Quote Originally Posted by bu villain View Post
This is a logical fallacy to look at the outcome and therefore assume the cause. If there is a 1 in 1 billion chance that this universe exists in its current form but there are 1 billion universes created then the odds are very good that this universe would exists the way it does (obviously the number 1 billion is arbitrary, make it whatever number you like)




I'm not aware of this psuedo-conscousness you are talking about but I've never seen reference to anything of the sort in Dawkins. But as far as losing an "ability". Don't forget these abilities aren't free. Every ability/feature has upsides and downsides. I bet if you got a deadly gill infection right now you wouldn't think it was so great to have gills.

How is it faulty logic to make reasonable deductions. In fact, the same thing you accuse me of is done even moreso in the very next sentence where you assume that there are 1 billion universes. Since the number is arbitrary we can assume one, we can assume that its a billion raised to the billionth.

Looking at the outcome and assuming the cause is how most of our science works. You make observations and you make reasonable assumptions as to how that could have happened based on prior observations in our universe.

if you happen upon a wall with graffiti it is reasonable to assume someone painted that graffiti, if you happen upon a police car and two cars stopped and you see signs of an accident it is reasonable to assume those cars were in an accident. So how do you figure you cannot look at the outcome of an event and make reasonable deductions as to its cause...Saying the opposite puts you in a very strange position because how do you make a reasonable hypothesis on anything? Science and logic do not work without this reason.

Also, you should go look up Dawkins as he talks about the non-randomness of natural selection. He admits that the process gives an appearance of design because the process is specific. Its in his books, and its on his debates. If you like I can post links. But you must not know his theories very well if you didn't know this about him.

Lastly, the loosing abilities aspect of adaptation is a false assumption to proving change. People loose the ability to do things with age and with adaptation. our body types change and our intelligence changes. These are not signs of evolution they are signs of adaptation.

Just about every species has a starting point of which they can deviate. IF you work out and get in shape, your body will change, is you stop it will go back to your starting point. The fruit fly evolution argument is the same. In the thousands of generations of fruit flies, we have yet to see anything except for fruit flies emerge. We have witnessed subtle changes but we have NOT scene those changes manifest themselves in a replicable DNA pattern. For instance the ones with two sets of wings come out sterile. The ones with any genetic modification do not survive or cannot reproduce. This is not evolution as in natural selection because there is NO survival or replication of the physical modification, there is no change in the DNA make up. If you test the DNA, you get that of a standard fruit fly, you don't get a horse fly or a new species of fly. Why is the fruit fly NOT evolving based on your world view?