Liberal Creationism [John Ennis]

I received a comment earlier this week that deserves a full rebuttal in a new post. In a discussion about global warming and evolution, the reader wrote:

Everything in the natural world seeks equilibrium. It absolutely is a balancing act. When one part of a given ecosystem goes out of whack, it effects everything else because the equilibrium is disrupted. This is why when certain plants and animals are introduced into an environment where they did not evolve, it causes chaos. But when there's equilibrium, or balance, the ecosystem thrives. This is a fundamental concept of nature that apparently you missed in 7th grade science class.

[...]

Now, Natural Selection is a process which is both related and unrelated to the equilibrium concept. In one case, when there is an imbalance, or a niche, it leaves room for the evolution of new species to fill that niche. But in other cases, such as humans, species can create their own niche and introduce imbalance into the system. From there the system seeks to balance itself out again, but it's a slow process that takes hundreds or thousands of years.

The natural world cannot "seek" anything. It cannot "seek" order, balance or equilibrium. If you believe it does, and want to impute higher motives onto the natural world - then you are making a religious argument.

If one accepts the Theory of Evolution - you have to accept all of it. You can not cherry-pick when evolution applies and when it does not. There is nothing in the theory that would suggest a goal of balance or equilibrium. 

If a lioness gives birth to a vastly faster lion that can destroy all of the gazelles on the Serengeti, and that lion's genes come to dominate the gene pool, and the gazelles go extinct because they did not gain an adaptation themselves - nature doesn't care that the equilibrium between lion and gazelle was broken. The lioness would not kill her cub before this could happen. Similarly, if a superbug caused the lions to die off through disease, nature doesn't seek to repopulate the lion to restore balance before the gazelles can run amok.

The vast majority of all species that have ever existed are now extinct. Extinctions don't just occur in mass cataclysms live meteor strikes, or climate change. They occur all the time. Evolution does not stop its processes when there is a supposed equilibrium, and an environment where extinctions are constantly occuring should not be described as "balanced".

The reader is making the same mistake the early naturalists did. They saw a snapshot of nature, and mistook it for equilibrium. They thought an ordered natural world was evidence of the work of a creator. But, the picture they saw was incomplete. Evolution demands that the balance is an illusion. Creatures evolve. Some thrive, others die off. New species develop and extinction destroys others. If you take a snapshot you don't see this. But, over time, it's obvious.

Species do not fill niches. The equilibrium cannot be "unrelated" to natural selection. Natural selection does not stop because there is balance. Natural selection is always operating. That's why the concept of equilibrium is false. The reader notes that if all bees died, the ecosystem would collapse. It's because the ecosystem evolved and adapted to the presence of bees. It's symbiotic, and the sudden removal of bees would cause a collapse for those who can't adapt. But natural selection could bring upon such a collapse and not care. Natural selection doesn't care if ecosystems thrive. Natural selection could drive an entire ecosystem into extinction if it produced a disease that blocked photosynthesis. Wouldn't that introduce imbalance into the system? But the Theory of Evolution dicates that it could happen.

Evolution doesn't always take hundreds of thousands of years. It can operate more quickly when there are massive impacts or when species make a leap. 

The natural world was constantly changing before there were humans, and would continue to change regardless of human influence. There was no Eden. There was no static creation that climate change would undermine. If the Earth were to warm this century (or cool), as it has done many times in the past, no Eden-like balance will have been overthrown. It would be just another environmental change the natural world would adapt to.

Of course, this evolutionary truth undermines the global warming alarmists claims. It's much easier to argue the "balanced" ecosystem will be overturned by a two degree temperature rise if we rely on a more static view of nature. Apparently, that is the view the reader was learning in the seventh grade, but it contradicts Darwinism. It's a rejection of the Theory of Evolution in order to advance the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It's the liberals' version of creationism.  

Comments

[Eric]

Well, best to take you on one statement at a time...

"The natural world cannot "seek" anything. It cannot "seek" order, balance or equilibrium. If you believe it does, and want to impute higher motives onto the natural world - then you are making a religious argument."

The term "seek" in my original context was used to depict the way things in nature tend to go. In nature, things tend toward equilibrium. It is a well recognized fact. Have you never heard the phrase "delicate balance" when referring to an ecosystem? Therefore, if things tend toward equilibrium, then one could say that nature seeks equilibrium. Understand? Probably not...

"If one accepts the Theory of Evolution - you have to accept all of it. You can not cherry-pick when evolution applies and when it does not. There is nothing in the theory that would suggest a goal of balance or equilibrium. "

Who's cherry-picking? Evolution has no goal. It's a system by which life behaves in a given environment. Quit it with your stupid strawman argument. It's pathetic.

"If a lioness gives birth to a vastly faster lion [...] The lioness would not kill her cub [...] Similarly, if a superbug caused the lions to die off through disease, nature doesn't seek to repopulate the lion [...]"

Well, that's a rather contrived example, but I'll play along. First of all, lions can already catch gazelles though teamwork. But lions couldn't possibly eat ALL the gazelle's. Perhaps this super lion that you made up would allow the lion population to increase which would impact the gazelle population which would cause the lions to seek food elsewhere. Maybe they'd start hunting each other. Maybe they'd start hunting elephant. Who the hell knows? The point is, the super-lion population will equalize over time to be sustainable within its environment. The population of prey only allows for a certain size predator population => Equilibrium.

