How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

[Purple Knight]

This is not a question of whether or not evolution is crazy, but how crazy it seems at first glance.

That is, when we discard our experiences and look at claims as if through new eyes, what do we find when we look at evolution? I Believe we can find a great deal of common ground with this question, because when I discard my experience as an animal breeder, when I discard my knowledge, and what I've been taught, I might look at evolution with the same skepticism as someone who has either never been taught anything about it, or someone who has been taught to distrust it.

Personally my mind goes to the keratinised spines on the tongues of cats. Yes, cats have fingernails growing out of their tongues! Gross, right? Well, these particular fingernails have evolved into perfect little brushes for the animal's fur. But I think of that first animal with a horrid growth of keratin on its poor tongue. The poor thing didn't die immediately, and this fits perfectly with what I said about two steps back paying for one forward. This detrimental mutation didn't hurt the animal enough for the hapless thing to die of it, but surely it caused some suffering. And persevering thing that he was, he reproduced despite his disability (probably in a time of plenty that allowed that). But did he have the growths anywhere else? It isn't beyond reason to think of them protruding from the corners of his eyes or caking up more and more on the palms of his hands. Perhaps he had them where his eyelashes were, and it hurt him to even blink. As disturbing as my mental picture is of this scenario, this sad creature isn't even as bad off as this boar, whose tusks grew up and curled until they punctured his brain.





This is a perfect example of a detrimental trait being preserved because it doesn't hurt the animal enough to kill it before it mates. So we don't have to jump right from benefit to benefit. The road to a new beneficial trait might be long, going backwards most of the way, and filled with a lot of stabbed brains and eyelids.

Walking backwards most of the time, uphill both ways, and across caltrops almost the entire trip?

I have to admit, thinking about walking along such a path sounds like, at very least, a very depressing way to get from A to B. I would hope there would be a better way.

[brunumb]

While I respect the sage advice, I like watching the trainwreck of excuses.

I'm learning how to avoid answering the pretty thing when I get in trouble.

I didn't really mean otherwise. Sit at the edge of the rabbit hole and watch but don't go down chasing the bunny. I'm suddenly reminded of the sirens in "The Odyssey" who lured sailors to their destruction with a plaintive (?) or alluring song.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Neither do you, or you wouldn'ta littered these pages without ever presenting these 'scientists', or these 'problems' for critical analysis.

Face it, your argument ain't nothing more'n "I swear it y'all, it's just I can't offer no reason to believe me."

It's so darn easy for some to make sweeping claims, refuse to meet the burden of proof by backing them up, then stand back and blame the audience for not doing their work for them.

The term "proof" is interesting and key to what we've been discussing. You see "proof" has to be agreed between us, if I say X proves Y and you say it does not, where does that leave us?

This is the core of these kinds of debates, one party claims that something proves a case and the other denies that it does, that is pretty much what happens and this goes on and on, back and forth achieving zero.

So its inappropriate to try to take the moral high ground here, to claim that you've repeatedly asked me for proof and I've repeatedly failed to present any, that is not what's been happening here.

Over the decades of engaging theists on discussion forums I have seen this strategy used numerous times. It only ends in frustration and wasted time. If you had a winning case wouldn't you slam it down on the table with pride? The truth is that they have nothing of substance but seem to gain satisfaction from keeping you dangling. Time to pull the plug on this one.

This isn't a game of cards with unambiguous rules to decide a "winning case" so why imply that it is? Who decides if what I show you does or does not prove my case? who decides if what I show you is or is not a "winning" case? you? me? a majority vote?

[Sherlock Holmes]

While I respect the sage advice, I like watching the trainwreck of excuses.

I'm learning how to avoid answering the pretty thing when I get in trouble.

I didn't really mean otherwise. Sit at the edge of the rabbit hole and watch but don't go down chasing the bunny. I'm suddenly reminded of the sirens in "The Odyssey" who lured sailors to their destruction with a plaintive (?) or alluring song.

How about answering some of the important questions I just asked? see my prior reply to you.

Proof involves three things: 1. An advocate (a proposition), 2. A skeptic (a counter argument), 3. An unambiguous set of agreed rules that can decide which of the two is correct.

