The Anti-theist Thread

[Elvellon]

I intended to post this in a thread dedicated exclusively to the analysis of the mechanics of evolution, since I have no interest in the ongoing debate of Creationism vs Evolutionism. While I respect Creationism and those that believe in it, I have no desire, at this point, to participate in that debate. I do, however, have an interest in what may be the processes responsible for evolution. And I do desire to debate them. Since I was forbidden to open a thread dedicated to the aforementioned subject, I’m forced to bring it here. So my apologies to the Creationists around here for the limitative nature of my posts. I am not passing judgement upon the validity of your theory; I simply desire to share opinions, with those who accept evolution, about specific points of this theory.
I will also apologise for breaking in on ongoing debates.

Without further delay I will make my post :

I would start asking your opinion about what you think it is the role of competition (between species, not between individual organisms) on Evolution. This may look a very straightforward question, but think about it. The result of competition is normally considered to be the survival of the fittest, but what does this means? The result of evolution can be a more advanced form of the progenitor organism, but can also be that divergent evolution is the result. Meaning that a species can evolve to occupy a previously unoccupied niche in the ecosystem (and therefore avoid to compete with other species). Also, when two very similar species compete for the same niche of the ecosystem, that invariably ends with the extinction of the less apt, or with the subtle specialization of the two species, so that they occupy very similar, but not quite the same, niche. Could we say that, because of this, competition is a transitory state that successful species transcend? (By eliminating competition or by finding a new niche were there is no competition).

[BeardofPants]

Interesting points. Just to clearly state the argument, whilst the population numbers are low, there is diversity, and eco-niche sharing, and therefore little or no competition. However, the problem really comes about when one or more species of animal/plant etc becomes successful (breeding etc), and is competing with larger population numbers (intra and inter). Once the population numbers are sufficient, one species will be forced to move on, or die out, the other will be successful, in usurping that niche. The outcome of resource competition results in the successful species (of which H. sapiens sapiens is an extreme example), diversifying, and multiplying, which will eventually lead to further population pressures, thus it is an ongoing cycle. Transitory? Perhaps. Probably more a peak & plateau dynamic though.

What role do you think speciation plays in terms of competition between/within species?

Hierarchy? Heterarchy?

[Arathorn]

I simply see competition as one of the aids to natural selection wherein the limits of resources are the determining factor (as opposed thing such as inablility of a species to adapt to changes in temperature, ability to defend self from predators, etc.)

[afro-elf]

WAYFARER SAID:

Things come from other Things.
Therefore, everything must come from something that is self existant.
The simplist explaination is that there is one self existant entity-either God or Nature.
There are problems with a self existant nature which make it difficult to rationally believe.
So a single, self existant Creator is the most reasonable explaination


Simplist explanation doesn't necessarily mean the correct explanation

there are also problems with (Christain, Judaic, Islamic creator)


Look around you. No gods. No spirits. No heaven or hell. No devils.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Wayfarer

Things come from other Things.
Therefore, everything must come from something that is self existant.
The simplist explaination is that there is one self existant entity-either God or Nature.
There are problems with a self existant nature which make it difficult to rationally believe.
So a single, self existant Creator is the most reasonable explaination.

How do you explain those anomalies in space then? Those particles that seemingly mutate without any external energy/force acting up them?

It is only now, through the science of quantum mechanics, that we are beginning to realise that the simplist answer is not necessarily the best (referring here to the particle/wave duality, whereby particles exist in more than one place, in more than one time).

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by BeardofPants


What role do you think speciation plays in terms of competition between/within species?

Hierarchy? Heterarchy?

I believe that both vertical and horizontal specialization can and do occur. Yet I’m inclined to believe that horizontal specialization may be more frequent. The reason for this, I believe, may be the very nature of the ecological pyramid. There are more opportunities at lower levels that are at higher levels. On the other hand, observation seem to indicate that there are relatively few cases of a species originally occupying a higher level in a pyramid evolving into a species occupying a lower level in the pyramid (as far as my knowledge goes). So vertical specialization seem to be also usually “upwards”. This may be caused by the fact that the higher a species is in the pyramid the more likely it is to have a higher level of specialization. (For instance, super-predators are highly specialized creatures, with a low level of adaptability compared with the other predators encountered at lower levels). Since highly specialized organisms usually have a much lower level of adaptability, it would seem they would be at a disadvantage when competing with another species of a lower level of the pyramid for the same niche (under the assumption that they were both colonizing a new niche).
I believe that intra-species competition operates under a similar premise. Horizontal specialization is more likely to occur since opportunities are more likely to arise at the same level.
Personally I am considerating it exist a natural resistance to a state of competition. Species and individual organisms when confronted with an increase of competition on their native niche have the tendency to “search” for solutions that may decrease the competition level, outside their native niche if necessary and possible, and use them if they are at all available. Let me clarify this. When at all possible, instead of the result of a competitive environment be “better of the same” the result may be “different from the original”. I’m not saying that the former evolution is not possible (it is patently visible that it is frequent) but that possibly it will occur only when opportunities for diversification are not open.
What do you think about this?

[Elvellon]

Originally posted by Arathorn
I simply see competition as one of the aids to natural selection wherein the limits of resources are the determining factor (as opposed thing such as inablility of a species to adapt to changes in temperature, ability to defend self from predators, etc.)

Quite true. The next question would be, how competition translates itself in evolution?

[FrodoFriend]

Things come from other Things.
Therefore, everything must come from something that is self existant.
The simplist explaination is that there is one self existant entity-either God or Nature.
There are problems with a self existant nature which make it difficult to rationally believe.
So a single, self existant Creator is the most reasonable explaination

How do you explain the fact that nature, science and its effects are visible all around us, affect us every second, and for that matter, ARE us, while a Creator is nowhere perceptible and has left no legacy to prove its existence?

