The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Aesir]

I don't debate outside of here. For obvious reasons.

I come to realize, how come so many atheist act no different than religious fundies and I came up with the reason. They're just dumb sheep pretending to be smart but really are no different.

 

[blazedaces]

Anyone mind linking to the specific thread? I'm curious.

-blazed

Edit: Nevermind, I found it and I'm no longer even remotely interested in reading any more of it...

 

[Sieguest]

So you have an opinion, but don't have enough knowledge to have an opinion worth wasting brain cells over? Am I understanding you right?

-blazed

Fixed, and yeah, pretty much.

/late response... again.

 

[GofG]

I don't have enough specific knowledge about climate change to have a specific opinion about it, but i have enough general knowledge about psychology to recognize the fact that climate change, as a psychological phenomenon (without regards to its merit as a theory), is so similar as to be identical to about two dozen such scares since the 1200's. In the 1200's, for instance, there were many small scale conquerors who lay siege to the various castles and fortresses lying around europe, whether in the name of france or england or whoever.

One of the primary tactics they used was to salt the fields surrounding the castles to decrease the amount of food which could possibly be smuggled in, to make the siege run smoother. Unfortunately, the academics of the era (what little there were) had a surprising theory: at the rate at which the fields were getting salted, there would be no more plantable fields in the not-too-distant future and there wouldn't be enough food to sustain the population of earth. The reason they came to this conclusion was simple; they knew the rough area of farmland in europe and roughly how much farmland was getting salted per year, and they drew a big scary graph (well, not literally, cartesian coordinate planes hadn't been invented, but they had predictions...) and they got a bunch of kings upset at the nobles and rules were made and no one followed the rules and everything turned out fine.

i can name two such scares per century since then, and all pretty much fit the bill. This feels to me as metaevidence against climate change as being the problem some make it out to be. Thesis: Humans tend to respond to possible existential threats in a very similar manner, and so far all of the existential threats have turned out to be misunderstood and harmless.

Unfortunately, if climate change is a real problem, it makes sense that we would respond to it in the same way as a fake problem (our reaction to climate change cannot be evidence for and against), so I have yet to make an opinion. But I believe we do not have nearly enough evidence to elevate climate change as a hypothesis above all of the other existentially threatening scares of the past.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't have enough specific knowledge about climate change to have a specific opinion about it, but i have enough general knowledge about psychology to recognize the fact that climate change, as a psychological phenomenon (without regards to its merit as a theory), is so similar as to be identical to about two dozen such scares since the 1200's. In the 1200's, for instance, there were many small scale conquerors who lay siege to the various castles and fortresses lying around europe, whether in the name of france or england or whoever.

One of the primary tactics they used was to salt the fields surrounding the castles to decrease the amount of food which could possibly be smuggled in, to make the siege run smoother. Unfortunately, the academics of the era (what little there were) had a surprising theory: at the rate at which the fields were getting salted, there would be no more plantable fields in the not-too-distant future and there wouldn't be enough food to sustain the population of earth. The reason they came to this conclusion was simple; they knew the rough area of farmland in europe and roughly how much farmland was getting salted per year, and they drew a big scary graph (well, not literally, cartesian coordinate planes hadn't been invented, but they had predictions...) and they got a bunch of kings upset at the nobles and rules were made and no one followed the rules and everything turned out fine.

i can name two such scares per century since then, and all pretty much fit the bill. This feels to me as metaevidence against climate change as being the problem some make it out to be. Thesis: Humans tend to respond to possible existential threats in a very similar manner, and so far all of the existential threats have turned out to be misunderstood and harmless.

Unfortunately, if climate change is a real problem, it makes sense that we would respond to it in the same way as a fake problem (our reaction to climate change cannot be evidence for and against), so I have yet to make an opinion. But I believe we do not have nearly enough evidence to elevate climate change as a hypothesis above all of the other existentially threatening scares of the past.

First, I would really like it if you provided a source for the whole "scare per century" claim. I believe you, I just want to know some more details.

