My friend's argument for the existence of both evolution and a god.

[Twitch_67]

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.

Twitch_67

[Entheogenic]

First of all, dogs were indeed intelligently designed: by humans. None of the dog "breeds" that exist these days (or almost none of them) exist in the wild--they're the result of generations of selective breeding dating back to when man first domesticated wolves and/or wild dogs.

Second, a feature that benefited other organisms that the feature's possessor wouldn't prove anything at all; evolution makes no claim that every aspect of a creature has to benefit it directly (why do people have colored eyes?), only that in order to prosper, an organism must be adapted to survive in its environment. Having a feature that helps other organisms could potentially have no impact on its survivability, and thus would prove nothing.

He would have to find an example of an organism that has developed a significant trait that is a direct hinderance to its survival, which would be a rather difficult thing to demonstrate.



Entheogenic

[Rust]

1. Dogs have been artificially selected by humans. Finding a physical trait that does not lend itself for survival in the wild does not mean that that very trait does not lend itself to reproduction in captivity; more importantly, it also doesn't show that they've been "intelligently designed" - apart from the artificial selection by humans, of course.

2. What does "finding a species which only beneffits other species" even mean? Does the species in question reproduce? If it does, then it is beneffiting itself in terms of evolution. If it doesn't, then how does a species which doesn't reproduce beneffit other species?

[easeoflife22]

Dogs have been bread to enhance all kinds of specific traits for centuries that aren't beneficial to the animal. We intervened, not god.

"if one discovered a species which doesn't benefit itself but benefits other species."

How does this prove god?

Define how a species benefits?

[Martini]

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 here, 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).

[unluckymoney]

you werent very clear

how does the domestication of canines cause a god to exist?

[Martini]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

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.

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.

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

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.

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.

[Twitch_67]

oh yeah, and he claims that Darwin himself said this.

[kenshin_kid]

quote:Originally posted by Twitch_67:

oh yeah, and he claims that Darwin himself said this.

I claim your friends an idiot.

[Twitch_67]

quote:Originally posted by kenshin_kid:

I claim your friends an idiot.

I agree. He said he saw on "Fox" (that there should raise suspicions) that when asked what would disprove evolution, that's what Darwin said.