Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 62 (9041 total)
80 online now:
kjsimons, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 77 visitors)
Newest Member: maria
Post Volume: Total: 885,913 Year: 3,559/14,102 Month: 179/321 Week: 39/59 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How come evolution never developed the wheel?
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4718
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 30 of 37 (847322)
01-21-2019 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by coffee_addict
12-26-2018 5:35 PM


Off the top of my head, I can't think of any animal that uses the wheel and axle for locomotive purposes. How come evolution never came up with the wheel and axle?

It did if you find one in nature. (posteriori bias). Which highlights how easy it is to use circular reasoning and merely ATTRIBUTE design to evolution based on hindsight.

Logically evolution is merely GRANTED, because if they found an organism tomorrow with a wheel, then they would infer evolution did come up with one after all.

My question is, how can anyone know what to expect from evolution? If you don't necessarily know what it "may" come up with how can you be sure it came up with everything we do know exists? If you reason, "because it exists", you commit circularity. (circular reasoning).

Everything that does exist in biology, they say evolution did design(posteriori), and they make no predictions for what it will come up with. That way they just get to SAY "evolution did it" if they find it, and didn't do it if they don't find it.

It seems to me a fair apriori prediction would be that we should find a wheel in many species because it's a relatively simple design............ahh but they would object, "no we shouldn't, because we don't find it and evolution doesn't have to take that path". But how convenient.

But my predictions are FAIR Lam, and you know they are. Think about it, it's a fair prediction to say "earlier" layers should show evolution's trials and errors, but we find the most sophisticated eye design in the Cambrian, for trilobites. So instead this doesn't fit with evolution but will be ATTRIBUTED to evolution, because the eye exists in that early layer.

The basis for saying evolution has the ability to make something is only based on whether that trait exists, it would seem, which logically is no basis at all for believing evolution can invent anything Lammy boy my lad.

-----

Example of posteriori bias;

Two men with shares in a blind garage sale. One has 51% the other 49%, the former says, "I have majority, all antiques we find in the garage will belong to me, all non-antiques to you."
They open the garage and there is a brand new perfect Ferrari standing there and the same guy says this;
"oh and I forgot to say, all machines will also belong to me."

Conclusion: He only said that AFTER the fact.

If you can't predict anything evolution will do, how can you predict everything it did do? Logically the problem is that we can't differentiate between everything that exists being what it did do, and everything that exists being attributed to what it did do.

(will take some thinking about.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by coffee_addict, posted 12-26-2018 5:35 PM coffee_addict has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Stile, posted 01-21-2019 10:14 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 32 by Stile, posted 01-21-2019 10:16 AM mike the wiz has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Tangle, posted 01-21-2019 3:24 PM mike the wiz has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021