Intelligent Design & the tapeworm?

[Vagabond]

I thought of some other examples of knowledge being necessary for evolution which can't be easily explained. Or explained at all in my opinion. Human females are the only mammal that have constantly engorged breasts. The only explaination for this is that human males find it attractive. Fine and dandy, but how can these breasts know this? Even if the female herself is aware of it, how can she make her breasts aware of it so they stay engorged after the first mutation and in future generations?

Same goes with the male peacock feathers. How can the feathers know they are a benefit? There is no means of transferring that information. Are they even truly a benefit or have they ever been? There are countless other things which exist which require intelligence to explain.

What would be the evolutionary benefit of finding sex pleasureable? How could this evolve without outside influence? Only humans seem to find it so.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

What would be the evolutionary benefit of finding sex pleasureable? How could this evolve without outside influence? Only humans seem to find it so.

Well I'm sure neither of us are speaking from practical knowledge but why do you think only humans find sex pleasurable?

 

[arthwollipot]

Yeah, and at one time it was universally accepted the earth was the center of the universe too. 95 percent of what we call "fact" in science is theory and speculation which we have as yet found out is false.

Say not "false", say rather "incomplete". Newtonian gravity was not false, it was incomplete. And I see that you suffer from the misinterpretation (common, for example, among creationists) of the word "theory" as it applies to science. Do we really have to go through that again?

This is particularly true in astronomy which is nearly all speculation, except what we have actually experienced in our miniscule space travels.

Never done much study in astronomy then have we Vagabond? Almost everything that we know about astronomy is based upon observation rather than speculation. Do we have to actually be there in order to know something? Does the jury have to have been there to be able to pronounce a verdict on the accused? No. Do we have to have been there before we can say that Vesuvius destroyed Pompeii? No. Do we have to have been there before we can say that all the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago? No. Do we have to have been there to say that the star 51 Pegasii has an extremely massive planet in an extremely tight orbit? No. We go on the available evidence. And the evidence suggests planets.

Just something simple like light years and distances to stars is figured on the assumption that the speed of light always moves at the same speed and never varies. We have absolutely no proof of that whatsoever. If it does vary, all astromonical measurements are off including those used to speculate your planets.

True. But if the speed of light varies, it casts into doubt a lot more than just astronomy. General Relativity (which has been confirmed by observation) is out the window, since it is founded upon Special Relativity, which in turn is founded upon the constancy of the speed of light. If the speed of light is not constant, then why do the observations agree with the predictions of General Relativity to such a spectacular degree?

I don't doubt there are probably planets, but the assumption that there are billions and billions with life on them is utter BS and not supported by the fact that one planet or even several might exist.

The evidence is very strong that extrasolar planets are quite common, and although it is strictly true to say that we don't absolutely know for certain, only the strictest pedant would so claim. I'm a card-carrying pedant, but I'm not that anal.

With regards to life - well, let's just say that the jury is still out on that one. At the moment we have absolutely no evidence that life exists anywhere other than on the Earth. It may be that this is the only place in the universe where life exists. Personally I think that's extraordinarily unlikely, but we'll have to find life on some other planet to know for sure. It probably won't happen in my lifetime.

So. You've set up a pretty big strawman by saying "the assumption that there are billions and billions with life on them is utter BS" because I know of no-one who claims that there is evidence of this. And to be quite frank, calling honest speculation "utter BS" denigrates the process of scientific inquiry.

No, we don't know yet whether there are billions and billions of planets out there with life on them. But I am confident that if we can avoid the temptation to stifle inquiry by calling it "utter BS", then we may one day find out.

 

[Vagabond]

Well I'm sure neither of us are speaking from practical knowledge but why do you think only humans find sex pleasurable?

Well, I said "seems" because it's not possible to know for certain. But, I have seen plenty of animals mate. Most take a few seconds to finish and then go on their way as if nothing happened. I also don't know this for certain but I believe most animals will not have sex at all unless the female is in heat. In some species copulation is even impossible.

