en arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos (John ch. 1 v.1)

And a world in which sex-ratios were such as to largely frustrate the possibility and desire of forming permanent sexual unions between rational animals based on deeply intimate, personal love would also falsify theism, since that incoherent design would violate both rational and moral norms.

Jews had that much figured out long before Mr Fisher exploited the rational predictability of nature's design to come up with his theory of sex-ratios. Heck, an ancient Jew could predict a balanced sex-ratio just from reading the first book of the Torah:

The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh…."

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Fisher's theory merely elucidates why an omniscient, perfectly rational and perfectly good designer, concerned with fostering fulfilling, intimate relationships of love among created rational animals; and, with a view to creating richly diverse forms of life, designing just a single but very powerful biological program (—because the designer is very intelligent and would exploit the designer's perfect knowledge of natural laws that same designer had designed), would indeed be liable to design a program that would tend to keep sex-ratios close to 50-50. That is, Fisher's theory simply illuminates a rational, mathematical norm a perfectly rational and moral designer of intelligent, morally conscious physical life would certainly understand and be guided by.

By contrast, given nothing but an impersonally governed Nature, the chances of reason and morality (and hence such norms) even arising are miniscule. You can't get reason unintentionally arising from a starting point of unreason, nor moral value from physics and chemistry.

Except maybe, if there's some Magical Multiverse Mystery Tour designed (oops!) to indulge that rather oxymoronic thing—–a materialist's matterdidit fantasies.

But even then it's only a maybe, depending as it does on whether materialist philosophy of mind is true. So, er, yes, that is a pretty big maybe, as maybes go.

Oh, plus, multiverses aren't the most ontologically economical things I've ever heard of. So there's that.

Some atheists—-J. L. Mackie and a host of others—–have recognized this naturalistically underivable character of reason and moral value quite openly, and essentially argue that in consequence, reason and moral value are not really, well, real, but are simply epiphenomenal illusions caused by many contingent events in our evolutionary history. (Elsewhere in the universe, evolutionary histories may be drastically different from ours, etc, etc.) Whenever I come across atheists lambasting religious types for irrationality or morally bad conduct, I always remember that many of their co-religionists in the Church of Materialism think reason and morality are illusions. And then I chuckle.

But for more elaboration on the predictable character of theism's God, and why common descent doesn't support a non-ID inference, go here, and here and and here.

Here's an excerpt from the first of those:

…Every single theistic philosopher and theologian I have read in the past 30 years (and I've read a lot, including all the best known ones) would categorically deny that the God they believe in can be properly, helpfully, meaningfully or accurately characterized as an unpredictable force. Every single one.

The God they all believe in and write about is supremely and perfectly and hence predictably good, rational, wise, providential, and loving. It's only imperfect beings that may act in irrationally unpredictable ways. Thus they would all strongly deny that we cannot rationally (I'm not saying infallibly) predict how God, being perfectly rational, will act; because there is some commonality between God's perfect or unlimited rationality and our imperfect or limited rationality. Analogously, scientists can make rational predictions without having a perfect understanding of the physical world…

….The theistic tradition is that God has an eternal character, one that models, instantiates, and is the ultimate ontological source of what even almost all atheists 'believe in'"”namely, Reason and Morality….

That's odd. I don't feel flummoxed. Saul Kripke would likely say that entails that I'm not flummoxed.

You're funny when you're flummoxed.

How would you falsify God as the "designer" of a particular sex ratio?

Here's another good one.

Did you run out of arguments, sunshine?

2. What kind of omniscient being wouldn't know anything about Fisher's theory of sex ratios?

3. What kind of ancient Jew, reading the first book of the Torah, would conclude from that reading that it was equally likely that God intended a 99-to-1 human sex ratio as that God intended a 50-50 ratio?

The correct answer to all three questions is, of course, one whose dumbness was of keithsian proportions.

So Fisher's explanation should not be used as an argument for evolutionary naturalism or against ID, since ancient Jews could predict a balanced sex-ratio just from reading the first book of the Torah.

stunney,

I'm amazed that you would try to argue that Fisher's theory and Genesis amount to equivalent explanations of observed sex ratios.

Fisher's theory explains exactly how the mechanism of natural selection will preserve a sex ratio of 50-50 when parental investment in male and female offspring is equal.

Genesis says "God did it."

Fisher's theory explains only the 50-50 ratio. It cannot explain a 75-25 or 100-1 ratio if the parental investment in sons and daughters remains equal.

"God did it", by contrast, can explain anything. 75-25? God did it. 100-1? God did it. Three sexes instead of two? God did it. Parthenogenesis in humans? God did it. No parthenogenesis in humans? God did it.

It seems that stunney still does not realize that if a theory can be used to explain every observation, including contradictory ones, then it explains nothing. It is not falsifiable.

What I find interesting about many of the criticisms that Myers, Dawkins, Harris, and others lodge is that they are the very same ones that many prominent theologians have raised over the years

That is what annoys me most about them.

They present centuries old questions as if they are some sort of new insight they have had, and they present the most basic version of the objection that has been answered and examined and found wanting in the past.

But hey, that is apparently the best they can manage. Anything more would require reading

I don't have a problem with the idea of sex ratios being explained,

…Good that it can be represented mathematically, but not something that is "explained by evolutionary theory".

An intelligent designer might have good reasons of his own for wanting balanced sex-ratios, and for choosing evolutionary mechanisms to yield that desired, designed outcome. So Fisher's explanation should not be used as an argument for evolutionary naturalism or against ID, since ancient Jews could predict a balanced sex-ratio just from reading the first book of the Torah.

Even assuming naturalism and no ID, I have questions about the timescale needed for Fisher's theorized mechanism to work, and whether cultural choices plus genetic stability could counteract the predicted outcome for a long period of time.

See here and here for elaboration.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sex ratios being explained, the problem is that it seems like the theory is being produced that fits the data points. Much like painting the bullseye around where the arrow hits.

Could you point to the arbitrary steps in Fisher's argument (i.e. the ones that amount to "painting the bullseye around where the arrow hits")?

[Although perhaps we should continue this on the latest Rabbit thread, out of courtesy to the folks on this thread.]

On the other hand, if you are finding it difficult, and if you are beginning to realize, as I suspect you might be, that Fisher's theory makes sense and is anything but a just-so story, then don't feel obligated to produce a theory. Just have the courage to admit you were wrong, and we'll drop the subject.

Well i'm happy to concede that I may have overstated the ease of making the numbers work.

I don't have a problem with the idea of sex ratios being explained, the problem is that it seems like the theory is being produced that fits the data points. Much like painting the bullseye around where the arrow hits. Good that it can be represented mathematically, but not something that is "explained by evolutionary theory". Quite the opposite really.

Are you really interested in seeing an answer ?

Well, you said Fisher's theory was a just-so story, and you agreed that it would be easy to come up with an alternative theory to explain any particular sex ratio, so it's not like I've asked you to do anything difficult.

On the other hand, if you are finding it difficult, and if you are beginning to realize, as I suspect you might be, that Fisher's theory makes sense and is anything but a just-so story, then don't feel obligated to produce a theory. Just have the courage to admit you were wrong, and we'll drop the subject.