My friend's argument for the existence of both evolution and a god.

[voodoonirvana]

My friend gave an interesting argument yesterday for the existence of both a god and evolution. He argued that the only intelligently designed species were dogs, all of whose changes hadn't benefited them in the least (such as those dogs with short snouts). According to him, evolution would be proven wrong, and the existence of a god would be proven, if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species. He then argued that it's only a matter of time until probability proves him right, and then what would happen would be a type of evolution where occasionally god intervenes.

Personally, I find this argument suspect for many reasons (1. jumping to the conclusion that it means god did it feels to me like a "god of the gaps" argument), but I'm posting this to see what others thoughts on this are.

[Weirddave]

I'm trying to understand what he is saying. Is he making the bablefish argument from HGTTG? I'm pretty sure Douglas Adams meant that as a joke.

[John Mace]

Dogs are the product of selective breeding by humans, and so are an unfit (pardon the pun) example of evolution by natural selection. Unless your friend is implying that humans = God.

As has been noted in countless threads on the MB, there is ample evidence for evolution, and none for God. One may believe in God if one wishes, but one does so on the basis of faith, which is not an element of science. Science tells us that evolution is a fact, but does not speak to the existence of God (or any supernatural phenomenon). If science were ever to validate the existence of God, it would only be able to prove that God is some alien being of great technological ability.

[Anne Neville]

He argued that the only intelligently designed species were dogs, all of whose changes hadn't benefited them in the least (such as those dogs with short snouts).

Those dogs with short snouts do OK for themselves from an evolutionary perspective. Over 22,000 pugs and over 20,000 bulldogs were registered with the AKC in 2005 (cite (http://www.akc.org/reg/dogreg_stats.cfm)). Compare that to an estimated worldwide population of about 150,000 wolves.

According to him, evolution would be proven wrong, and the existence of a god would be proven, if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species.

:confused: That doesn't make sense- I have no idea what that means.

[Ethilrist]

He then argued that it's only a matter of time until probability proves him right, and then what would happen would be a type of evolution where occasionally god intervenes.

Is your friend saying that probability (which includes random chance) is going to prove the existence of Intelligent Design? I think he needs to re-think this a bit...

[Revenant Threshold]

According to him, evolution would be proven wrong, and the existence of a god would be proven, if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species. Well, there's a good deal of symbiotic relationships in nature - when two different species benefit each other. Not sure if that's what your friend means, though.

[Spidey]

Ok I've got it: the Cow! No way evolution made that thing so tasty, it had to be the hand of God. Sure, Humans have bred the cow for a long time, but really we can only control things like size and resistance to disease (and probably other things I guess). But the taste? That doesn't benefit the cow at all, and helps us immensly. If this isn't a proof for the existance of intelligent design and God, then I don't know what is.

[50million]

He argued that the only intelligently designed species were dogs, all of whose changes hadn't benefited them in the least (such as those dogs with short snouts).
Well, he was half right on this one. Dogs have been "intelligently designed", but it was by humans. And some breeds, being designed not all that intelligently, were made to have short snouts. It's what we call selective breeding. I certainly hope your friend won't argue that all of the current dog breeds in existence are static creations by a god. A trip to the local pound would show him what happens without human intervention.
According to him, evolution would be proven wrong, and the existence of a god would be proven, if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species.
"A species which doesn't benefit itself" makes no sense at all. I'm not even sure how to respond to this thought process. Procreation is the benefit. A species that doesn't procreate, by definition, wouldn't exist. Also, there are many examples of two unrelated species which have mutually beneficial relationships. Bees and plants, sucker fish and sharks, lady bugs and plants, etc, etc. This certainly is in line with scientific concepts of evolution.

He then argued that it's only a matter of time until probability proves him right, and then what would happen would be a type of evolution where occasionally god intervenes.

Again, this sentence really doesn't make much sense, especially the last half. Is he saying that once he is proven correct that then a god will intervene and change to a different type of evolution?

All in all, your friends arguments are pretty poorly thought out and demonstrate a lack of almost any knowledge about evolution concepts. If he wants to believe in both a god and evolution those are actually fairly easy concepts to integrate. It goes something like, "God started all this in motion and is now letting evolution take place." There is no need to start injecting ridiculous ideas about species which don't benefit themselves and dogs with short snouts!

[tdn]

Well, there's a good deal of symbiotic relationships in nature - when two different species benefit each other. Not sure if that's what your friend means, though.
He's claiming that dogs were designed by men for the benefit of men and to the detriment of dogs. That's arguable, but I'll conced the point.

He's claiming that dogs are the only species like that. In light of the above mentioned cows, as well as chickens, carrots, and bonsai trees, he's wrong.

He asserts that if a species has evolved to its detriment without the aid of man, then something other than man designed it. Shaky ground here.

He asserts that the only other designer than man must be god. I suppose that there is some logic in there, but it's pretty weak.

He then asserts that if we look hard enough, we can find just such a species. Therefore, god. I would answer that with a "show me."

[tdn]

Again, this sentence really doesn't make much sense, especially the last half. Is he saying that once he is proven correct that then a god will intervene and change to a different type of evolution?
No. He's saying that evolution in which undesirable traits are selected for would be evidence of a creator, or at least a selective breeder. This raises two questions in my mind: 1) Aren't there vaild evolutionary reasons for some undesirable traits to be selected for, such as a pairing with a more desirable trait? 2) You really gotta wonder about a benevolent god that makes His creatures less able to cope.

[Lightnin']

Ok I've got it: the Cow! No way evolution made that thing so tasty, it had to be the hand of God. Sure, Humans have bred the cow for a long time, but really we can only control things like size and resistance to disease (and probably other things I guess). But the taste? That doesn't benefit the cow at all, and helps us immensly. If this isn't a proof for the existance of intelligent design and God, then I don't know what is.

Well, we wouldn't have kept eating them if they weren't so damn tasty, now would we? And if we didn't like the way they taste, we wouldn't have selected for nicely marbled cows.

Also, it may be that the humans who couldn't stand the taste of sweet, sweet cowflesh didn't survive as well as the humans who like a good steak every now and then.

Oh, man... cows influenced our evolution. All hail the Cow!

[dropzone]

Also, it may be that the humans who couldn't stand the taste of sweet, sweet cowflesh didn't survive as well as the humans who like a good steak every now and then.Are you suggesting that vegetarians are mutants who are an evolutionary dead end? Change it to "ANNOYING mutants etc" and I'll go along with you. ;)

[miss elizabeth]

He then asserts that if we look hard enough, we can find just such a species

This is the part that kills me. "Probability will prove me right!" Yeah, but... it HASN'T! I mean, this species that proves God exists will only show up *if God exists* and since it hasn't, well, sccording to this guy, it will. Because God does exist. Which is just... so....

I mean, you guys see it too, right?

[Fiveyearlurker]

Well, he was half right on this one. Dogs have been "intelligently designed", but it was by humans.

That's his point. And, I think it's actually an interesting one, though as a thought exercise more than anything else.

The point is that to the dog, humans were the intelligent designer. Is there a species that humans did not "intelligently design", which has detrimental evolutionary aspects, and use that as the proof of existance of a non-human intelligent designer.

The problem is that something that may appear to be detrimental may serve a purpose. For example, the giant horns on elk would appear to be cumbersome and detrimental, but if they do in fact attract a mate, then that would be a better explanation for them than an intelligent designer.

[Revenant Threshold]

Another problem with that as I see it is that dogs were "intelligently designed" by humans in order to serve a purpose for us - we needed them to help us. With the god situation, it'd have to mean a god designed some animal in order to give him a helping hand; most religions wouldn't agree that their deity requires help with anything.

[Mangetout]

The idea that evolution would have trouble with the discovery of a species that existed solely for the benefit of another species was one of Darwin's. I think.

But I'm having trouble understanding the substance of your friend's argument, OP. Are you sure you've stated it accurately?

[PBear42]

Seems to me what you're friend is talking about are non-adaptive traits. As distinguished from adaptive ones, which help the species flourish. Let's try another example: wisdom teeth. They serve no useful purpose. Indeed, they're a major problem, and were much more so in the million or so years before the emergence of modern dentistry. Why do we have this trait? It appears to be a legacy of our hominid forbears, who had larger jaws. Why did we survive notwithstanding this non-adaptive trait? Because wisdom teeth don't emerge until relatively late, beyond the average human life expectancy during most of that million years. By this time, the humans would have procreated and the cycle continues. Yeah, the lucky bastards who lived long enough to get the teeth suffered, but this is irrelevant from an evolutionary species-survival point of view.

IOW, if I understand your friend's argument correctly (and it ain't a model of clarity), he would argue that wisdom teeth demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer. I submit that they prove exactly the opposite.

[MEBuckner]

For some reason which now esacpes me (it had something to do with whether or not the theory of evolution by natural selection is a tautology or not) I once posted the following in a 5-page-long Pit thread:
We can easily imagine living things which could exist, and which could survive in the natural world, which could not be the product of natural selection. Imagine a sheep-like herbivorous animal, for the most part much like any other ruminant, except for a couple of unique and peculiar features: One, this animal reproduces solely by parthenogenesis. Two, the females, in addition to parthenogenetically producing daughters to propagate the species, also periodically give birth to male offspring; although they appear anatomically capable of doing so, these males never show any inclination to mate with the females of their species. The females of the species are hardy animals with excellent survival instincts; they eat grasses, leaves, thistles, or in fact pretty much anything--rather like goats in that respect. They also have the usual herbivorous instincts to flee from predators or other dangers. Until they are weaned, the males do likewise. However, once weaned, they develop small stigmata upon each of their hooves and upon their foreheads. They also develop an apparently overwhelming instinctive drive to interpose themselves between predators and their prey: Whenever a lion or a leopard has cornered an impala or a zebra, if one of these males is around he will dash forward, distract the predator, and let himself be eaten instead of the intended prey. The males will even intervene and sacrifice themselves to protect predators, if for example a lone lion is cornered by a pack of hyenas, or a pride of lions is stalking a cheetah's cubs. However, the males never intervene to save the lives of the females of their own species. ("Woman, what have I to do with thee?")

Now, such an animal couldn't possibly be produced by natural selection working on inherited traits; one way or another it would have to be the product of intelligent design, whether by the providence of God to serve as an allegorical sign and wonder, or as a prank by the gene-splicing monks of the Brethren of the Blessed Gregor of Brünn.
So, I can imagine an animal which could actually exist and survive in nature which couldn't be the product of natural selection; and if such an animal were found, I agree that at least that particular animal would have to be the product of intelligent design--though other animals could still be the product of evolution by natural selection, and even the intelligently designed animal could have been designed by someone or something other than the supernatural Creator and Governor of the Universe.

I'm not quite following how we get from this to "God exists, Q.E.D.!" since no such animal has in fact been found.

[Askance]

He's claiming that dogs were designed by men for the benefit of men and to the detriment of dogs. That's arguable, but I'll conced the point.

He's claiming that dogs are the only species like that. In light of the above mentioned cows, as well as chickens, carrots, and bonsai trees, he's wrong.Am I wrong in thinking bonsai trees are genetically no different from other trees, they're just little because they are constantly being pruned?

[PBear42]

Correction. Do'h. "What your friend is talking about ... "

[Mangetout]

Am I wrong in thinking bonsai trees are genetically no different from other trees, they're just little because they are constantly being pruned?Generally, yes.

For the most part, they're little because of the treatment to which they are subjected (pruning, root restriction, etc), however, it is also true that bonsai growers often choose dwarf varieties, or small-growing species as their subjects.

[Mangetout]

Sorry, that's "yes, they are", not "yes, you're wrong", in case it was unclear.

[Malacandra]

Another problem with that as I see it is that dogs were "intelligently designed" by humans in order to serve a purpose for us - we needed them to help us. With the god situation, it'd have to mean a god designed some animal in order to give him a helping hand; most religions wouldn't agree that their deity requires help with anything.

Not at all. Where'd you get the idea that because one intelligent designer did it for one reason, every intelligent designer did the same? Folks a couple of hundred years ago made stuff out of wood because they had to. My talented neighbour up the road makes stuff out of wood because he likes to.

[PBear42]

Speaking of proofs of God's existence, from today's SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/10/27/notes102706.DTL&type=printable).

[Clothahump]

Dogs are the product of selective breeding by humans, and so are an unfit (pardon the pun) example of evolution by natural selection. Unless your friend is implying that humans = God.

To dogs, humans are gods.

To cats, humans are staff.

[tdn]

D-O-G.

G-O-D.

Coincidence? I think not.

[Voyager]

According to him, evolution would be proven wrong, and the existence of a god would be proven, if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species. He then argued that it's only a matter of time until probability proves him right, and then what would happen would be a type of evolution where occasionally god intervenes.

Any characteristic of a species that helped it reproduce is of benefit to it - so a species with characteristics of benefit only to other species wouldn't last long. Thus that premise is impossible.

Now, if he means that another species gets a big benefit, perhaps that is from the other species out-evolving the first one. Perhaps in a few thousand years the first species would evolve to counter this, and get more benefit from itself. A flaw in the friends argument is that he thinks evolution has ended, while it is ongoing, and we're just seeing a snapshot.

[glee]

A similar quality of argument would be:

- the Pyramids are fantastic
- therefore Ra, the Sun God exists
- only nobody believes that today
- errr...

[Fiveyearlurker]

He then argued that it's only a matter of time until probability proves him right, and then what would happen would be a type of evolution where occasionally god intervenes.


Oh, and if probability is proving you right, then you are cheating. As a scientist, there are accepted P values for given experiments. In my field P values generally have to be below 0.01. Meaning there is a 1% chance that the results occured by chance. Plus, the experiment needs to be repeated. Generally three times. So, 1% x 1% x 1%, leaves only the slightest chance that you just got lucky.

If your friend is waiting for one species to happen along that proves his case, then he is trying to slip under those odds, then he is cheating.

Assuming that such a species exists, and there was only one, why would only one species on the entire planet, of how many millions of species over the 4+ billion years have been intelligently designed? Why did the designer choose this one dung beetle to design and left the rest to evolution?

I would need to see a significant subset of species before I even considered the argument.

However, as an aside, if all ID people were thinking on the level of the OPs friend, I think that reasonable debate with ID people would at least be possible, unlike now.

[dropzone]

Speaking of proofs of God's existence, from today's SF Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/10/27/notes102706.DTL&type=printable).Feh. A chimp could parallel park if he followed the procedure to the letter, though if he didn't it would be impossible. By the standards of that guy my Drivers Ed teacher was God, though the closest he got was by being a cousin of hockey's Esposito brothers. Not even Bobby Hull; mere demigods. :rolleyes: And the TV ad says you need to place the car right and brake at the right moments. WELL worth $75 grand. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Nametag]

Any characteristic of a species that helped it reproduce is of benefit to it - so a species with characteristics of benefit only to other species wouldn't last long. Thus that premise is impossible.

Now, if he means that another species gets a big benefit, perhaps that is from the other species out-evolving the first one. Perhaps in a few thousand years the first species would evolve to counter this, and get more benefit from itself. A flaw in the friends argument is that he thinks evolution has ended, while it is ongoing, and we're just seeing a snapshot.
Of course it's impossible -- that's why he sees it as a sign of divine intervention. Constant divine intevention.

If your friend is waiting for one species to happen along that proves his case, then he is trying to slip under those odds, then he is cheating.
Yup.

Feh. A chimp could parallel park if he followed the procedure to the letter, though if he didn't it would be impossible. By the standards of that guy my Drivers Ed teacher was God, though the closest he got was by being a cousin of hockey's Esposito brothers. Not even Bobby Hull; mere demigods. And the TV ad says you need to place the car right and brake at the right moments. WELL worth $75 grand.
Did you read anything but the first sentence? The car isn't marvelous, it's silly -- so silly that it proves that God exists, and that She's an alcoholic.