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.
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.
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). Compare that to an estimated worldwide population of about 150,000 wolves.
That doesn’t make sense- I have no idea what that means.
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…
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.
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, 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.
“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.
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!
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.”
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.
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!
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…
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.
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
That doesn’t make sense- I have no idea what that means.