Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Stupid Science

From PhysOrg:
Sex evolved to help future generations fight infection, scientists show
Even evolutionists should puke at this headline. Evolution does not respond to a cause external to it, including and especially not a speculative benefit that is not obviously environmental. The theory is that random changes occur, are stockpiled and then flower into a modification which is Selected or rejected. Mathematically, they are all rejected, but that's not the issue.

The issue is that sex did not evolve for a purpose. If it evolved, then it jumped into existence when the complexity was fulfilled. And then, and only then, did it compete for Selection.

If sex provides any advantage, which is a marginal concept considering the continuing existence of hordes of prokaryotes, then the advantage is an accidental benefit, not a goal of evolution.

Evolving to achieve a purpose is known as teleology. Teleology requires that an objective exist prior to any action can exist for the purpose of achieving that objective. So under the Atheist, Naturalist presupposition demanded by Materialist Science, teleology cannot exist, because such a cause cannot be physically measured and therefore it is outside the Naturalist, Materialist presupposition. That presupposition has the force of Scientific Law, at least in those "sciences" which are threatened by teleology.

However, the (stupid) headline does not represent the actual science it is attempting to advertise. The actual science asks why sexual reproduction, far more complex than mitosis, persists since the cost seems high. They ignore most obvious answers and home in on increased resistance to health threats as the answer.

That is one benefit. But there are others. Others which are more compelling, but ignored. What actually is teleological is the science done here: they assumed a conclusion, then set about finding data to support it. What they did not provide was any way to falsify their conclusion for other species, or other geological timeframes. Under the requirements of classical, Enlightenment, empirical science, this is a non-starter due to having proved a benefit for one species, only. But certainly it is a success in the sense that it did get published and possibly will help obtain more funding (the primary goal of research is to perpetuate itself).

No comments: