Evolution questions from my creationist friend

[Clinton Huxley]

Evasiveness. How tiresome.

Then by all means slip back into soporific slumber and refuse to stretch your intellect even a little, because you might do yourself an injury.

Seth, there is no shame in admitting you've got nothing.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Seth,

Either your understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection is far too flawed for you to argue effectively, or you are being deliberately obtuse because it amuses you. Either way, until you evolve into someone with something to say, I am done here.

Call me Brave Sir Robin if you must. You won! You managed to bore me with fatuous piffle for so long that I can't be arsed to keep up responding. Yay for you!

[Seth]

Evasiveness. How tiresome.

Then by all means slip back into soporific slumber and refuse to stretch your intellect even a little, because you might do yourself an injury.

Seth, there is no shame in admitting you've got nothing.

The question at the bar is not what I have, but what you have. Which is evidently nothing.

[Seth]

Seth,

Either your understanding of the theory of evolution by natural selection is far too flawed for you to argue effectively, or you are being deliberately obtuse because it amuses you. Either way, until you evolve into someone with something to say, I am done here.

The question is not what I have to say or what my understanding is, but whether you have a credible answer to my questions, which you apparently don't. Instead of presenting the arguments supporting evolutionary theory which the OP requested, and which I've expanded upon, you run away because you can't be "arsed" to answer them. This indicates that you don't know the answers, or that you are simply uninterested in exploring the subject and prefer to lob feces through the bars instead.

Call me Brave Sir Robin if you must. You won! You managed to bore me with fatuous piffle for so long that I can't be arsed to keep up responding. Yay for you!

You have only yourself to blame. You could at least attempt to address the questions, which give you the opportunity to demonstrate why evolution is a valid theory. The only conclusion I can come to is that answering the questions is too hard for you, and you don't really understand evolution all that well yourself, which is why you're evading.

If my ignorance is so abject and absolute, I would think that you would be able to dispense with me forthwith with your rapier wit and keen intelligence and deep understanding of evolution.

So, something is out of joint here, I think.

[Clinton Huxley]

Evasiveness. How tiresome.

Then by all means slip back into soporific slumber and refuse to stretch your intellect even a little, because you might do yourself an injury.

Seth, there is no shame in admitting you've got nothing.

The question at the bar is not what I have, but what you have. Which is evidently nothing.

I'd be genuinely interested to know if you believe your evasive responses are fooling anyone.

Anyway, to confirm, you don't know of any specific, confirmed predictions made by ID? Correct?

[Seth]

I'd be genuinely interested to know if you believe your evasive responses are fooling anyone.

I'm not the one being evasive. I've asked questions. You've refused to answer them.

Anyway, to confirm, you don't know of any specific, confirmed predictions made by ID? Correct?

Sure, I know of a confirmed prediction of ID: "Intelligence is capable of manipulating the DNA structure of organisms."

That being the case, it is therefore possible for intelligence to manipulate the DNA structure of organisms in the future.

Which means it's also possible for intelligence to have manipulated the DNA structures of organisms in the past.

Next question.

[Clinton Huxley]

That's not really a prediction, is it? If ID is correct, what should we observe or find in nature that is not predicted by natural selection?

For example, Tiktaalik was predicted. Such an animal would exist in rocks of a certain age. Hey presto, they went and looked and there it was. What does ID say we should look for and has it been found?

[Coito ergo sum]

Which doesn't explain why monkeys don't have human intelligence, don't walk upright, or why sharks don't have large brains and swim bladders, etc.

Evolution marches on, right? All organisms are continuously evolving through a series of small changes, correct? But what are they evolving into?

They are just evolving. It's undirected. There is no end goal.

Where is the transitional form between gorillas and humans that ought to exist if gorillas are evolving?

Evolution does not predict a transitional form between modern gorillas and modern man. In fact, that would be counter to evolutionary theory. Present science has the divergence time between the gorilla line and the human line to be about 7.2 million years ago, and that common ancestral group was neither human nor gorilla.

Why are gorillas not becoming more like humans?

Natural selection, genetic drift and mutation have not resulted in them being other than what they are. There is no "upward" movement of evolution, necessarily, which is why there are still microbes, and viruses, and why the number of ant species is huge. Insects rule the earth. Most creatures are not like humans. There is no prediction in evolutionary theory that creatures evolve to be smarter or more humanlike. Humans evolved to be smarter because of natural selection, mutation and genetic drift - it's a solipsism to think that the way we evolved is the way evolution is "supposed" to work.

Why do not the various branches from our "common ancestor" themselves evolve towards greater intelligence?

Because greater intelligence is not necessarily selected. Some creatures are smarter, others dumber. Changes occur in isolated populations that mutate and genetically drift differently than other populations, and natural selection operates to make certain characteristics more prevalent than other characteristics. Over time, small changes become great changes.

Clearly humans have the evolutionary advantage here, so why haven't evolutionary pressures guided chimpanzees towards an erect posture and human intelligence?

For the same reason that evolutionary pressures haven't guided them to have orange and black stripes, night-vision, walk on four legs, have 3 inch claws and razor sharp Tiger teeth, and the same reason evolutionary pressures haven't guided them to have wings and beaks. Their genetics, genetic drift, mutation and natural selection. Conceptualize it with reference to the fact that there is no reason that "smarter" is necessarily a preferred characteristic in evolution than "smaller" or "stronger" or "faster" or whatever.

[Coito ergo sum]

What predictions does ID make that could not have a Darwinian explanation?

Why are the two mutually exclusive?

They aren't. Evolution does not have anything to do with ID, necessarily, except if it's the Creationism kind wherein evolution contradicts the theory. However, presumably someone can claim an intelligence created the universe - like a deist or a Catholic - and still accept evolutionary theory.

[Coito ergo sum]

Which doesn't explain why monkeys don't have human intelligence, don't walk upright, or why sharks don't have large brains and swim bladders, etc.

Neither does it explain why porcupines don't come equipped with ironing boards. Perhaps they just never needed them.

Evolution is not about "need." It's about changes in the frequency of alleles in populations of organisms from generation to generation. That's it.

There is no force determining what tigers or sharks "need" to survive. Tigers and sharks whose genes survive into the next generation survive - those that don't, don't pass on their genes. Natural selection means that the alleles that survive from generation to generation are the ones that predominate in the population. Over time, isolated populations will change significantly, such that new species come into being. That's why most animals don't evolve to have greater intelligence. Some do. Most don't. The reason some did is because of the long path of mutation, genetic drift and natural selection operating to pass (from generation to generation) a higher frequency of certain alleles in a given population of organism than other alleles.

[Azathoth]

So do you think Von Daniken's claims could be true Seth? That is ID too

[Coito ergo sum]

Which doesn't explain why monkeys don't have human intelligence, don't walk upright, or why sharks don't have large brains and swim bladders, etc.

Neither does it explain why porcupines don't come equipped with ironing boards. Perhaps they just never needed them.

And yet human beings evolved from the same "common ancestor" and clearly "needed them." So why is the adaptation so beneficial to humans not seen in monkeys?

For the same reason they don't have wings.

Evolution marches on, right? All organisms are continuously evolving through a series of small changes, correct?

True.

But what are they evolving into?

Something marginally more suited to their environment.

And yet humans evolved in the same environment, and indeed largely in the same place as other primates, so why didn't each species continue to evolve along roughly the same lines? Are the genetic adaptations that resulted in humans not also useful to chimpanzees?

Some species did. Isolated populations will evolve differently due to natural selection, genetic drift and mutations. There were lots of humanoid populations back in the day. Most died out, except for us. Even smart animals go extinct.

Where is the transitional form between gorillas and humans that ought to exist if gorillas are evolving? Why are gorillas not becoming more like humans?

Why would a gorilla need to evolve into a human or anything like a human?

Why wouldn't it?

Because that's not what evolution predicts. It would be a point against evolution if modern gorillas gave birth to human babies.

Clearly we are better adapted for survival than the gorilla is,

Depends on the environment. Clearly ants are better adapted to survive than humans are.

which is why there are lots of us and few of them.

Which is why there are lots of ants and so few of us.