And yes, the lioness will not kill her cubs, but nomadic male lions that oust an older male in a pride will kill the cubs of that male so they don't have to expend resources raising them. This is also related to equilibrium (as well as paternal certainty). There are limited resources on the savanna, and this is a form of population control that actually happens -- as opposed to your example.

"Species do not fill niches. The equilibrium cannot be "unrelated" to natural selection. Natural selection does not stop because there is balance. Natural selection is always operating."

You are so wrong. Species absolutely fill niches. How do you think birds of paradise evolved? These birds exist in an environment with very few predators and they evolved crazy mating behaviors. This is the very definition of niche because in any other environment, these birds would never have survived.

And Natural Selection is not always operating -- at least not in the traditional sense. Take our current human population. Using birthrate as a measure, the people who are considered least successful in our society are actually the ones that are most successfully evolutionarily. It's the poor people that breed the most. Humans are not threatened by any predators other than ourselves. There are no major environmental forces currently at work on the human population that would represent traditional natural selection. Look at all the homeless people. In a hunter-gatherer society, these people would have died off long ago. But they don't, so the gene pool is dulled and evolution stagnates.

"That's why the concept of equilibrium is false. The reader notes that if all bees died, the ecosystem would collapse. It's because the ecosystem evolved and adapted to the presence of bees. It's symbiotic, and the sudden removal of bees would cause a collapse for those who can't adapt."

You just contradicted yourself. First you say that equilibrium is false, then note that there is a symbiotic relationship. A symbiotic relationship is a form of equilibrium! Are you daft, man?

Take another real world example... Siafu ants in Africa. These massive ants come out of their nest every day and consume all life within a certain radius from the nest. Their population is directly related to the amount of food in the environment that can sustain the population of ants. Equilibrium. More food > More ants. Less food > less ants.

"But natural selection could bring upon such a collapse and not care. Natural selection doesn't care if ecosystems thrive. Natural selection could drive an entire ecosystem into extinction if it produced a disease that blocked photosynthesis."

You're contradicting yourself again. You started this whole argument off by saying that I was putting an anthropomorphic face on evolution. But here you are talking about Natural Selection not caring and spontaneously generating disease in order to collapse ecosystems.

"Wouldn't that introduce imbalance into the system? But the Theory of Evolution dicates that it could happen."

Here's where you misconstrue my argument because you have no where else to go. I never said that imbalance couldn't be introduced. I said that when imbalance IS introduced, it creates an opportunity for life to adapt or evolve to meet that imbalance.

"Evolution doesn't always take hundreds of thousands of years. It can operate more quickly when there are massive impacts or when species make a leap. "

Not necessarily hundreds of thousands. It can be hundreds or thousands, 10s of thousands or 100s of thousands. Generally, it's thousands. Now, don't confuse adaptation and evolution. They are 2 different things. Evolution generally involves genetic mutation while adaptation is basically a response to environmental changes within biological constraints.

"The natural world was constantly changing before there were humans, and would continue to change regardless of human influence. There was no Eden. There was no static creation that climate change would undermine. If the Earth were to warm this century (or cool), as it has done many times in the past, no Eden-like balance will have been overthrown. It would be just another environmental change the natural world would adapt to."

Adapt? As in seek equilibrium with one's environment? How about that...

Eden? Who the hell is talking about some dumb bible story? What nonsense are you trying to inject into this argument?

"Of course, this evolutionary truth undermines the global warming alarmists claims. It's much easier to argue the "balanced" ecosystem will be overturned by a two degree temperature rise if we rely on a more static view of nature."

'Evolutionary truth?' I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to. That life adapts? First of all, when massive changes happen to the environment, most life dies off. That's the issue here. Global warming, among other things, will lead to mass die offs. Now, that may be acceptable to you -- you may think burning fossil fuels is worth 70% of the life on the planet, but I don't.

"Apparently, that is the view the reader was learning in the seventh grade, but it contradicts Darwinism. It's a rejection of the Theory of Evolution in order to advance the theory of anthropogenic global warming. It's the liberals' version of creationism."

No, John. Why do you feel the need to distort my argument in order to make a point? It's rather pathetic. The concept that you should have learned in 7th grade science is that all ecosystems have a delicate balance that can be disrupted rather easily. Whether the life that exists in that ecosystem is able to adapt to the changes or not is irrelevant to the fact that the balance exists.

John, what this comes down to is that this is all just you justifying how climate change is just fine and dandy. And if you break it down further, this is all just you resisting change for your own selfish greed. You don't want to switch to renewable energy. It would mean gazillion dollars! Boo hoo. Waaahh. Poor baby john thinks renewable energy is bad. Better adapt!

You throw out these ridiculous arguments that there is no balance in nature (ha!), and come up with these massively contrived examples because you're too ignorant of the facts to actually pull one from reality. So, what it really comes down to is that you're a selfish, ignorant fool. You're just a smug, unhappy, whiny little republican and you'll make up any old bull**** argument to justify the nonsense in your ideology. You're pathetic.

[John Ennis]

Eric, I don't find the rebuttals presented in your comment to be persuasive. Many of them are flat out false (animals don't stabilize to sustainable populations, I didn't contradict myself on applying motives to natural selection, etc.).

I find your eugenics-like tangent on human evolution to be completely off-base. Your opinions were discredited decades ago.

Finally, when you resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and the like, you undermine the arguments you make. You lose credibility because all I'm thinking is "this guy doesn't have a proper rebuttal and name-calling is his only option."