Secondly, don't you feel this analogy is horrible for multiple reasons? Like we live in the day and age of peer-reviewed research and much more advanced technology. Don't you think that the "big scary graph"s you're talking about have been looked over a few more times and someone would have picked up on flimsy assumptions/details?

It sounds a lot more like this is a very poor rationalization against any possible call to action. Hey, if we don't enforce wearing seatbelts, "this" many people will die. Sounds like yet another "scare of the century" to me, hogwash I say.

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

I kinda see where he's coming from, though. In one sense you could translate the salting of fields "scare" to today's climate change scare, even considering the differences in academic prowess. For instance you could say that -for their time- field salting (I'd never actually heard of this tactic, it's quite interesting if not devious) and its related arguments for/against are similar to today's climate change issue in that Important People (Kings/Energy Companies) are harming the environment and Scientists (scholars of yore/scholars of today) are crying foul.

Beyond that, no I don't think it's at all comparable. One is talking about a few hundred thousand acres of land, vs the whole planet. One is talking about one aspect of said land (fertility) vs. several factors on Earth (weather, tides, coastlines, ecosystems, etc.). I guess this means the major difference between the two is the scope of the problem, but not necessarily the scientific expertise. I'd say both are probably infantile compared to the total picture that will need to be learned in order to fully understand what's really happening.

Meanwhile, I do have an opinion. I think that if anything, climate change is a reality, and that our impact upon it starting with the industrial revolution is indeed speeding up the natural process of it, but I also think that no amount of "slowing down" will actually help. I believe we've already surpassed the point at which it can be reversed... no that's no right. It was never able to be reversed, the planet heats and cools ever X years anyway, it just so happens that by burning 10 bajillion tons of fossil fuels and putting crap in the atmosphere that's not naturally occurring like CFCs and whatnot is pretty much like hitting fast-forward on the planet's normal cycle. We're sure to be destined for another ice age, but instead of it happening say, 5 or 10 thousand years from now, it'll probably be next week.

Well okay, not next week, but that's the idea anyway, that it'll happen much sooner thanks to our carelessness. I understand that some believe there's no reason to suspect that humans have impacted the Earth's natural cooling cycle at all, and that the hole in the ozone layer is made up, or should be there anyway, or whatever. To that I say, the only way to know for sure is to go back in time and not invent coal burning, etc. and see how things play out 100 years later. But... that's not gonna happen, so we may as well err on the side of caution and do what we can to prepare for what's coming... sunblock SPF 10 million, lots of blankets, prolly should start making underground fortresses, or researching ways to move to another planet or something.

 

[blazedaces]

I kinda see where he's coming from, though. In one sense you could translate the salting of fields "scare" to today's climate change scare, even considering the differences in academic prowess. For instance you could say that -for their time- field salting (I'd never actually heard of this tactic, it's quite interesting if not devious) and its related arguments for/against are similar to today's climate change issue in that Important People (Kings/Energy Companies) are harming the environment and Scientists (scholars of yore/scholars of today) are crying foul.

That's a rather far-fetched and vague description in order to fit the connection.

Beyond that, no I don't think it's at all comparable. One is talking about a few hundred thousand acres of land, vs the whole planet. One is talking about one aspect of said land (fertility) vs. several factors on Earth (weather, tides, coastlines, ecosystems, etc.). I guess this means the major difference between the two is the scope of the problem, but not necessarily the scientific expertise. I'd say both are probably infantile compared to the total picture that will need to be learned in order to fully understand what's really happening.

What do you mean "fully understand what's really happening"? Sounds like an arbitrary benchmark we can never reach. I also don't agree that scope is the only major difference between the two. But whatever, vague similarities aren't really making a point here.

Meanwhile, I do have an opinion. I think that if anything, climate change is a reality, and that our impact upon it starting with the industrial revolution is indeed speeding up the natural process of it, but I also think that no amount of "slowing down" will actually help. I believe we've already surpassed the point at which it can be reversed... no that's no right. It was never able to be reversed, the planet heats and cools ever X years anyway, it just so happens that by burning 10 bajillion tons of fossil fuels and putting crap in the atmosphere that's not naturally occurring like CFCs and whatnot is pretty much like hitting fast-forward on the planet's normal cycle. We're sure to be destined for another ice age, but instead of it happening say, 5 or 10 thousand years from now, it'll probably be next week.

You kind of jumped through a whole lot of stuff without any evidence to back it up.

Well okay, not next week, but that's the idea anyway, that it'll happen much sooner thanks to our carelessness. I understand that some believe there's no reason to suspect that humans have impacted the Earth's natural cooling cycle at all, and that the hole in the ozone layer is made up, or should be there anyway, or whatever. To that I say, the only way to know for sure is to go back in time and not invent coal burning, etc. and see how things play out 100 years later. But... that's not gonna happen, so we may as well err on the side of caution and do what we can to prepare for what's coming... sunblock SPF 10 million, lots of blankets, prolly should start making underground fortresses, or researching ways to move to another planet or something.

Or, you know, we could look at the natural cooling/warming of the earth and compare it with where we're at today, and find the difference. It's not voodoo.

Guys, I'm glad everyone has an opinion on Climate Change, and some small portions of it are still up for debate, but most of these are already well established facts. If there wasn't a political issue surrounding it we wouldn't even be having this discussion. No one goes around saying "In my opinion, Cancer is serious, but it's blown way out of proportion. Cancer happens naturally and sometimes your body heals itself miraculously without the help of untrustworthy doctors and their inaccurate machines. Look, in 1348 doctors everywhere were trying to treat the black plague and we got through that somehow, therefore, cancer isn't real!"

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

How about this, we stop trying to redefine the debate of climate science? that would be pretty cool too.

 

[Sucumbio]

What do you mean "fully understand what's really happening"?"

You kind of jumped through a whole lot of stuff without any evidence to back it up.

Or, you know, we could look at the natural cooling/warming of the earth and compare it with where we're at today, and find the difference. It's not voodoo.

This is a good article which explains my stance.

He makes a good analogy. We can't say that humans don't cause bush fires simply because they occurred naturally in the past. It's evident that we do have an effect on the natural process of climate change.

Is it too late? 50/50 chance is okay... I guess. Even IF we all agree as a planet to meet the goals of this European Commission, the climate of Earth has changed irreparably and by our hands. We now have to be concerned with preparation for these changes, as much as we are for reducing the impact itself.

 

[Sucumbio]

sry for dbl post but this is unrelated...


what does everyone think of virginia's new forced ultrasound law??

 

[rvkevin]

what does everyone think of Virginia's new forced ultrasound law??

I don't see how anyone thinks this is a good idea.

Edit: Some good news: "Update, Feb. 28, 2012: After an enormous backlash against the bill, McDonnell rescinded his support. The bill was voted down in the Virginia State Senate and shelved until 2013."

 

[blazedaces]

This is a good article which explains my stance.

The article does explain it very well, but that doesn't quite match up with your statement about things just "fast-forwarding".

He makes a good analogy. We can't say that humans don't cause bush fires simply because they occurred naturally in the past. It's evident that we do have an effect on the natural process of climate change.

Whose analogy are you referring to and what does it have to do with the rest of this paragraph?

Is it too late? 50/50 chance is okay... I guess. Even IF we all agree as a planet to meet the goals of this European Commission, the climate of Earth has changed irreparably and by our hands. We now have to be concerned with preparation for these changes, as much as we are for reducing the impact itself.

I concur.

what does everyone think of virginia's new forced ultrasound law??

It's unethical and violates the separation of church and state. It also makes the GOP/conservatives look like hypocrites for claiming they want small government one second and asking the government to make medical decisions the next. By the way, a point not mentioned in the article you linked, The law makes no exceptions for **** or incest.

Also, this source is a blog-post, but the point is still true, doctors can be fined and even lose their medical licenses if they don't comply:

In addition to objections raised on behalf of women, there has also been protest on behalf of doctors, for the fact that bills like this one make affirmative requirements on the professionals, requiring them to say certain things, or perform certain tasks, thus impinging on their professional judgment or personal beliefs. In fact, a group of doctors recently sued to challenge a similar law in Texas, due to the fact that doctors who do not comply with the law’s requirements could lose their medical license, be charged with a misdemeanor, and face fines of up to $10,000. The court upheld the requirements as constitutional.

-SOURCE

-blazed

 

[Sucumbio]

The article does explain it very well, but that doesn't quite match up with your statement about things just "fast-forwarding".

Whose analogy are you referring to and what does it have to do with the rest of this paragraph?

Well the analogy was made in the article itself, and is meant to show that the argument "climate change isn't man-made because it happened in nature anyway" is foolish. As for how the article relates to the "fast-forward" effect, the article paints a picture not just that we have played a part in affecting climate change, but in how we've effected it. We've sped up the natural process of things. Here's another article which talks about it, it's mentioned about half-way through.

 

[blazedaces]

Well the analogy was made in the article itself, and is meant to show that the argument "climate change isn't man-made because it happened in nature anyway" is foolish. As for how the article relates to the "fast-forward" effect, the article paints a picture not just that we have played a part in affecting climate change, but in how we've effected it. We've sped up the natural process of things. Here's another article which talks about it, it's mentioned about half-way through.

Alright, that makes more sense. And as for the analogy, I thought were referring to the analogy we were previously talking about made by GofG. Being the one from the article again makes sense.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Random question, every 1000 years or so science seems to get turned on its head and the old science is discarded. Do you think this is likely to happen again, or does the technology and peer-reviewed nature of modern science change that?

 

[rvkevin]

Random question, every 1000 years or so science seems to get turned on its head and the old science is discarded. Do you think this is likely to happen again, or does the technology and peer-reviewed nature of modern science change that?

At the moment, it seems like general relativity will need to be revised since it is in conflict with quantum mechanics and gives meaningless answers for certain calculations. This is why it is so odd when people question evolution and not gravity, for we know that there are problems with the latter. There are so many open questions in physics that remarkable findings are inevitable. As far as I know, there have been fewer paradigm shifts in other fields.

The peer-reviewed process will ensure that the results will still apply to localized cases, but the paradigm shift will effect how we generalize the results. Also, peer-review is not a sufficient condition to call something science, it still needs to be repeated by other scientists. It is entirely possible for false positives to pass the peer-review process simply because of the tools being used. I don't see how technology has anything to do with the methodology.

 

[Dre89]

Random questions- Prior to the evolution of sexual reproduction, organisms created identical replicas of themselves to multiply. What I don't understand is, how can these organisms evolve if they just produce identical replicas of themselves?

Genetic diversity is what allows evolution to happen, yet sexual reproduction is what brought genetic diversity. So how could they evolve sexual reproduction without gentic diversity in the first hand?

Also, if species have evolved for their own gain and not simply to retain the balance of the ecosystem, why don't already successful predators evolve adaptions such as camoflauge which have only positive consequences? Pretty much every organism that camos uses it as its primary hunting or defensive strategy, they need it. I don't understand why organisms who don't need it wouldn't evolve it. This lack of evolution only makes sense to me in the context of organisms adapting to retain ecological balance.

 

[GoldShadow]

Random questions- Prior to the evolution of sexual reproduction, organisms created identical replicas of themselves to multiply. What I don't understand is, how can these organisms evolve if they just produce identical replicas of themselves?

Genetic diversity is what allows evolution to happen, yet sexual reproduction is what brought genetic diversity. So how could they evolve sexual reproduction without gentic diversity in the first hand?

Errors in transcription of DNA/RNA. Random mutations are very common, and would have been responsible for genetic diversity and the introduction of new traits in early organisms.

Mutations tend to be even more prevalent in the machinery responsible for copying RNA (which, generally speaking, is less stable than DNA), and if the RNA world hypothesis is true (which basically says that in early organisms, RNA was responsible for the functions of DNA and proteins) then RNA-based organisms would have had considerably high rates of mutation.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

GoldShadow, would you suspect that it was likely an accumulation of random point mutations that resulted diversity? Or do you think that primordial organisms just produced a ton of mutation errors all over the place and some variations just suck.

Haven't bothered to familiarize myself with DNA/RNA world hypothesis. When I was taking organic I think I jumped on the assumption that we originated from under the sea as unicellular organisms due to the fact that the early atmosphere at the time was likely highly oxidative and prevented anything from really developing.