 

[arthwollipot]

I thought of some other examples of knowledge being necessary for evolution which can't be easily explained. Or explained at all in my opinion. Human females are the only mammal that have constantly engorged breasts. The only explaination for this is that human males find it attractive. Find and dandy, but how can these breasts know this? Even if the female herself is aware of it, how can she make her breasts aware of it so they stay engorged after the first mutation and in future generations?

First, the breasts don't have to "know" anything. Those women with bigger breasts attract more mates than those with smaller ones. Those with mates leave offspring. In this case, more women with big breasts have mates than women with small breasts, so there are more big-breasted offspring than small-breasted. That's how evolution works, by passive selection of the traits that produce more offspring. There is no need for breasts to "know" that that is why they are bigger.

Second, larger breasts persist through the generations because those that leave the offspring pass on their heritable characteristics to their offspring. Soon those that have the favourable characteristics (in this case, bigger breasts) soon outnumber those who do not.

Evolution works on a timespan of many generations. The individuals in each generation do not evolve, they either reproduce (and leave offspring in the next generation which carry their characteristics) or they do not.

Same goes with the male peacock feathers. How can the feathers know they are a benefit? There is no means of transferring that information. Are they even truly a benefit or have they ever been? There are countless other things which exist which require intelligence to explain.

Easy - exactly the same situation with the breasts, except substitute big breasts for long feathers. This time the desirable characteristic is carried by the males. The females are attracted to males with longer feathers, who therefore leave more offspring with long feathers than their rivals with shorter feathers do. Are they a benefit or have they ever been? That's not a critical question for evolution. Of course they are a benefit, otherwise those who possessed them would not have left so many offspring in the next generation.

No intelligence required - just the mechanism of which individuals are more successful at reproducing. In the case of humans, females with big breasts were more successful at reproducing than females with small breasts. In the case of peacocks, those males with long tails were more successful at reproducing than males with short tails. So big-breasted female humans and long-tailed male peacocks, over many generations, came to dominate the population.

 

[Vagabond]

True. But if the speed of light varies, it casts into doubt a lot more than just astronomy. General Relativity (which has been confirmed by observation) is out the window, since it is founded upon Special Relativity, which in turn is founded upon the constancy of the speed of light. If the speed of light is not constant, then why do the observations agree with the predictions of General Relativity to such a spectacular degree?<<<<

Because we are taking all our measurements on a universal scale in a space the size of a test tube. I am not saying it's all false, I am just saying there isn't definative proof and may never be. Even Einstein while confident his theory of relativity is true, said ten thousand experiments won't prove me right and one can prove me wrong.

Of course you can extrapolate and form new facts. I am saying what we usually consider facts is almost always somebodies opinion who nobody else knows enough about the topic to dispute. Most often Phd's on the topic will even disagree. I guarantee I can find a few that dispute the planet claim. Probably could find a few that dispute it was Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii too. There are Phd's that write books that aliens picking up Iowa farmwives is a fact.

I am not saying it's all BS. I see nothing wrong with making assumptions and then theories. Then we have a basis to experiment and explore and find out if it's actually true. What I said is BS is using such information as a basis for arguement. I meant going from there being a "planet" or planets which is probably true although unproven to the complete fabrication that there are billions of planets out there and billions with life on them. This could be true but I think it's at least equally as likely this is the only one with life. But, that is just my opinion. But on that particular topic mine is as good as anybody elses.

 

[Darat]

Just talking about breast I don't think they are a very good example (in this argument) since breast shapes and sizes are incredibly variable.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, I said "seems" because it's not possible to know for certain. But, I have seen plenty of animals mate. Most take a few seconds to finish and then go on their way as if nothing happened. I also don't know this for certain but I believe most animals will not have sex at all unless the female is in heat. In some species copulation is even impossible.

I think that this is one of the best questions you have asked, Vagabond. You are quite correct, it does seem that mating for animals other than humans is a pretty run-of-the-mill affair. Mind you, if you've ever seen a stallion brought to a mare, it might disabuse you of the notion.

Another interesting thing about humans as compared to animals is that females are sexually receptive (in a physical sense) at all times of the year. Other animals "come into heat" at certain times and this is the only time that they will mate.

I can't help thinking that human all-year-round sexual activity and the fact that humans find sex so pleasurable have got to be related somehow, but damme if I can think of why. There's got to be a good evolutionary reason for it.

 

[Vagabond]

First, the breasts don't have to "know" anything. Those women with bigger breasts attract more mates than those with smaller ones. Those with mates leave offspring. In this case, more women with big breasts have mates than women with small breasts, so there are more big-breasted offspring than small-breasted. That's how evolution works, by passive selection of the traits that produce more offspring. There is no need for breasts to "know" that that is why they are bigger.<<<<

I totally disagree. I asked if they even are of any advantage? You are making numerous completely unfounded assumptions. Firstly, are there enough mates for everybody to have one? If there are, means nothing. Since one male can fertilize a huge number of females this is irrelevant in my opinion. Secondly, the quality of the mate is far more important than the quantity since all animals can only conceive once. Subsquent coupling is a waste of calories. How could the breasts know they are drawing in a higher quality mate? I would argue in modern times and probably throughout history the opposite is more likely to be true. Males of lower quality are those most attracted by that asset.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

I can't help thinking that human all-year-round sexual activity and the fact that humans find sex so pleasurable have got to be related somehow, but damme if I can think of why. There's got to be a good evolutionary reason for it.

Have a read about Bonobos - http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

 

[arthwollipot]

Because we are taking all our measurements on a universal scale in a space the size of a test tube. I am not saying it's all false, I am just saying there isn't definiative proof and may never be. Even Einstein while confident his theory of relativity is true, said ten thousand experiments won't prove me right and one can prove me wrong.

In the case of General Relativity, ten thousand experiments have been carried out and not one has proven him wrong. And yet you said earlier that 95% of science is theory and speculation.

As Stephen Jay Gould once said: in science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

After ten thousand experiments, withholding provisional consent to the theory that the speed of light is a constant is perverse. Sure, that one experiment that proves Einstein wrong may still be out there. And we are open to that possibility. But until then, the evidence we have supports the constancy of the speed of light.

 

[arthwollipot]

Have a read about Bonobos - http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

I already know a fair bit about bonobos, and it's interesting in the context of this discussion that they are our closest living relative. They are, I believe, the only species other than our own to copulate face-to-face. Fascinating species.

 

[Vagabond]

I think that this is one of the best questions you have asked, Vagabond. You are quite correct, it does seem that mating for animals other than humans is a pretty run-of-the-mill affair. Mind you, if you've ever seen a stallion brought to a mare, it might disabuse you of the notion.

Another interesting thing about humans as compared to animals is that females are sexually receptive (in a physical sense) at all times of the year. Other animals "come into heat" at certain times and this is the only time that they will mate.

I can't help thinking that human all-year-round sexual activity and the fact that humans find sex so pleasurable have got to be related somehow, but damme if I can think of why. There's got to be a good evolutionary reason for it.

True, but a mare or any female in heat is giving off a scent that draws the males to them and gets them sexually excited. It is this the Stallion is drawn to and not the sex act itself. I would be willing to bet if you had the same mare and eliminated the scent the stallion would walk right by.

You say there has to be a good evolutionary reason, but I am arguing there is not. How can mating with a pregnant female be of ANY benefit whatsoever? It's counter to survival of the fittest because it's a waste of energy. A huge waste of energy from my experience. Only makes sense if you find it pleasureable. But, what's the point of finding it pleasureable? From a purely reproductive standpoint?

 

[arthwollipot]

I totally disagree. I asked if they even are of any advantage?

If they attract more mates, for whatever reason, then they are an advantage.

