of being true to be really high.
All Comments
The sad part is how obvious that realization is, if you take even the briefest of moments to look on both sides of the conversation.
[1] I'm still curious to see an example of chromosomes being added or removed from an animal and having that be a good -- or even neutral -- thing. Given evolution, it must have happened, since we don't have the same number of chromosomes as our evolutionary siblings.
> I'm still curious to see an example of chromosomes being added or removed from an animal and having that be a good -- or even neutral -- thing
If you're allowing evolution+selection as an axiom, as you seem to be, the evidence that different beings have different numbers of chromsomes alone is sufficient as proof that it's good or neutral. QED
re: the chromosome thing. I'd just like to see an example of it, because it bugs me. And using the theory as proof of the theory is giving that theory a lot of clout...be careful: you might almost look like you're taking it on faith. ;D
> And using the theory as proof of the theory is giving that theory a lot of clout
But that's not what I did; I cliamed that the assertion "chromosomes being added or removed from an animal [is]... a good... or neutral thing" follows trivially from accepting the theories of evolution and natural selection.
Analagously, it would not be fallacious to claim that, in a mathematics that includes the Peano axioms, the theory S(S(0)) == 2 follows trivially from those axioms.
Therefore, it's silly at best and counterproductive at worst to ever use a scientific theory as proof that something must be true. At best, you can say that we would expect it to be true. We would expect to see a chromosome added or removed from an offspring and that offspring to 1) be able to pass those characteristics to *its* offspring, and 2) be able to survive and reproduce with at least the same efficacy as its peers. But, AFAIK, that hasn't happened. In fact, too many or too few chromosomes are at fault for a whole series of diseases, most of which start with infertility. This has always bugged me.
re: probabilistic distribution. My problem with your probability distribution is that it's epistemological smoke and mirrors. It's a fine theory of how to live life, but worthless as an epistemological statement. How do you determine the probability of a statement being true? As a case in point, you're going to update your "probability distribution" basically on some kind of perceived authority on my part. That's a pretty lousy basis from which to assert fundamental truth, but you can use your probabilistic "epistemology" as lipstick on that pig. You get to sound smart and sophisticated while actually sidestepping the whole problem of how you actually know anything.
But that's the misunderstanding here; I didn't claim that evolution and/or selection are true, and especially not that they will always be true!
All I said was that *if* they are true, *then* the claim follows.
> But, AFAIK, that hasn't happened
And my argument is that, if you accept evolution and natural selection (provisionally, for this argument, and not in any way implying that they are totally and universally True) then it is a simple proof that it has happened. A sketch follows:
1) N creatures have m different numbers of chromosomes
2) Life evolved from a single source (alternatively <m sources, but I don't think we need to go *there*)
3) Selective pressures only favor evolutions which are beneficial to reproduction
4) Because m > 1, at some point a species was selected which had a different number of chromosomes than its evolutionary parent
5) By point 3, this selection must have been beneficial. QED
It is a distinguishing characteristic of evolution that it can, in general, only be inferred from the available evidence. It works by selecting on *lots* and *lots* of evolutions over *lots* and *lots* of time, so it should not be surprising that we have never been able to witness any particular evolution.
(Also, I'll leave the epistemological argument for another debate :)
All of this boiled back to a statement about taking evolution as "axiomatic", which I certainly don't, so I suppose it's all for moot.
Saying that we haven't seen a particular evolutionary process because evolution happens over time is a fine way to excuse it. In this case, it's a bit thinly stretched, because we're not talking about a gradual change -- we're talking about a change in a single offspring from its parent. A species doesn't "gradually" develop an entirely new chromosome (although they *may* grow or shrink without harm). In any case, it's a fine rationalization for the lack of evidence, but the lack of evidence should still be a bit concerning.
After all, if X is a necessary condition for natural process Y, yet nature has never demonstrated X and science cannot produce X, then certainly that lowers the odds of Y being true. And the longer we watch nature without seeing X and the more advanced science gets without being able to produce X, the worst off it looks for Y, so a sense of urgency is warranted for fans of Y. And given the sheer significance credited to this particular Y, it would be really nice for its odds of being true to be really high.