It is possible that life could have developed at a time when the atmosphere became less oxidative, had other catalysts like hypothermal vents or iron-sulfur, or there could have not been an oxidative atmosphere at all for that manner. Will blatantly state that I don't care so much about evolution and origin of life as much as I try to care about more modern issues.

 

[rvkevin]

Random questions- Prior to the evolution of sexual reproduction, organisms created identical replicas of themselves to multiply. What I don't understand is, how can these organisms evolve if they just produce identical replicas of themselves?

There are still mutations that occur in organisms that reproduce asexually. However, there are several limitations to asexual reproduction, which is why sexual reproduction is thought to have become to dominant strategy of reproducing.

Also, if species have evolved for their own gain and not simply to retain the balance of the ecosystem, why don't already successful predators evolve adaptions such as camouflage which have only positive consequences? Pretty much every organism that camos uses it as its primary hunting or defensive strategy, they need it. I don't understand why organisms who don't need it wouldn't evolve it. This lack of evolution only makes sense to me in the context of organisms adapting to retain ecological balance.

I thought we went over this before. Organisms can't 'evolve adaptions' to their environments. Their is no mind in evolution that says it would be beneficial for this organism to have X. If the required mutation doesn't random occur, then the organism won't get that beneficial characteristic. Also, it is conceivable that what you consider to be beneficial would actually be detrimental to the organism. You could ask why doesn't the peacock have smaller feathers so as to not make it a target for predators without realizing that it is those feathers that give it a reproductive advantage over other peacocks.

Also, as I think what you have in mind is active camouflage, it may not provide any benefit when the animal is in a static environment. For example, dolphins have camouflage, their underbelly is pale so that when you look from below it blends in with the sky and their top is darker to blend in to the darker water. Remember, everything has an opportunity cost, even things that are beneficial. The costs for having such complex neuron-circuitry would probably outweigh any benefit over the current paradigm. If something has some beneficial qualities but requires more energy to sustain than it is providing, then it actually of detriment to the organism. As you said, these are already successful predators, so having active camouflage wouldn't help them (they already fulfill their calorie needs, and as far as I know camouflage doesn't aid in reproduction). Also, every step in-between static and active camouflage must be beneficial; but since we said that they wouldn't contribute to reproductive fitness, we wouldn't expect that to be the case.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Also prematurely thought of water as a reducing agent that would buffer oxidative effects and also provide shielding from UV radiation due to the assumption of a lack of an ozone layer.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Okay, so I assume that everyone here has heard about the recent Rush Limbaugh scandal. The only question remaining is, do I have to *****slap anyone with the glove of reason?

 

[rvkevin]

Okay, so I assume that everyone here has heard about the recent Rush Limbaugh scandal. The only question remaining is, do I have to *****slap anyone with the glove of reason?

I don't think people fully understand the impact. Recommended reading.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Yeah, I read that too. Pretty ****ing sickening.

 

[blazedaces]

I don't think people fully understand the impact. Recommended reading.

WOW! I don't personally know anyone who listens to him, but the fact that he is so popular and opinions like the one the teacher gave actually exist... sickens me.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

Rv- That was my point, evolution isn't a concious intellect that determines what needs an adaption and what doesn't. So the fact camo is only in organisms who needs it makes it look like it's conscious.

As for the additional energy requirement, we're talking about already successfull predators who will become even more successfull due to their adaption. Even if hypothetically, the adaption didn't justify the additional energy requirement, it's not as if these organisms would be severely unfit and die out, they'd probably still hang around. These aren't weak organisms with poor adaptions.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay, so I assume that everyone here has heard about the recent Rush Limbaugh scandal. The only question remaining is, do I have to *****slap anyone with the glove of reason?

For once, it's not coming without consequences.

 

[rvkevin]

Rv- That was my point, evolution isn't a conscious intellect that determines what needs an adaption and what doesn't. So the fact camo is only in organisms who needs it makes it look like it's conscious.

