Pheobe Debates The Theory of Evolution

Original scene from the show... Friends. ^ | NA | NA

[Mr.Atos]

I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...

Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!

Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.

Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.

Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.

Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!

Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?

Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!

Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!

Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?

Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?

[exmarine]

Correction: Mt. 5:48 not 5:58

[general_re]

Where does the aeshetic sense (feelings for beauty) fit into the evolutionary puzzle? It would seem to me that such things would be absolutely useless to the survival of any species.

As discussed above, having an aesthetic sense about potential mates allows one to choose better, healthier mates, and thereby contributes to propagation of the species. Increase brain size to the point of self-awareness, and it doesn't seem like too much to expect that this sense of visual attractiveness would be extended to other things as well.

Lots of sensations like that can be readily classed as matter of aesthetics, but that doesn't mean that they aren't understandable in terms of evolutionary development. There's a very good evolutionary reason for why most people find the taste of ice cream to be more aesthetically pleasing than the taste of broccoli, and why steak tastes better than cardboard.

[exmarine]

From what I understand, the lead singer for Kansas is now a born again Christian. Sweet irony. That song used to be my lifesong. I related to it quite well. Without God, Life is short, meaningless, leads nowhere, amounts to futility, and ends in total oblivion, which is nothing more than black nothingness forever.

My new lifesong is Amazing Grace.

[exmarine]

As discussed above, having an aesthetic sense about potential mates allows one to choose better, healthier mates, and thereby contributes to propagation

Uh huh. How does that work with sunsets or paintings?

[bondserv]

"Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go [and] sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come [and] follow me."

You haven't done this yet? :-)

If money comes between you and God like it was for the rich young ruler, Jesus would say the same thing to you. I have millionaire friends who completely support a number of different ministries that are fruitful to the kingdom.

If God blesses a person with the wealth, and the individual uses their money to further the kingdom, they wouldn't be asked by God to sell all that they have, for they are already following Christ. This was not the case for this man and it saddened Christ to see him choose to follow mammon rather than God.

[headsonpikes]

Yes, dust....'We are stardust'.

;^)

[general_re]

One-off side-effects like that happen all the time. Written languages are one such effect, finding beauty in a sunset is quite likely another. The human brain didn't evolve in order to create computer networks - there weren't any before about forty years ago, after all, long after the brain reached its current state of development - and yet here we are, typing away. There's no particular reason that you should prefer ice cream to rice cakes - a million years ago, there were neither rice cakes nor ice cream - but you do, and there's a good general explanation for why you would be expected to choose ice cream over rice cakes.

You have a highly developed visual cortex, comparatively well developed three-dimensional color vision, a large brain that allows you to reason analogically about the past, present and future, and that gives you an awareness of the self and its relationship to the larger world, while also allowing you to manipulate that larger world to suit you. Why should we be surprised to find that such a complex being has complex tastes in its everyday life?

[longshadow]

"improving signal-to-noise ratio" placemarker

[AndrewC]

Because the new "degrees of freedom" only affected a portion of the population.

That is kinda just-so Junior.

We are discussing a stability that stops becoming so. You are having your cake and eating too.

It seems to me that something is stable or something is unstable or finally something is on the edge of stability. If it is stable it is very unlikely to go anywhere save with great impetus. If it is unstable it is always changing. If it is on the edge of stability, (now I will kinda shift gears) it can spawn a change and remain stable, but it will be spawning lots of changes.

[ThinkPlease]

Late Supper placemarker.

[general_re]

If it is on the edge of stability, (now I will kinda shift gears) it can spawn a change and remain stable, but it will be spawning lots of changes.

Hence the massive number of species on earth, both extant and extinct. Fitness is not a static, steady-state affair, thus we ought to see species riding that ragged edge all the time, crossing over from fit to unfit, or back again, as the environment changes.

[CobaltBlue]

A. Creator | B. Act of Creation | C. That which was created

Science will never be able to tell us anything about A, and probably will never be able to tell us anything about B.

Science studies C.

If any scientist tries to tell you that A or B don't exist, he's blowing smoke.

[RightWingNilla]

Our results suggest that these communities function as metacommunities, with frequent local extinctions followed by colonization.

This might not be relevant, but when I read this line I immediately thought of these tropical fish I have been breeding. In the "Old World" Killifish, the males have incredible coloration patterns, where the females look as drab as feeder guppies. In the wild these guys live in large groups of very shallow ponds all very close to each other, with each species inhabiting a specific area. Most of the species within genus look so alike, only a real expert could tell the difference. But they are in fact different species (don't interbreed). African Cichlids of lake Malawai might also be an example (500 individual species, all with striking coloration in the males and living in the same lake!)

Anyway, there is a book called "The Red Queen" by M.Ridley where it is brought up that some of these features of sexual selection, which at first seem arbitrary (long peacock tails, bright colors) might actaully be a sign of being parasite-free. A good deal of the book covers "Sexy Son" (everyone else is doing it) versus "Good-Geners" (there is a purpose) hypotheses.

[L,TOWM]

Well stated.

I must point out that I have seen on these threads, the data gathered in the study of C being (mis?)used to make a particular inference about B, and even further to question (or outright dismiss) the possibility of A. I believe that this dichotomy is false.

As far as the inability of science to comment on A or B, I am (as a theist) quite excited about the work being done in the area of theorectical physics. Specifically, on the possibility (or mathmatical certainty for more daring physicists) of multiple co-existing dimensions. I am pretty certain that a place has been prepared for me in one of those dimensions (called "mansions" in the new testament), and that I will see for myself what Paul commented on in II Corinthians.

[RightWingNilla]

If any scientist tries to tell you that A or B don't exist, he's blowing smoke.

Richard Dawkins comes to mind. Although he does a great job writing Biology.

[VadeRetro]

Well, that's one way of looking at it!

[general_re]

You're just mad 'cause you were gonna say the same exact thing, only RWP beat you to it ;)

[BMCDA]

Well, just because a system is stable doesn't mean it cannot change. Depending on it's flexibility it accomodates faster or slower to changing conditions. However, if this change is too fast and/or too dramatic the system becomes unstable and breaks down.
You can observe this during catastrophic events where some populations simply cannot adapt to the new conditions and die out whereas others survive, although not without heavy losses.

[AndrewC]

Fitness is not a static, steady-state affair, thus we ought to see species riding that ragged edge all the time, crossing over from fit to unfit, or back again, as the environment changes.

Right, and it therefore makes sense to note that it would be very unusual for there to be stability or direction sufficient to create a very complex organ.

[VadeRetro]

You're just mad 'cause you were gonna say the same exact thing, only RWP beat you to it ;)

Hah! I'm uninterested in modeling in less than 30 dimensions.