You are making numerous completely unfounded assumptions. Firstly, are there enough mates for everybody to have one? If there are, means nothing. Since one male can fertilize a huge number of females this is irrelevant in my opinion.

In the case of breasts, this is true. But I never said that the evolution of human breasts was a closed book. There are certainly plenty of questions yet to be answered, and this is one of them. There are, however, plenty of other examples of adaptive variation leading to differential reproductive success, which illustrate much more clearly how evolution works.

Take, for example, yaks. Yaks have a dense covering of hair. Say a population of animals similar to a yak inhabited a temparate grassland in the remote past. Some of them were a bit hairier than others. When the Ice Age came, over several generations, the population as a whole became hairier. Why? Because the hairier yaks by and large survived the cold better, and left more offspring. The less hairy, on average, left fewer less-hairy offspring. Thus the population as a whole became hairier.

The evolution of human breasts is certainly quite a lot more complex than this very simplistic yak picture I have painted for you, but it's undoubtedly similar in principle.

Secondly, the quality of the mate is far more important than the quantity since all animals can only conceive once. Subsquent coupling is a waste of calories.

Eh? My cat has just had her third litter, and she now has seven healthy offspring (who incidentally all carry her distinctive colouration). I am a second son. If "all animals can only conceive once", how is it that I exist when I have an older brother?

How could the breasts know they are drawing in a higher quality mate? I would argue in modern times and probably throughout history the opposite is more likely to be true. Males of lower quality are those most attracted by that asset.

There you go again about breasts "knowing" something. Breasts can't "know", they're just breasts! Evolution is a blind force, and it is only differential reproductive success that matters. Bigger-breasted women left more bigger-breasted offspring. That's all.

And we're not talking about human history here. We're talking about prehistory. Cavemen, if you like. I would say with some certainty that big breasts predated agriculture and cities. By the time humans started to be able to write their histories down, they were pretty much identical to the way we are today. All of human evolution happened before the first historical record - it is unlikely that we have evolved significantly since. There just hasn't been enough time, enough generations to accumulate recognisable change.

 

[Vagabond]

In the case of General Relativity, ten thousand experiments have been carried out and not one has proven him wrong. And yet you said earlier that 95% of science is theory and speculation.

As Stephen Jay Gould once said: in science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".

After ten thousand experiments, withholding provisional consent to the theory that the speed of light is a constant is perverse. Sure, that one experiment that proves Einstein wrong may still be out there. And we are open to that possibility. But until then, the evidence we have supports the constancy of the speed of light.

I would highly disagree there has been anywhere near ten thousand experiments. A handful at most. Many elements of quantum mechanics don't prove Einstein wrong because they are themselves theories, but they bring elements of his theory into question.

I don't know for certain if I drop a hammer everyplace on the planet earth it will fall at the same speed. I can safely make the assumption gravity is uniform all around the planet. But, gravity is not uniform from planet to planet and there are places I can drop it were it won't fall at all. To make the assumption that because it is uniform in our tiny corner of the universe it is constant everywhere is to me a stretch. I might be and probably is. I don't really doubt it myself I just brought it up to show how fragile such "facts" truly are. While it is necessary to find such "facts" true in order to build knowledge. It is also necessary to remember it is possible such things are false, otherwise you are closing off avenues to build such knowledge as well. I remember reading about medical textbooks saying cells would only duplicate so many times and then stop and somebody accidently left them going and came back and they were still going thus bringing a change to all current medical texts. There are countless examples of such things. I would argue this happens far more often than complete proof does.

 

[Vagabond]

Eh? My cat has just had her third litter, and she now has seven healthy offspring (who incidentally all carry her distinctive colouration). I am a second son. If "all animals can only conceive once", how is it that I exist when I have an older brother?<<<<

I meant once pregnant it serves no purpose to copulate until after they give birth. This should have been obvious. The rest of your post is just being argumentative. You make no points.