It doesn't look like it to me. I see the mutations that have had an adaptive effect on the individual get propagated at a relatively greater rate than those that didn't. Those mutations then occupy a greater percentage of the population, in which more mutations can then build off the previous adaptation. This is what we should expect given no consciousness, so it seems like you're saying that non-conscious things look conscious to you. I suppose you could say the same thing about water. When you pour water and watch to go down a hill, it 'chooses' the path of least resistance. Isn't that 'intelligent' of the water? Or you could say the same thing about plants growing branches in Fibonacci sequences, or Lucas sequences, etc. It looks like you're projecting teleology where it doesn't belong.

As for the additional energy requirement, we're talking about already successfull predators who will become even more successful due to their adaption. Even if hypothetically, the adaption didn't justify the additional energy requirement, it's not as if these organisms would be severely unfit and die out, they'd probably still hang around. These aren't weak organisms with poor adaptions.

In order for there to have a selective effect, it would have to increase their reproductive fitness. If this helped them in reproducing (e.g. decreased probability of dying young due to starvation), only then would it be an adaptive feature. However, since they are already successful predators so there is no benefit to be gained, so it cannot by selected for. Also, it has to be beneficial in each link in the chain of mutations (its not like one genetic mutation is responsible for active camouflage, or it would be sometimes found in other species). If there is no selection effect, then it would have to happen by genetic drift, which means that it would be extremely rare for a series of mutations to occur and then dominate a population of predator. Also, the pathway towards this end goal that you envision may not even be physically feasible. It may even require undoing many of the beneficial features of the predator since gene expression is more complicated than simply adding on a new line of code to add a new feature.

 

[Dre89]

It looks conscious to me because adaptions with positives and little if any negatives are only given to those who absolutely need them.

I don't see why camo would die out. Assuming that an adaption that increases predation efficiency and provides a defence mechanism, there's no reason why it would die out. Even if these benefits don't justify the additional energy requirement, they'd hardly force it into extinction. These aren't bad traits by any means, so even if they're not the best they''re not going to get the species extinct. You seem to think that if it's not the most favourable adaption (which I can't see how it wouldn't be) then it will die out, but this is only in the case where the species has otherwise poor adaptions, but in this case it doesn't.

Also, your argument about camo not being an overnight adaption doesn't work because I could say the same things about species which actually do have camo, especially considering these species don't have otherwise solid adaptions, they can't survive without it.

 

[SuperBowser]

You need this thing called "selection pressure".

If you're successful and at the top of the food chain, there is no selection pressure to promote a new adaption for camouflage. There's no reason for camouflage to exist if it doesn't improve chances of propagating genes compared to non-camouflaged animals.

The species you mention that "need" camouflage to survive have it for precisely that reason. They had a very strong selection pressure - if they weren't camouflaged they were significantly more likely to die before passing on their genes.

This process doesn't require a consciousness.

 

[blazedaces]

This article discusses how/why chameleons evolved the ability to change color: Chameleons Evolved Color Changing to Communicate.

Also, human beings also change color when we blush. Or when we tan.

-blazed

 

[rvkevin]

I don't see why camo would die out.

I'm not explaining why it would die out, I explained why it would never appear in the first place for those species. Do you have any evidence that apex predators once had active camouflage?

Also, your argument about camo not being an overnight adaption doesn't work because I could say the same things about species which actually do have camo, especially considering these species don't have otherwise solid adaptions, they can't survive without it.

I said that each mutation in the chain would have to be adaptive in order for this to work. You would then need to look at every mutation necessary for active camouflage and see if those would be beneficial to the predator. If the intermediary steps are not beneficial (in aiding reproduction), then active camouflage will not develop in that species. It appears that this process has occurred in other species, but they have a different reproduction stratagem; it is unwise to say that since this one strategy works for one species, it must work for another.

Also, being an efficient killer is not what evolution concerns. It is all about reproduction. If a feature doesn't increase an individuals chance of leaving offspring, then it is not an adaption, it will not be selected for. If a predator doesn't have a natural predator, then any sort of defenses will not be selected for. If a predator hunts more effectively, it will only be beneficial when there are scarce resources (i.e. the other predators will starve).

