Darwinism Intelligent Design

“Honey, I ate the kids” cited as evidence of Darwinism at work

Spread the love

From ScienceDaily:

Now researchers at the University of Tennessee and the University of Oxford suggest that in some cases, filial cannibalism and offspring abandonment might even be considered forms of parental care. Published in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, their mathematical model shows that when overcrowding threatens offspring survival — which often occurs due to spread of infection or competition for resources — sacrificing a few so the most can live becomes the ultimate form of tough love.

They created a mathematical model that, they say, demonstrates: Live fast, die young, be prepared to abort

“The fitness benefit of offspring abandonment and filial cannibalism also increases as adult death rate increases, particularly for the case of filial cannibalism,” adds co-author Prof. Michael Bonsall of the University of Oxford.

In other words: if you’ve got fewer shots at reproducing, you’ll need to be ruthless in protecting your brood. But if offspring mortality is density dependent, why produce so many eggs in the first place?

“It is not always possible for parents to predict the environment that their offspring will end up in,” explains Bonsall. “Factors like food availability, oxygen availability, diseases presence and predation, might change in an unpredictable manner. Likewise, in many fish and other animals females deposit their eggs in the nests or territories of males and leave, so cannot predict an optimal laying density given that additional females might subsequently add eggs to the nest.”

“It’s up to empiricists now to test these models in a variety of species,” the authors conclude. Paper. (open access) – Mackenzie E. Davenport, Michael B. Bonsall, Hope Klug. Unconventional Care: Offspring Abandonment and Filial Cannibalism Can Function as Forms of Parental Care. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 2019; 7 DOI: 10.3389/fevo.2019.00113 More.

Here’s how you can tell that Darwinian evolution (natural selection on random mutations produces information) functions as a superstition today: Everything and its opposite is considered a demonstration. In a world where, over hundreds of thousands of years, many life forms go extinct—and an adopted behavior may, over a long period of time, be a factor in an extinction—the theorist assumes that whatever is happening is, on the contrary, a demonstration of Darwinian fitness — and constructs a mathematical model that supports that view.

There are all kinds of these stories out there — about why birds lay eggs in others’ nests, why stressed mares miscarry to avoid infidelity being detected, and how birds plan for their offspring’s future (Huh? Birds that can’t avoid wind turbines can plan for their offspring’s future?)

The rule in the discipline seems to be: Never call anyone to account for fronting nonsense as long as it is Darwinian nonsense.

Note: Stressed mammals do sometimes eat their offspring in the same way that a wounded dog who is being led to safety might turn and sink his teeth into the human who is helping him. But if a mammal is intellectually complex enough to have an individual psychology, please, see the behaviour as a response to the stress rather than as the unfolding of some grand Darwinian plan. We owe it to our furry and feathery domestic friends to try to understand them at least that far.

See also: Darwinian cheating story about birds not confirmed The strategy is not outstandingly successful and the researchers are now looking for an explanation other than a selective advantage. That’s wise on their part. This sounds like another strategy where the bird merely adapts; sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. No big Darwin theory is needed.

Why stressed mares miscarry (going full Darwin here)

and

Birds are found to plan like humans for their offsprings’ future. Yes, the Darwinbird of pop science can do that!

Also: Sexual trappings (dimorphism) may increase the likelihood of extinction, not survival

Follow UD News at Twitter!

34 Replies to ““Honey, I ate the kids” cited as evidence of Darwinism at work

  1. 1
    asauber says:

    ” Darwinian evolution… functions as a superstition today”

    Oh, just ask some of your friends about Evolution. They will quickly demonstrate to you that not only do they not understand what it’s supposed to be, they are hopelessly devoted to the idea at the same time. Its a religious superstition of the greatest kind, and illustrates how effective propaganda can be.

    Andrew

  2. 2
    Brother Brian says:

    Cannibalism of the young is known to be an effective survival strategy for some species. For example, in some lakes, adult yellow perch feed on perch fry for parts of the year. This is because it makes available energy resources that the adult perch cannot utilize directly because of size.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Darwinian evolution cannot account for the cannibalistic species. It can only account for genetic diseases and deformities.

  4. 4
    asauber says:

    BB,

    I don’t think fish have strategies.

    Andrew

  5. 5
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    I don’t think fish have strategies.

    A life time of staying in schools must teach them something 🙂

  6. 6
    ET says:

    Spearshake:

    A life time of staying in schools must teach them something

    It hasn’t helped you and you spent many years in third grade

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    BB,

    Cute, but how did you determine that fish have strategies?

    Andrew

  8. 8
    ET says:

    An effective survival strategy is to eat all of the kids?

  9. 9
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    Cute, but how did you determine that fish have strategies?

    “Survival strategies” and “evolutionary stable strategies” are terms often used by biologists. They are not intended to imply willful intent.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    BB,

    So you didn’t determine that fish have strategies, you just regurgitated stuff someone else said or wrote.

    Andrew

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Andrew,

    The biologist J. B. S. Haldane observed that “Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public.”

  12. 12
    Heartlander says:

    It may be well first to premise that I do not wish to maintain that any strictly social animal, if its intellectual faculties were to become as active and as highly developed as in man, would acquire exactly the same moral sense as ours. In the same manner as various animals have some sense of beauty, though they admire widely different objects, so they might have a sense of right and wrong, though led by it to follow widely different lines of conduct. If, for instance, to take an extreme case, men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters; and no one would think of interfering.
    – Chucky D, Descent of Man, and Selection in Regard to Sex, Chapter IV, Moral Sense

  13. 13
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    Well, if it’s not a sign of evolution, is it a sign of a thoughtful, rational, caring creator ?

  14. 14
    ET says:

    No, Pater. It’s a sign of a deterioration of a once good design. Meaning it’s a sign of how Darwinian evolution inversely affects the caring Creator’s Creation.

  15. 15
    asauber says:

    BA77 @ 11

    Indeed. I hope BB realizes that just because a biologist uses words of art, doesn’t mean that words of art suddenly become science.

    Andrew

  16. 16
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    So you didn’t determine that fish have strategies, you just regurgitated stuff someone else said or wrote.

    No, I just used terminology that anyone knowledgable in biology, zoology and ecology would understand. Every field of study, whether it be biology, physics or theology uses terms that have specific meaning in those fields, even though they may mean something different in others. I admit that this can be frustrating at times, but it is what it is.

  17. 17
    asauber says:

    “this can be frustrating at times”

    It’s not frustrating. You can learn to tune out the noise.

    Andrew

  18. 18
    ET says:

    Brother Spearshake:

    No, I just used terminology that anyone knowledgable in biology, zoology and ecology would understand.

    Right, the language that really demonstrates they have no idea what they are talking about and feel the need to say something.

    Biologists should work on the problems in their field- like identifying what makes an organism what it is.

  19. 19
    Pater Kimbridge says:

    @ET #14
    Adversely. The word you are looking for is Adversely.

  20. 20
    ET says:

    That too.

    Inversely- in an inverse manner- reversed in position- > devolution

  21. 21
    News says:

    If we can get past the insults, the main problem here is that the behavior is simply assumed to be adaptive. In a biosphere where countless varieties of life form have gone extinct, often slowly over a long period of time, that’s a questionable assumption. The behavior may be part of a pattern that will result in a decline over several hundred thousand years, ending in extinction. For example, cannibalism of the young may cost little under most circumstances but become a tipping point in some.

    The Darwinian habit of assuming that whatever the behaviour is must be adaptive is not defensible in light of all the background extinctions. We don’t know why most extinctions occur. We certainly cannot say that cannibalism is adaptive just because an extinction is not obviously looming .

  22. 22
    Brother Brian says:

    News, I am not saying that cannibalism is adaptive (whatever that means). I am just saying that it has been observed, repeatedly, as a successful “reproductive strategy”. We may not like it, at a guy level, but it seems to work for numerous species.

  23. 23
    bornagain77 says:

    BB states:

    “Survival strategies” and “evolutionary stable strategies” are terms often used by biologists. They are not intended to imply willful intent.

    But whether purposely intended or not by Darwinian biologists and/or by BB, willful intent is exactly what the word strategy implies.

    strat·e·gy
    noun
    a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.

    Teleological, (i.e. goal directed and purposeful), explanations of any sort are simply self defeating to any Darwinian explanation that seeks to explain biological life as being the result of completely blind and purposeless processes (as Darwinists are supposedly ‘intent’ on doing). Yet teleological language is rampant within Darwinian explanations.

    tel·e·ol·o·gy
    noun
    PHILOSOPHY
    the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise.
    THEOLOGY
    the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.

    (The irresolved problem of) Teleology in biology
    Teleology in biology is the use of the language of goal-directedness in accounts of evolutionary adaptation, which some biologists and philosophers of science find problematic. ,,,
    Nevertheless, biologists still often write about evolution as if organisms had goals, and some philosophers of biology such as Francisco Ayala and biologists such as J. B. S. Haldane consider that teleological language is unavoidable in evolutionary biology.,,,
    Teleology
    Main article: Teleology
    Teleology, from Greek, telos “end, purpose”[3] and , logia, “a branch of learning”, was coined by the philosopher Christian von Wolff in 1728.[4] The concept derives from the ancient Greek philosophy of Aristotle, where the final cause (the purpose) of a thing is its function.[5] However, Aristotle’s biology does not envisage evolution by natural selection.[6]
    Phrases used by biologists like “a function of … is to …” or “is designed for” are teleological at least in language. The presence of real or apparent teleology in explanations of natural selection is a controversial aspect of the philosophy of biology, not least for its echoes of natural theology.[1][7]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

    The problem of illegitimately using teleological language, i.e. goal directed language, within their explanations, (i.e. within their just-so stories), is simply unavoidable for Darwinists.

    In fact, (although forbidden in the supposedly completely ‘purposeless’ Darwinian explanations), Teleological language, from the very start of Darwin’s theory, was built into the very foundation of Charles Darwin’s explanatory framework of “Natural Selection”. As William Dembski pointed out, the term ‘Natural Selection’ itself is an oxymoron since the word “Selection” itself directly implies the power to choose between options, i.e. teleological language, which is obviously only something intelligent agents can do.

    “,, intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, signifying that design is inferred because an intelligent agent has done what only intelligent agents can do, namely, make a choice. If intelligent design is a thoroughly apt phrase, the same cannot be said for the phrase natural selection. The second word of the phrase natural selection, is of course a synonym for choice. Indeed the l-e-c in selection is a variant of the l-e-g that in the Latin lego means to choose or select, and that also appears as l-i-g in intelligence. Natural selection is therefore an oxymoron. It attributes the power to choose, which properly belongs to intelligent agents, to natural causes, which inherently lack the power to choose.”
    – William Dembski – Science and the Myth of Progress – pg 294 – 2003

    Having the teleological word of “Selection” built into the foundation of their explanatory framework is, of course, ripe for abuse by Darwinists. Darwin himself abused the term ‘Natural Selection’. As Adam Sedgewick noted in a letter to Charles Darwin, “As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts.,, You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,”

    From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 – Cambridge
    My dear Darwin,
    Excerpt: As to your grand principle—natural selection—what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.,,,
    You write of “natural selection” as if it were done consciously by the selecting agent.,,,
    We all admit development as a fact of history; but how came it about?,,,
    https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml

    To this day Darwinists, when they construct their just-so stories to try to explain a certain biological feature, will refer to ‘Natural Selection’ as if it is an intelligent agent that is intelligently choosing between options. As Stephen Jay Gould himself honestly confessed, “When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.”

    Sociobiology: The Art of Story Telling – Stephen Jay Gould – 1978 – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers “Just So stories”. When evolutionists study individual adaptations, when they try to explain form and behaviour by reconstructing history and assessing current utility, they also tell just so stories – and the agent is natural selection.
    Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=tRj7EyRFVqYC&pg=PA530

    To say the imparting of agent causality to Natural Selection by Darwinists, in their supposedly non-teleological explanations, is cheating is an understatement. As William Provine himself admitted, “”Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….”

    “Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets.”
    William Provine: The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, 1971), reissued in 2001 (pp. 199-200)

    Moreover, as bad as the improper use of teleological language is for Darwinists when they use the term ‘Natural Selection’, the problem of the improper use of teleological language by Darwinists gets much worse for Darwinists when we get into the intricacies of molecular biology.

    In the following article, Stephen Talbott challenges Darwinists to “pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness.”

    The ‘Mental Cell’: Let’s Loosen Up Biological Thinking! – Stephen L. Talbott – September 9, 2014
    Excerpt: a common line of thought (among molecular biologists) runs this way: “Yes, there is an appearance of mindfulness in all organisms, but this is a mere appearance, or an illusion. And the explanation for the illusion is natural selection”. The idea is that variation plus selection results in adaptation, and adapted behavior possesses a functional effectiveness that looks as if it were mindfully guided.
    Not all those who say such things would be willing to describe their own minds and intentions as illusions. But, in any case, we are left to wonder how an organism’s apparently purposeful activity is explained by similar activity in previous generations. Selection, after all, requires organisms that grow, develop, compete, prepare an inheritance, produce offspring, and otherwise pursue their seemingly intentional and well-directed lives, judiciously improvising all the way. These are the very activities that raise the question of mindfulness. So how does weaving the lives of many such organisms into the infinitely complex narratives of natural selection explain this mindfulness?
    Many biologists are content to dismiss the problem with hand-waving: “When we wield the language of agency, we are speaking metaphorically, and we could just as well, if less conveniently, abandon the metaphors”.
    Yet no scientist or philosopher has shown how this shift of language could be effected. And the fact of the matter is just obvious: the biologist who is not investigating how the organism achieves something in a well-directed way is not yet doing biology, as opposed to physics or chemistry. Is this in turn just hand-waving? Let the reader inclined to think so take up a challenge: pose a single topic for biological research, doing so in language that avoids all implication of agency, cognition, and purposiveness1.
    One reason this cannot be done is clear enough: molecular biology — the discipline that was finally going to reduce life unreservedly to mindless mechanism — is now posing its own severe challenges. In this era of Big Data, the message from every side concerns previously unimagined complexity, incessant cross-talk and intertwining pathways, wildly unexpected genomic performances, dynamic conformational changes involving proteins and their cooperative or antagonistic binding partners, pervasive multifunctionality, intricately directed behavior somehow arising from the interaction of countless players in interpenetrating networks, and opposite effects by the same molecules in slightly different contexts. The picture at the molecular level begins to look as lively and organic — and thoughtful — as life itself.,,,
    http://natureinstitute.org/txt.....ell_23.htm

    And as Denis Noble notes “it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language”.

    “the most striking thing about living things, in comparison with non-living systems, is their teleological organization—meaning the way in which all of the local physical and chemical interactions cohere in such a way as to maintain the overall system in existence.
    Moreover, it is virtually impossible to speak of living beings for any length of time without using teleological and normative language—words like “goal,” “purpose,” “meaning,” “correct/incorrect,” “success/failure,” etc.”
    – Denis Noble – Emeritus Professor of Cardiovascular Physiology in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy, and Genetics of the Medical Sciences Division of the University of Oxford.
    http://www.thebestschools.org/.....interview/

    This working biologist agrees with Talbott and Noble’s’s assessment, “in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.”

    Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails – Ann Gauger – June 2011
    Excerpt: I’m a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology–we simply cannot avoid them.
    Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn’t troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it’s high time we moved on. – Matthew
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-8858161

    To show just how impossible it is for Darwinists to ever get rid of teleological language in their explanations, the use of words themselves directly imply teleology. As Talbott remarks in the following article, “no one has ever explained,, how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,”

    HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE – Stephen L. Talbott – May 2012
    Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
    Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling… and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
    The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
    The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
    Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
    “The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)”,,,
    And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,
    http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2

    Thus, Darwinist’s, due to their underlying atheistic/naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.

    And again, if Darwinism were a normal science instead of basically being a unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific religion for atheists, this impossibility for them to rid themselves of teleological language in their explanations should count as another powerful rebuke of their theory.

    Verse:

    Matthew 12:37
    For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

    One final note, Michael Egnor has a very insightful article explaining exactly why Darwinists are so intent on trying to deny teleology in the first place, “It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.”

    Teleology and the Mind – Michael Egnor – August 16, 2016
    Excerpt: From the hylemorphic perspective, there is an intimate link between the mind and teleology. The 19th-century philosopher Franz Brentano pointed out that the hallmark of the mind is that it is directed to something other than itself. That is, the mind has intentionality, which is the ability of a mental process to be about something, rather than to just be itself. Physical processes alone (understood without teleology) are not inherently about things. The mind is always about things. Stated another way, physical processes (understood without teleology) have no purpose. Mental processes always have purpose. In fact, purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) is what defines the mind. And we see the same purpose (aboutness-intentionality-teleology) in nature.
    Intentionality is a form of teleology. Both intentionality and teleology are goal-directedness — intentionality is directedness in thought, and teleology is directedness in nature. Mind and teleology are both manifestations of purpose in nature. The mind is, within nature, the same kind of process that directs nature.
    In this sense, eliminative materialism is necessary if a materialist is to maintain a non-teleological Darwinian metaphysical perspective. It is purpose that must be denied in order to deny design in nature. So the mind, as well as teleology, must be denied. Eliminative materialism is just Darwinian metaphysics carried to its logical end and applied to man. If there is no teleology, there is no intentionality, and there is no purpose in nature nor in man’s thoughts.
    The link between intentionality and teleology, and the undeniability of teleology, is even more clear if we consider our inescapable belief that other people have minds. The inference that other people have minds based on their purposeful (intentional-teleological) behavior, which is obviously correct and is essential to living a sane life, can be applied to our understanding of nature as well. Just as we know that other people have purposes (intentionality), we know just as certainly that nature has purposes (teleology). In a sense, intelligent design is the recognition of the same purpose-teleology-intentionality in nature that we recognize in ourselves and others.
    Teleology and intentionality are certainly the inferences to be drawn from the obvious purposeful arrangement of parts in nature, but I (as a loyal Thomist!) believe that teleology and intentionality are manifest in an even more fundamental way in nature. Any goal-directed natural change is teleological, even if purpose and arrangement of parts is not clearly manifest. The behavior of a single electron orbiting a proton is teleological, because the motion of the electron hews to specific ends (according to quantum mechanics). A pencil falling to the floor behaves teleologically (it does not fall up, or burst into flame, etc.). Purposeful arrangement of parts is teleology on an even more sophisticated scale, but teleology exists in even the most basic processes in nature. Physics is no less teleological than biology.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2016/08/teleology_and_t/

  24. 24
    ET says:

    So now survival and fitness is not based on how many offspring you have but how many you eat? Sounds like desperation to me.

  25. 25
    asauber says:

    BB,

    “Sometimes eating your own children could help your species continue” is not a scientific theory or explanation. The only reason you think it is, is because people smarter than you pretend that it is.

    Andrew

  26. 26
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    “Sometimes eating your own children could help your species continue” is not a scientific theory or explanation. The only reason you think it is, is because people smarter than you pretend that it is.

    Its not a theory. It is just a statement of fact based on numerous observations. The idea may make you uncomfortable, but facts aren’t dependent on our comfort level.

  27. 27
    asauber says:

    BB,

    It has nothing to do with comfort. Sometimes this happens or sometimes that happens is not science. It’s trivia.

    Andrew

  28. 28
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    It has nothing to do with comfort. Sometimes this happens or sometimes that happens is not science. It’s trivia.

    I never claimed that it was earth shaking, or ground breaking research. It is merely an observation that is seen amongst several species and was pertinent to the OP. It is a behavior that, for whatever reason, works for some species.

  29. 29
    asauber says:

    BB,

    It just appears to me that you are glossing over some basic reasoning because you are so indoctrinated with Evolutionism. I’m saying this for your own good. You may have been taught that Evolution is this giant hammer that beats everything down, but it’s just not true. You citing trivialities so you can swing the hammer again, is evidence that you aren’t approaching this like a scientific-minded person.

    Andrew

  30. 30
    ET says:

    I keep picturing the Duggar family chowing down on one of their kids….

  31. 31
    Brother Brian says:

    Andrew

    It just appears to me that you are glossing over some basic reasoning because you are so indoctrinated with Evolutionism. I’m saying this for your own good. You may have been taught that Evolution is this giant hammer that beats everything down, but it’s just not true. You citing trivialities so you can swing the hammer again, is evidence that you aren’t approaching this like a scientific-minded person.

    All I have done is presented observations that have been made by numerous biologists and ecologists. And indicated why this behavior, under certain circumstances, can result in increased fitness. I haven’t heard any arguments as to why this is not the case. If you have anything to offer, by all means present it. If not, I think that this discussion has run its course.

  32. 32
    asauber says:

    BB,

    “And indicated why this behavior, under certain circumstances, can result in increased fitness.”

    And I’m certain you will agree that if Evolution was a fairy-tale, this behavior could still occur. 😉

    Andrew

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Brother Spearshake:

    And indicated why this behavior, under certain circumstances, can result in increased fitness.

    Unless they had a control group that didn’t eat their offspring, how can anyone draw any inferences from it?

  34. 34
    ET says:

    The evolutionary story explanation for why fish are still fish:

    “They (fish) eat their mutant young”.

Leave a Reply