Why make up a whole new story when the answer is all around you?

[emplynx]

I just realized that I was reading the first page of this thread instead of the last, but I will respond anyway.

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
I am an atheist though.

Reasons?

1 - I have never felt/witnessed/known of anything to indicate the existence of God.

I think the exact opposite. I have felt/witnessed/known anything and that indcates the existance of God!

[emplynx]

Originally posted by FrodoFriend
while a Creator is nowhere perceptible and has left no legacy to prove its existence?

But he has left a legacy! He left me, he left you, he let trees and flowers and EVERYTHING! This goes back to the Paley's Watch thing. If you were traveling through the vacuum of space and you saw a watch, you wouldn't think, "AHH, Science has formed a watch!"! No, you would say, "Someone left there watch!".

[FrodoFriend]

But all those things exist naturally, through science. And existing naturally, without divine intervention, does not make them any less marvelous or mysterious. Everything I see around me is complicated and intricate and mysterious by itself; it doesn't take God to make it exist or to make it worthwhile. God is completely superfluous.

As for the watch, you'd think that because humans make watches. Since we make them, we have proof that they are made by some one; hence we see one, we think "It was made by some one." If we didn't make watches, had never heard of them or seen one, and we saw one floating in space, we'd think "Oh, what an interesting scientific phenomenon." It's just a matter of perspective.

[Andúril]

But he has left a legacy! He left me, he left you, he let trees and flowers and EVERYTHING!

Prove it. No, actually, just show the probability of that statement being true. Justify your belief.

I would request the same thing from the person who think's he's Elvis's ghost, but we don't really talk anymore....

This goes back to the Paley's Watch thing. If you were traveling through the vacuum of space and you saw a watch, you wouldn't think, "AHH, Science has formed a watch!"! No, you would say, "Someone left there watch!".

You obviously haven't come across any of the Paley's Watch refutations, have you? Regardless, here's something to ponder: if the watch is so complex that it is necessary for a watchmaker to exist, then your god, who by implication is infinitely more complex than the watch, as well requires a creator. You are saying that if there is something (a), there is something (b) which is more complex than (a), which created (a).

You first assume that everything requires a more complex creator, and then dismiss that asumption when it reaches your god.

Why does the buck magically stop at your god? Is he special or something?

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Anduril
Why does the buck magically stop at your god? Is he special or something?

Because infinite regression is 100% impossible it could never happen. Something had to be "there" to start everything else off. Yes, my God is somthing special, thanks for asking.

[BeardofPants]

Emplynx, I posted a refutation to Paley's watch a couple a pages ago. I suggest you read it, if nothing else, to get your facts straight. Or, if you're too lazy to find it, Look up "The Blind Watchmaker" on google. It's a bloody good read.

[Andúril]

Something had to be "there" to start everything else off. Yes, my God is somthing special, thanks for asking.

To start everything off - you mean cause, ie God needed to be there to cause everything?

What was the cause that effected your god?

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elvellon


I believe that both vertical and horizontal specialization can and do occur. Yet I’m inclined to believe that horizontal specialization may be more frequent. The reason for this, I believe, may be the very nature of the ecological pyramid. There are more opportunities at lower levels that are at higher levels. On the other hand, observation seem to indicate that there are relatively few cases of a species originally occupying a higher level in a pyramid evolving into a species occupying a lower level in the pyramid (as far as my knowledge goes). So vertical specialization seem to be also usually “upwards”. This may be caused by the fact that the higher a species is in the pyramid the more likely it is to have a higher level of specialization. (For instance, super-predators are highly specialized creatures, with a low level of adaptability compared with the other predators encountered at lower levels). Since highly specialized organisms usually have a much lower level of adaptability, it would seem they would be at a disadvantage when competing with another species of a lower level of the pyramid for the same niche (under the assumption that they were both colonizing a new niche).
I believe that intra-species competition operates under a similar premise. Horizontal specialization is more likely to occur since opportunities are more likely to arise at the same level.
Personally I am considerating it exist a natural resistance to a state of competition. Species and individual organisms when confronted with an increase of competition on their native niche have the tendency to “search” for solutions that may decrease the competition level, outside their native niche if necessary and possible, and use them if they are at all available. Let me clarify this. When at all possible, instead of the result of a competitive environment be “better of the same” the result may be “different from the original”. I’m not saying that the former evolution is not possible (it is patently visible that it is frequent) but that possibly it will occur only when opportunities for diversification are not open.
What do you think about this?

Interesting. Some very interesting points there. However, I tend to shy from such models because of their tendency to group. But, overall, it could be said to be true. In terms of the competition factor, many of the "higher primates" send away their young to stabilise their own group. I'm sure that other examples could be found in other species. Very interesting points, can I ask where you read/got them from? Is this your theory?

[Elvellon]

Yes, it is my theory (still needs a lot of work). I’ve got the idea studying economics.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Elvellon
Yes, it is my theory (still needs a lot of work). I’ve got the idea studying economics.

Well, you should attempt to discuss it somewhere with other people in the field, not here, otherwise somebody'll swipe the idea...!

[emplynx]

Originally posted by Anduril
What was the cause that effected your god?

Once again, Infinite Regression is impossible, it had to start somewhere and I am saying it started with my God, the god of Abraham, Issac, Jacob.

[BeardofPants]

Infinite regression is not impossible!

Space is infinite. To a certain extent, so is time. Things can get infinitally small, and infininately large. From this reasoning, it's possible to conjecture that infinate regression is entirely possible. What say, I ask my little black box? Anyway, again, what caused your god?