You seem to think that apex predators should have these features, which means that you should be prepared to answer these two questions. What are the intermediate mutations required for active camouflage? How are they each beneficial in a way that natural selection would select for them?

 

[Dre89]

Superbowser- You're talking as if evo has a mind. Yes camo doesn't need to exist on apex predators, but the point is evo is supposed to be mindless, meaning it doesn't know the predicaments of certain species. So what we should see if adaptions developing on organisms who don't need them.

Now if that organism is already successful, and this new adaption doesn't drastically reduce the chance of producing offspring (which camo wouldn't) then we should expect the camo adapted species to survive on.

I'm not explaining why it would die out, I explained why it would never appear in the first place for those species. Do you have any evidence that apex predators once had active camouflage?

This seems to be the confusing the issue. I, as the one playing the role of sceptic of mindless evolution, don't need to see apex predators with camo. The point is the fact that apex predators (or any species that successfully reproduces) don't have unnecessary adaption points to towards it being a conscious process.

This is the equivalent of the theist saying 'well seeing as evil exists a good God and evil must be compatible' when in reality the atheist is questioning whether the good God actually exists in the first place.

I said that each mutation in the chain would have to be adaptive in order for this to work. You would then need to look at every mutation necessary for active camouflage and see if those would be beneficial to the predator. If the intermediary steps are not beneficial (in aiding reproduction), then active camouflage will not develop in that species. It appears that this process has occurred in other species, but they have a different reproduction stratagem; it is unwise to say that since this one strategy works for one species, it must work for another.

This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, it doesn't need to be adaptive at every stage because otherwise no camo species would have survived. The earliest stages of camo development wouldn't have been able to produce any form of colour change, so they wouldn't have provided any advantage for millions of years, yet we have species alive today whose primary adaption is camo.

Secondly, the adaption doesn't need to be beneficial in the case of the apex predator or any successful species because they're going to pass on their genes just as much as the ones who don't have camo, because unlike current camo users they are perfectly capable or reproducing efficiently without camo.

The only instance in which camo would die out is if the camo adaption was so severely negative that it drastically reduces reproduction efficiency, which it doesn't. If anything it would do the opposite in already successful organisms.

Also, being an efficient killer is not what evolution concerns. It is all about reproduction. If a feature doesn't increase an individuals chance of leaving offspring, then it is not an adaption, it will not be selected for. If a predator doesn't have a natural predator, then any sort of defenses will not be selected for. If a predator hunts more effectively, it will only be beneficial when there are scarce resources (i.e. the other predators will starve).

You seem to think that apex predators should have these features, which means that you should be prepared to answer these two questions. What are the intermediate mutations required for active camouflage? How are they each beneficial in a way that natural selection would select for them?

See above.

I don't think killing is what is most important, I simply used apex predators as an example of successful organisms who would benefit further from camo.

As camo is not a severely negative adaption, successful species with camo will be just as adapted (if not more, due to camo) than the ones who don't.

The only reason why non-beneficial adaptions die out (this is assuming camo is in this category, which itself is questionable) is because the species has otherwise poor adaptions, or the adaption is so severely negative that it drastically decreases its reproduction efficiency. Camo is neither of these on an already successful species.

 

[rvkevin]

This seems to be the confusing the issue. I, as the one playing the role of sceptic of mindless evolution, don't need to see apex predators with camo. The point is the fact that apex predators (or any species that successfully reproduces) don't have unnecessary adaption points to towards it being a conscious process.

This is simply confused. They don’t have unnecessary adaptions because we agreed that it wouldn’t be an adaption. This is exactly what we should expect, yet you think that the natural hypothesis has a teleological purpose behind it. As with the other examples, this is equivalent to believing that water has a mind and that plants choose the configuration in which they grow. It’s teleological thinking run amok. We don’t expect these creatures to form a complex system in order to form an unnecessary function. Think of what it requires for active camouflage. Simply the neurological system from the brain to the skin would require a tremendous transformation. For a shark to develop this would be tremendously unlikely.