Why would evolutionary pressure not force them towards higher intelligence

Because there is no pressure. Evolution does not evaluate need and make a determination of what characteristics are best for survival. Evolution is the result of the frequency of alleles being passed from generation to generation. That frequency varies because of mutations, natural selection and genetic drift. Intelligence is not a "preferred" characteristic or a goal.

and other adaptations that would make them better able to survive, as we have?

We don't have a lot of adaptations beyond intelligence, speech, and long distance running that better able us to survive. Many animals would literally eat us for breakfast, but for our ability to think, plan, and run, and use tools. We shiver in the cold, we have bad teeth, our women died in childbirth in large numbers because of evolution, we could have better backs, stronger arms, and better protected internal organs -but we don't. Evolution is a mess.

Why do you insist that evolution has a direction, a plan?

I don't. I merely pose the question of why, when they both existed in the same general environment for hundreds of thousands or millions of years, did gorillas not advance more quickly towards human-like intelligence than they have?

They either didn't have the same kind of mutation in their population that we did, or that mutation(s) didn't survive.

Were the evolutionary pressures substantially different?

It's not really "pressure." If a mutation survives, it passes on to the next generation. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If natural selection causes populations without a certain characteristic to dwindle, then the population changes.

Why did humans evolve a more complex brain and upright gait, and language, while gorillas did not?

There is no reason or purpose - it's an unguided process - like "why does the planet Jupiter revolve around the sun?" There is no "reason" for it - it just does so according the laws of planetary motion. Evolution occurs according the physical laws operating in living populations - natural selection, mutation and genetic drift are the main ones. Other than "that's the way they evolved" - there is simply no "reason" for it.

Gorillas did OK where they were without a bigger brain, so they haven't evolved one. Simple.

Not sufficient. This is circular logic. Hominids "did OK" where they were, and yet they did develop bigger brains. Why?

Mutation.

Why do not the various branches from our "common ancestor" themselves evolve towards greater intelligence? Clearly humans have the evolutionary advantage here, so why haven't evolutionary pressures guided chimpanzees towards an erect posture and human intelligence?

Why do you assume that greater intelligence is necessarily an advantage to all species?

Why do you assume it's not?

We don't assume either way, because either is an unwarranted assumption. Moreover, not all populations have the same mutations, in fact the rule is moreso the opposite, that populations don't have the same mutations. Gorillas survived where they are because they've continued to reproduce, and they've evolved over the millions of years, which is why there are many kinds of gorillas.

[Clinton Huxley]

This is like a selection box of creationist canards. It has to be a joke. Has Seth not previously stated he will argue positions he doesn't actually believe in?

[Thinking Aloud]

This is like a selection box of creationist canards. It has to be a joke. Has Seth not previously stated he will argue positions he doesn't actually believe in?

Yes. If I recall correctly, he has said that he enjoys debating from positions he doesn't necessarily hold himself. I suspect that's why other forums have lost patience with his style, because they feel he's unnecessarily making life difficult for everyone. Rational thinkers are usually content to hold evolution to be true, based on accepting the prevalent views of science, however my guess is that Seth likes to prod at the cracks of an individual's personal knowledge of the subject they hold true to point out that they don't, in fact, know everything there is to know about it. His replies in this thread suggest as much, when someone decides to pull out of the debate, and he chides them for not being prepared to answer simple questions.

In places like Rationalia or Ratskep, most of us are content to accept evolution as fact, because we're content that people who have studied it in much more depth than ourselves are content to accept it as fact, and that a good number of people who've studied it in depth agree with each other (the scientific method, peer review, etc). Seth's challenges seem to be his way of suggesting that we're almost taking it "on faith" from these learned types. Of course, expecting your average atheist-on-the-street to be able to answer everything on evolution is absurd, as it's such an enormous topic, as is anything in science. On the other hand, the tenets of an average religion can usually be condensed into one book, so the field is stacked against Reason from the get go.

Edit: For the record, I quite enjoy the challenges Seth posts, as they can be thought-provoking. It might get a bit tedious if every thread ended up a devil's advocate debate though!

[Clinton Huxley]

Oh, Seth is harmless enough. His bluster just makes me laugh. I'm not sure why I'm bothering, though. I've served my time in the trenches arguing against this cobblers at RDF. Enjoyed it at the time, not sure I want to do it again, especially against someone who is just playing a game.