 

[arthwollipot]

True, but a mare or any female in heat is giving off a scent that draws the males to them and gets them sexually excited. It is this the Stallion is drawn to and not the sex act itself. I would be willing to bet if you had the same mare and eliminated the scent the stallion would walk right by.

No, I have seen a case where a stallion who was brought to a mare who was not in oestrus, and he went completely nuts. She, however, was not at all interested and just stood there.

You say there has to be a good evolutionary reason, but I am arguing there is not. How can mating with a pregnant female be of ANY benefit whatsoever? It's counter to survival of the fittest because it's a waste of energy. A huge waste of energy from my experience. Only makes sense if you find it pleasureable. But, what's the point of finding it pleasureable? From a purely reproductive standpoint?

Oh, is that what you meant by "all animals can only concieve once"? That a female cannot conceive when she is already pregnant? That makes more sense, but you should know that domestic housecats can have in a single litter kittens that are conceived by more than one father. It doesn't happen in humans though, which I guess is your point.

There is some evidence to suggest that sex when pregnant causes a woman to secrete certain hormones that are then passed to the baby through the placenta. There are reports that this helps the baby in some way, although I am not certain in what way that is. So it's possible that this may help to develop a stronger, more healthy baby who is therefore more likely to grow up to leave strong, healthy babies of its own. Remember, all human evolution predates civilisation. Don't expect to see any recognisable evolution over the course of human history.

BTW Vagabond, thanks for making my evening pass agreeably. I sometimes work the late shift, which means I sit around until 9pm waiting for something to happen. It's good to have someone to talk with about things.

 

[arthwollipot]

Eh? My cat has just had her third litter, and she now has seven healthy offspring (who incidentally all carry her distinctive colouration). I am a second son. If "all animals can only conceive once", how is it that I exist when I have an older brother?<<<<

I meant once pregnant it serves no purpose to copulate until after they give birth. This should have been obvious. The rest of your post is just being argumentative. You make no points.

Sorry, I misunderstood you. No, it wasn't obvious. I corrected myself in my last post.

And the rest of my post was not simply being argumentative. You asked a question, and I answered to the best of my ability. If you choose to dismiss it as "making no points", then that's your prerogative, but it does suggest that you asked the question with no intention of getting an answer.

That's the way things work, Vagabond. You ask a question, you get an answer. Forgive me if I didn't realise that you were being rhetorical.

 

[Vagabond]

No, I have seen a case where a stallion who was brought to a mare who was not in oestrus, and he went completely nuts. She, however, was not at all interested and just stood there.<<<<

Possible, but horses aren't really a good example anyway since they are a human created species. They did not have a natural course of evolution.

 

[arthwollipot]

I would highly disagree there has been anywhere near ten thousand experiments. A handful at most. Many elements of quantum mechanics don't prove Einstein wrong because they are themselves theories, but they bring elements of his theory into question.

I think you'd be surprised at the number of experiments that have been performed, but I won't press the point.

...I don't really doubt it myself I just brought it up to show how fragile such "facts" truly are. While it is necessary to find such "facts" true in order to build knowledge. It is also necessary to remember it is possible such things are false, otherwise you are closing off avenues to build such knowledge as well.

Of course. I refer you to the Stephen Jay Gould quote again: In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent"

All conclusions in science are open to revision if new or different evidence comes in. Gravity, quantum mechanics and evolution are all confirned to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. But we are open to the possibility that our understanding may need to be substantially modified, such as in the case of merging quantum mechanics with general relativity when calculating the properties of very small, very heavy bodies such as black holes.

I remember reading about medical textbooks saying cells would only duplicate so many times and then stop and somebody accidently left them going and came back and they were still going thus bringing a change to all current medical texts. There are countless examples of such things. I would argue this happens far more often than complete proof does.

Of course it does. Complete proof never happens. There is only agreement of experimental results with theory. If, as Einstein said, the results of ten thousand experiments agreed with theory, then you can say that that theory is "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent".