Question for Atheists ( hoping for a interesting debate)
Why do Roses 🌹 have thorns?
36-40, M
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
ElwoodBlues · M
Through natural selection.
Mutations sometimes gives plants different skin textures. Plants with tougher skins and/or bumpier surfaces got eaten less by herbivores. Thus, without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in various features that tended to prolong life and reproduction.
BTW, it's estimated that around 10% of all plant species have some form of defensive spines, thorns, or prickles. Other plants evolved chemical defenses, making them taste bad or render the eater sick. All thru natural selection.
On the other hand, many plant species depend on herbivores to spread their seeds. So, thru the same blind mechanism of natural selection, they evolved tasty fruits with hard seed cases. The animal consumes the fruit and emits the seeds in fecal matter that is also a natural plant fertilizer.
Mutations sometimes gives plants different skin textures. Plants with tougher skins and/or bumpier surfaces got eaten less by herbivores. Thus, without consciousness or intention, natural selection resulted in various features that tended to prolong life and reproduction.
BTW, it's estimated that around 10% of all plant species have some form of defensive spines, thorns, or prickles. Other plants evolved chemical defenses, making them taste bad or render the eater sick. All thru natural selection.
On the other hand, many plant species depend on herbivores to spread their seeds. So, thru the same blind mechanism of natural selection, they evolved tasty fruits with hard seed cases. The animal consumes the fruit and emits the seeds in fecal matter that is also a natural plant fertilizer.
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@ElwoodBlues Much more informative than my evolution response lol
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@JimboSaturn you say evolution. So is there purpose in evolution?
JimboSaturn · 56-60, M
@Heavenlywarrior No. That's a silly question just as "is there a purpose to gravity". It is simply a naturat phenomena explained well by ElwoodBlues.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Nope. That's known as the teleological fallacy.
Some things survive and reproduce; others don't. Even the impetus to reproduce evolved thru natural selection. Those things with less impetus to reproduce were out-competed by those with more impetus (all other things being equal). There is no goal, no endpoint, just natural selection at work in changing environments.
Some things survive and reproduce; others don't. Even the impetus to reproduce evolved thru natural selection. Those things with less impetus to reproduce were out-competed by those with more impetus (all other things being equal). There is no goal, no endpoint, just natural selection at work in changing environments.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues @JimboSaturn You say the rose with nubs “survived longer” and “made more babies.” But isn’t that assuming that survival advantage causes the thorn, and the thorn causes the survival? Isn't that circular?
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Actually, I didn't use those words, but I take your point. No, as @Pherick pointed out, many mutations reduce survivability. I'd hazard a guess that MOST mutations reduce survivability, and they die out thru natural selection. Only the more survivable mutations persist.
BTW, according to the fossil record, about 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct; mostly thru a combination of natural selection and environmental change.
BTW, according to the fossil record, about 99% of all species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct; mostly thru a combination of natural selection and environmental change.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues Doesn’t the very fact that nature selects from mutations as if it has a purpose suggest the presence of an ordering mind — or at least something teleological behind the process?
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior "Suggest"??
Nope. The Earth gets hit by 173,000 terawatts of solar energy all the time; about 340 watts per square meter. That tremendous energy flow can have all kinds of counterintuitive effects. Strange molecules can form; electrical storms occur; warm and quiet pools slowly fill and drain; all kinds of stuff happens. And it's been happening for FIVE BILLION YEARS!! All over the Earth's 126 BILLION ACRES!!
I'd expect a teleological process to (a) happen much faster, and (b) not leave 99% of all SPECIES extinct.
Anyway, backing out a bit, your question is a question to intuition, and I find intuition has limited value in science. Intuition tells us the Earth is flat, and the sky is a dome across which the sun & moon travel. Intuition got us the Greek myths. I'm not saying intuition has zero value in science; just that we need to be skeptical of it.
Nope. The Earth gets hit by 173,000 terawatts of solar energy all the time; about 340 watts per square meter. That tremendous energy flow can have all kinds of counterintuitive effects. Strange molecules can form; electrical storms occur; warm and quiet pools slowly fill and drain; all kinds of stuff happens. And it's been happening for FIVE BILLION YEARS!! All over the Earth's 126 BILLION ACRES!!
I'd expect a teleological process to (a) happen much faster, and (b) not leave 99% of all SPECIES extinct.
Anyway, backing out a bit, your question is a question to intuition, and I find intuition has limited value in science. Intuition tells us the Earth is flat, and the sky is a dome across which the sun & moon travel. Intuition got us the Greek myths. I'm not saying intuition has zero value in science; just that we need to be skeptical of it.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues you're right that intuition can mislead, but that’s not what I'm relying on especially in this convo. I’m pointing to something deeper: when we see genes are coded information, I can’t help but think it’s a goal-directed processes, within complex interdependent systems, as one who professes there is a Supreme Being and Agency within field we all exist in, we don’t merely “feel” like there’s a designer — we reason that there MUST be one.
Reason says design requires intelligence.
Reason tells us that function implies intention — systems don’t perform specific tasks unless they were built to do so.
Reason says design requires intelligence.
Reason tells us that function implies intention — systems don’t perform specific tasks unless they were built to do so.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior You are doubtless aware that Galileo Galilei was threatened with excommunication for stating (or at least hypothesizing) that the Earth revolves around the Sun.
Do you happen to know what scripture Galileo ran afoul of, or why the church found the idea to be heretical? This is germane to our discussion; please bear with me and tell me what you know about Galileo's alleged crime.
Do you happen to know what scripture Galileo ran afoul of, or why the church found the idea to be heretical? This is germane to our discussion; please bear with me and tell me what you know about Galileo's alleged crime.
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues I don’t know about his crime and heresy against the church, however I will look into it right now.
There is a lot that can be said about “The Church” and what they deem heresy and what’s not .
But enlightenment me as I research.
There is a lot that can be said about “The Church” and what they deem heresy and what’s not .
But enlightenment me as I research.
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior Galileo did not run afoul of scripture, of anything in the Bible. Galileo ran afoul of the master reasoner himself, Aristotle.
The church of the 1500s & 1600s had so absorbed Aristotle's geocentric cosmology that they considered heliocentrism to be heresy. The church employed reason (or at least what they considered to reason) to find Galileo in error, regardless of what he had reported about the moons of Jupiter.
It can be very very hard to distinguish reason from intuition. Reason alone gets us all kinds of great math theorems, but reason alone really doesn't tell us much about the 5 billion year evolution of this planet. Detailed observation, combined with reason, and with a large dollop of skepticism, gets us to theories that more or less fit the facts.
But never leave that skepticism behind. I'm gonna end this with three quotes from a late great bongo drum playing Nobel prize winning physicist.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
The church of the 1500s & 1600s had so absorbed Aristotle's geocentric cosmology that they considered heliocentrism to be heresy. The church employed reason (or at least what they considered to reason) to find Galileo in error, regardless of what he had reported about the moons of Jupiter.
It can be very very hard to distinguish reason from intuition. Reason alone gets us all kinds of great math theorems, but reason alone really doesn't tell us much about the 5 billion year evolution of this planet. Detailed observation, combined with reason, and with a large dollop of skepticism, gets us to theories that more or less fit the facts.
But never leave that skepticism behind. I'm gonna end this with three quotes from a late great bongo drum playing Nobel prize winning physicist.
“When someone says 'science teaches such and such', he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn't teach it; experience teaches it” — Richard P. Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out, p. 187.
“If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science.”
— Richard P. Feynman
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool." — Richard P. Feynman
Heavenlywarrior · 36-40, M
@ElwoodBlues thanks
ElwoodBlues · M
@Heavenlywarrior What I've posted so far are arguments about why natural selection doesn't need 'intent' or 'intelligence' or 'goals.' I'm adding a LOOOONG post at top level that has positive evidence for evolution of humans from related species. It's not mine, it was originally written by @newjaninev2.