Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[aharvey]

You are a biologist and hence easily misled.

Ah, your logic is once again brilliant!

Biologists are easily misled by analogies
You are a biologist
Therefore you are easily misled.

Incidentally, you forgot the "All" at the very beginning of the first premise, an inadvertant oversight I'm sure because otherwise this would represent the most basic logical blunder of all!

However logical this may (or may not!) be, it's incorrect, as biologists deal in data, not analogies. If dealing with analogies makes one more easily misled by them, biologists don't have much to worry about. If dealing with analogies makes one more easily misled by them, well, let's do a thought experiment: how many analogies do you think we can find on a per capita basis in TOL given by creationists vs. evolutionists?

Whether the analogy was misleading is another question.

One would have thought that was the relevant question, so I can see why you would avoid it like the plague (oops, that's a metaphor, which is a simple kind of analogy, so maybe we can't trust my use of it here!).

 

[Morphy]

Sorry, Morphy, my status as professional evolutionary biology suggests that I probably shouldn't speak for the creationist side (not that creationists are at all shy about putting words in the mouths of evolutionists!).

What a pity

 

[bob b]

Guys, Yorzhik, Johnny, BobB or AHarvey:

How about one of you answers for creationists side:

F-15 as a regular hemoglobine

F-117 Stealth as a hemoglobine S

There are no doubts:

F-117 is slower than F-15, carries less weapon, will loose a direct dogfight, is much more difficult to flight and costs muuuuuch more.

Regular hemoglobine is better than hemoglobine S (sickle cell anemia).

There is only one improvement of F-117 in comparison to F-15: it is a stealth "invisible" airplane. All other specifics are either worse or much worse than F-15.

There is just one improvement of Hb S in comparison to regular hemoglobine: it is "invisible" to malaria.

According to Bob Enyart, Hb S is broken. Sir, do you also think F-117 is broken and doesn't work? Maybe USAF shouldn't buy any more F-117s and turn to F-15s again?



BTW: you didn't respond to my argument:
It is the very nature (or God if you wish) which decided wheter Hbs is an improvement or not: if it wasn't an improvement it would be as rare as it is in Europe. Since it is relatively common in Africa it gives some advantage thus IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. Just like F-117 is an improvement in comparison to F-15, although all specifics are worse instead of "invisibility" to the enemy (BTW: HbS is also invisible to the enemy - plasmodium).

I will take a shot.

I can see your logic and agree that resistance to malaria is an improvement even though it is a disadvantage in areas where malaria is not found.

But the kind of "evolution" in dispute is one that claims a process of step-by-step continuous improvement from a hypothetical primitive protocell all the way to a human being.

Most people do not see resistance to malaria as being on such a path to continuous improvement. They see it as a "dead end".

"Evolution" is a word that has multiple meanings. Only the step-by-step "continuous improvement" concept is in dispute.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Guys, Yorzhik, Johnny, BobB or AHarvey:

How about one of you answers for creationists side:

I'll do it -- I'm a creationist.

F-15 as a regular hemoglobine

F-117 Stealth as a hemoglobine S

This isn't a good analogy, as I will show.

There are no doubts:

F-117 is slower than F-15, carries less weapon, will loose a direct dogfight, is much more difficult to flight and costs muuuuuch more.

Regular hemoglobine is better than hemoglobine S (sickle cell anemia).

There is only one improvement of F-117 in comparison to F-15: it is a stealth "invisible" airplane.

Yes -- and it was specifically designed to be such.

All other specifics are either worse or much worse than F-15.

Due to limitations in stealth technology at the time, certain trade-offs had to be made.

There is just one improvement of Hb S in comparison to regular hemoglobine: it is "invisible" to malaria.

According to Bob Enyart, Hb S is broken. Sir, do you also think F-117 is broken and doesn't work?

Of course not. It does exactly what it was designed to do -- deliver munitions to enemy targets without being detected.

Maybe USAF shouldn't buy any more F-117s and turn to F-15s again?

Not if they want to do stealth missions -- the F-15 is an air-superiority fighter, not a stealth plane. Of course, the F-22 Raptor is suitable for either mission profile, as it has air-superiority and stealth capabilities -- our stealth technology has improved markedly since the introduction of the Wobblin' Goblin.

BTW: you didn't respond to my argument:
It is the very nature (or God if you wish) which decided wheter Hbs is an improvement or not: if it wasn't an improvement it would be as rare as it is in Europe. Since it is relatively common in Africa it gives some advantage thus IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT.

A disease which leads people to an early death is hardly an improvement.

Just like F-117 is an improvement in comparison to F-15, although all specifics are worse instead of "invisibility" to the enemy (BTW: HbS is also invisible to the enemy - plasmodium).

Ah, but the F-117 isn't invisible due to some random mutation in the blueprints -- it was designed to be invisible to radar. It's not a side-effect that just happens to benefit a badly-built airplane. Thus, your analogy fails.

 

[Morphy]

I will take a shot.

I can see your logic and agree that resistance to malaria is an improvement even though it is a disadvantage in areas where malaria is not found.

But the kind of "evolution" in dispute is one that claims a process of step-by-step continuous improvement from a hypothetical primitive protocell all the way to a human being.

Most people do not see resistance to malaria as being on such a path to continuous improvement. They see it as a "dead end".

"Evolution" is a word that has multiple meanings. Only the step-by-step "continuous improvement" concept is in dispute.

Why not? If we can see bacteria gaining NEW abilities during our lives... why do you think other organisms cannot do it as well?

 

[Morphy]

Due to limitations in stealth technology at the time, certain trade-offs had to be made.

Due to blind (unintentional) mutations certain trade offs were made... Bob called these trade offs 'breaking'

Do you also think trade-offs means 'breaking' something?

Of course not. It does exactly what it was designed to do -- deliver munitions to enemy targets without being detected.

Not if they want to do stealth missions -- the F-15 is an air-superiority fighter, not a stealth plane. Of course, the F-22 Raptor is suitable for either mission profile, as it has air-superiority and stealth capabilities -- our stealth technology has improved markedly since the introduction of the Wobblin' Goblin.

Hemoglobine is supposed to carry oxygen. If it is destroyed by malaria (thou indirectly) it cannot perform its main function; just like F-15 is supposed to fight enemy but if it is detected and hit by rocket it cannot do any good.

BTW: it is not true F-15 was air-superiority fighter only; it was used many times in ways F-117 is employed (Libya, Vietnam and so on).

A disease which leads people to an early death is hardly an improvement.

I think the nature is the best judge: if it is not an improvement how come it is not as rare in Africa as it is in Europe?

Ah, but the F-117 isn't invisible due to some random mutation in the blueprints -- it was designed to be invisible to radar. It's not a side-effect that just happens to benefit a badly-built airplane. Thus, your analogy fails.

Have I ever said evolution is designed by anybody?

You didn't get the main idea of analogy. It wasn't about purpose of creation/evolution, it was about trade-offs ONLY. Your post dealt with trade-offs just once and actually... backed it up...

 

[aharvey]

I will take a shot.

I can see your logic and agree that resistance to malaria is an improvement even though it is a disadvantage in areas where malaria is not found.

But the kind of "evolution" in dispute is one that claims a process of step-by-step continuous improvement from a hypothetical primitive protocell all the way to a human being.

Most people do not see resistance to malaria as being on such a path to continuous improvement. They see it as a "dead end".

"Evolution" is a word that has multiple meanings. Only the step-by-step "continuous improvement" concept is in dispute.

And you are confounding those meanings. No concept of evolution considers human beings to be improvements over protocells! The notion of evolutionary "improvements," by which you really mean "relative advantages," is something that applies within populations, and has relevance to the outcome of interspecific competition, but I don't see how it applies across lineages over time. Resistance to malaria gives one phenotype an advantage over other phenotypes in the same population under certain conditions. Placental mammals had traits that gave them certain competitive advantages over sympatric marsupials. Human beings would be at a decided disadvantage under the environmental conditions in which early bacteria thrived, don't you think?

And, just to remind everyone, human beings are not the only pinnacle of evolutionary success, despite the "protocell to human" type of label that creationists, and only creationists, like to use. Every organism alive today, according to current evolutionary thought, is descended from that original protocell line, and it would probably be helpful to keep in mind that we're not talking only about "protocell to human," but also "protocell to dandelion," protocell to chanterelle," "protocell to bacterium," and so on. But these lineages are not completely independent of each other; that is, humans and dandelions didn't spring independently from the same protocell ancestor. The simplistic "protocell to protestant" labelling does a great job of obfuscating the issue.

 

[bob b]

And you are confounding those meanings. No concept of evolution considers human beings to be improvements over protocells! The notion of evolutionary "improvements," by which you really mean "relative advantages," is something that applies within populations, and has relevance to the outcome of interspecific competition, but I don't see how it applies across lineages over time. Resistance to malaria gives one phenotype an advantage over other phenotypes in the same population under certain conditions. Placental mammals had traits that gave them certain competitive advantages over sympatric marsupials. Human beings would be at a decided disadvantage under the environmental conditions in which early bacteria thrived, don't you think?

And, just to remind everyone, human beings are not the only pinnacle of evolutionary success, despite the "protocell to human" type of label that creationists, and only creationists, like to use. Every organism alive today, according to current evolutionary thought, is descended from that original protocell line, and it would probably be helpful to keep in mind that we're not talking only about "protocell to human," but also "protocell to dandelion," protocell to chanterelle," "protocell to bacterium," and so on. But these lineages are not completely independent of each other; that is, humans and dandelions didn't spring independently from the same protocell ancestor. The simplistic "protocell to protestant" labelling does a great job of obfuscating the issue.

As usual harvey brings up all sorts of issues as though they have anything significant to do with the comments I made. No wonder he is confused about "protists to people".

 

[Johnny]

As usual harvey brings up all sorts of issues as though they have anything significant to do with the comments I made. No wonder he is confused about "protists to people".

Irony, thou art cruel.

 

[bob b]

Irony, thou art cruel.

I hardly have to reply to someone who doesn't view God's creation of humans as something special. He has apparently fallen victim to the wacky evolutionary dictum that bacteria are every bit as advanced as human beings.