This is wrong on two levels. Firstly, it doesn't need to be adaptive at every stage because otherwise no camo species would have survived. The earliest stages of camo development wouldn't have been able to produce any form of colour change, so they wouldn't have provided any advantage for millions of years, yet we have species alive today whose primary adaption is camo.

This is the same flaw that intelligent design advocates make when claiming that something is irreducibly complex. For evolution to work, the individual components of a system must perform some function such that they are advantageous. However, they can fulfill other functions. If having the above complex neurological network is beneficial say for movement, then it will be selected for. Other mutations (e.g. relating to skin pigmentation) then occur on this previous development and then are either selected for or not.

If there is no adaptive feature of the mutation, then this whole process relies on genetic drift and is more akin to the tornado flying through the junkyard to create a Boeing 747 (i.e. it is extremely improbable). You’re basically saying that re-wiring an entire organism’s neurological network would either be 1) beneficial to reproduction or 2) happen by random mutation. Not to mention that we don’t know the implications that this would have on the predator; it may not even be possible. I simply cannot comprehend why you think this to be the case.

 

[Dre89]

I don't see how an adaption being a necessity somehow removes all the problems you've just listed. The only difference is that those organisms will be the only survivors.

In the predator scenario it's no different except for the fact that the rest of the species won't be dying out. It's not like evolution discriminates between the two.

 

[rvkevin]

In the predator scenario it's no different except for the fact that the rest of the species won't be dying out. It's not like evolution discriminates between the two.

The difference is that the predators don't receive a reproductive advantage for each intermediary step (and its not clear that it won't be negative, but this is not important for this distinction). This is a significant difference.

 

[Dre89]

Even if there's no advantage, the adaption will still be successfully passed on because the species is already successful.

It's almost as if you're saying that camo on species that don't need it will die out.

In a scenario where multiple adaptons are passed on, we would see the one species with a variety of adaptions (assuming they're successful).

 

[rvkevin]

It a matter of what is likely to happen. If only one organism has the mutation, then the next mutation would then have to occur in that specific organism. However, if the mutation is advantageous, then it will occupy a greater percentage of the gene pool and then the next mutation can occur in any organism in the species. This is how complex systems arise via natural selection, not by chance but by building onto already beneficial systems. You are asking for it to operate on chance alone. One method has one organism playing the genetic lottery and the other method has thousands playing the genetic lottery; I think you get the picture.

 

[Dre89]

The only reason why advantageous adaptions traditionally occupy a greater percentage of the gene pool is because organisms without that adaption died out due to not having other redeeming adaptions. That does not apply in this scenario, as nothing is dying out.

In this scenario, (assuming camo isn't the optimal adaption) yes those with optimal adaptions won't occupy as great a percentage of the gene pool as they do traditionally, but their numbers wouldn't be any less because more organisms of the species would be surviving and procreating due to already having good adapations. So the chances of non camo being passed on aren't effected.

You mention that camo would have to have begun on one individual organism, but wouldn't this also apply for species that actually do currently have camo?

Remember, camo is different from say, the elongation of the gharial's jaw to allow it to predate fish better. The 'elongation' simply a variable on a pre-existing feature (the jaw). So in this scenario, evolution works the traditional way, because the individuals with the most elongated jaws, even if they're not elongated enough to be considered an optimal adaption at the time, survive to pass on their genes, catalysing more elongation.

Camo doesn't work this way however, as it more than simply a variation of a pre--existing feature, it is the creation of new features. So the first stage of camo would appear on one (or very few individuals) every generation, and that's not guaranteed to happen every generation. So I don't see how your logic doesn't apply to organisms that currently exhibit camo.

 

[Dre89]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to highlight a slight topic change. This may sounds strange, but I want to be convinced that a God doesn't exist. However, I can't get past how the initial conditions could come about, or how contingent properties can simply exist without being actuated by an entirely necessary being.

What I thought would be interesting is to get the atheists here to simply post their view of the origin of existence (if they have one). The thing I'm most interested in is people's explanations of where things like energy and matter came from, or if they believe they just existed as brute contingent realities, how they justify believing that.

It benefits me to hear this, but it'd be interesting for everyone in general. I actually won't be debating with people on this, I just want to hear what people think.