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.
Sorry, that’s “yes, they are”, not “yes, you’re wrong”, in case it was unclear.
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.
To dogs, humans are gods.
To cats, humans are staff.
D-O-G.
G-O-D.
Coincidence? I think not.
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.
A similar quality of argument would be:
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.
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:
Of course it’s impossible – that’s why he sees it as a sign of divine intervention. Constant divine intevention.
Yup.
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.