 

[aharvey]

I hardly have to reply to someone who doesn't view God's creation of humans as something special. He has apparently fallen victim to the wacky evolutionary dictum that bacteria are every bit as advanced as human beings.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I hope you didn't hurt yourself extracting that interpretation out of my words! It must have been painful, though.

 

[Johnny]

Bob: "But the kind of "evolution" in dispute is one that claims a process of step-by-step continuous improvement from a hypothetical primitive protocell all the way to a human being."

aharvey: "No concept of evolution considers human beings to be improvements over protocells! "

bob: "He has apparently fallen victim to the wacky evolutionary dictum that bacteria are every bit as advanced as human beings."

Where did aharvey claim that bacteria are as advanced as humans?

 

[bob b]

Bob: "But the kind of "evolution" in dispute is one that claims a process of step-by-step continuous improvement from a hypothetical primitive protocell all the way to a human being."

aharvey: "No concept of evolution considers human beings to be improvements over protocells! "

bob: "He has apparently fallen victim to the wacky evolutionary dictum that bacteria are every bit as advanced as human beings."

Where did aharvey claim that bacteria are as advanced as humans?

He didn't. I deduced it from his claim that humans are not an improvement over protocells (whatever the heck they might be). If we are not an improvement then we are not any more advanced.

But then again evolution is not very logical anyway so perhaps it is futile to use logic with regard to things that an evolutionist says.

Perhaps he meant "reproductive success" which would I suppose imply that anything that has not gone extinct is a success and hence on equal footing: nothing is an "improvement" over anything else so nothing is more advanced either. Sort of a socialist's dreamworld.

Do you suppose there is a correlation between belief in evolution and belief in socialism?
:think:

 

[Johnny]

If we are not an improvement then we are not any more advanced.

Advanced, improvement, these are relative terms. How do you know if a human is more advanced than say a bacteria? Each is well adapted to his or her environmental niche. We humans tend to think of ourselves as the pinnacle of evolution--the best there is. But in reality we're a relatively new experiment. Bacteria, on the other hand, have been around since the nearly the beginning. They've survived every major extinction event in the history of the planet. They adapt to conditions that we never thought life could survive in. They live in extreme heat, extreme cold, they live in extremely low pH, they live on us, inside us, all around us. They cover much of the land mass of the planet, they survive antibiotics and antimicrobials, they adapt fast, they reproduce at blazing speeds.

Improvement is also virtually inapplicable on large evolutionary scales. Is an airplane an improvement over a car? Well, that depends on what your purpose is. If your purpose is to get to the convenience store, then an airplane is the last thing you need. But if your purpose is to get to Hawaii, then yes, an airplane is undoubtedly better suited for your purpose. Humans and bacteria are two different organisms with two very different niches, right Bob? How can you say humans are an improvement over bacteria? In what sense are we improved? We're more complex? So what? Complexity isn't always an improvement--just ask computer programmers and philosophers of science.

The bottom line is this, Bob: What is the yardstick by which we measure improvements? If I take two very different organisms and put them side-by-side, how can I tell which one is more improved?

Do you suppose there is a correlation between belief in evolution and belief in socialism?

I don't know. So what? Do you suppose theres a correlation between belief in evolution and intelligence?

 

[Yorzhik]

Advanced, improvement, these are relative terms.

No, these would be synonyms for the most part.

 

[aharvey]

Originally Posted by Johnny

Advanced, improvement, these are relative terms.

No, these would be synonyms for the most part.

Um, Yorzhik, calling them synonyms does not mean they are not relative terms.

 

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Johnny

Advanced, improvement, these are relative terms.


Um, Yorzhik, calling them synonyms does not mean they are not relative terms.

Wouldn't Johnny be meaning these terms are relative to each other? If they are synonyms, then that wouldn't be true. Also, if they are synonyms, then Johnny's premise is undermined.

 

[aharvey]

Wouldn't Johnny be meaning these terms are relative to each other? If they are synonyms, then that wouldn't be true. Also, if they are synonyms, then Johnny's premise is undermined.

Johnny could best answer this himself, but I would be most surprised if he meant they were relative to each other. I think he means that there is no absolute criteria for either term, that you assess them by definition relative to other objects. Something can only be an improvement compared to something else; something can only be advanced compared to something else. And there's more implied in those terms, which I (and I'm pretty sure Johnny) was trying to get at as well.

 

[Yorzhik]

Johnny could best answer this himself, but I would be most surprised if he meant they were relative to each other. I think he means that there is no absolute criteria for either term, that you assess them by definition relative to other objects. Something can only be an improvement compared to something else; something can only be advanced compared to something else. And there's more implied in those terms, which I (and I'm pretty sure Johnny) was trying to get at as well.

Oh. But doesn't his premise rest on how they relate to each other?

 

[Jukia]

Oh. But doesn't his premise rest on how they relate to each other?

The words were originally used in this thread by bob b. Why dont you spend some time reading Johnny's post #114 and trying to understand his reasoning rather than doing the standard fundy thing of arguing over a dictionary definition.