We do not have 3. the only "rule" I've seen mentioned is one about popularity, that if I propose X and the majority of scientists disagree with X then I am wrong and X is false, this is the only rule that's emerged from my discussion with several of you here.

I simply do not accept that rule, I regard it as utterly irrelevant, and I refuse to submit to and be told by anyone that any evidence I present can only be called evidence if you choose to regard it as evidence.

That's not equitable, not one bit.

[The Barbarian]

And still we see no mention at all of the (apparently imaginary) "problems" with evolutionary theory. I even tried to help you by mentioning some real ones that scientists are still working on.

Want to pick one of those, if you're still too shy to mention whatever you have in mind?

[Sherlock Holmes]

And still we see no mention at all of the (apparently imaginary) "problems" with evolutionary theory. I even tried to help you by mentioning some real ones that scientists are still working on.

See my recent replies to brunumb, if things are still unclear let me know.

Want to pick one of those, if you're still too shy to mention whatever you have in mind?

Ditto.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #175]

The only "rule" I've seen mentioned is one about popularity, that if I propose X and the majority of scientists disagree with X then I am wrong and X is false, this is the only rule that's emerged from my discussion with several of you here.

You are equating scientific consensus with "popularity", and the two are not equivalent. This intentional (as you've done it several times now) misrepresentation doesn't help your argument because it is so clearly wrong. Scientific consensus arises when a hypothesis is presented, it is tested, challenged, refined if needed, etc. until there is general agreement that the hypothesis is correct. And not just scientists are allowed to challenge a hypothesis ... anyone can do this. But they have to support their challenges with evidence and arguments that demonstrate their correctness.

A scientific hypothesis is not simply voted on like a beauty pageant, which is an example of a popularity contest. There is no single definition of beauty that can be applied in a rigorous fashion to determine whether or not someone is "beautiful." It is a subjective quality. The initial hypotheses for evolution have been tested and challenged for well over a century now, and found to be valid via empirical evidence ... not simple popularity. But you continue to characterize it as if it has reached scientific consensus due to popluarity alone. No one else here is making that claim.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #174]

Who decides if what I show you does or does not prove my case? who decides if what I show you is or is not a "winning" case? you? me? a majority vote?

The science community would decide if you were to actually bring your ideas forward in an appropriate journal or other respected forum for introducing such ideas. But if you only post them on internet discussion forums you aren't likely to get the science community to investigate them and you end up as here with other participants challenging your claims and going back and forth.

The biggest issue you have so far, in my view, is that you won't get specific on these objections to evolution you keep mentioning, and continue to dodge that issue at every turn. Pick what you think is the most valid and serious objection to evolution, throw it out for discussion, and see where the debate goes. At least then there would be something specific to debate.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #175]

The only "rule" I've seen mentioned is one about popularity, that if I propose X and the majority of scientists disagree with X then I am wrong and X is false, this is the only rule that's emerged from my discussion with several of you here.

You are equating scientific consensus with "popularity", and the two are not equivalent.

Very well, refer to it thus if you wish.

This intentional (as you've done it several times now) misrepresentation doesn't help your argument because it is so clearly wrong.

Why does "popularity" bother you so much? by definition the "generally accepted opinion" (a dictionary definition of consensus) is the most popular opinion.

Scientific consensus arises when a hypothesis is presented, it is tested, challenged, refined if needed, etc. until there is general agreement that the hypothesis is correct.

Yes I know, there is a great deal of reasonable supporting evidence for evolution, I've said this several times now.

And not just scientists are allowed to challenge a hypothesis ... anyone can do this. But they have to support their challenges with evidence and arguments that demonstrate their correctness.

Yes I know that too.

A scientific hypothesis is not simply voted on like a beauty pageant, which is an example of a popularity contest.

This is not true, there are many surveys on evolution and how people feel, there are votes for/against this is where the statistics for this come from.

There is no single definition of beauty that can be applied in a rigorous fashion to determine whether or not someone is "beautiful." It is a subjective quality. The initial hypotheses for evolution have been tested and challenged for well over a century now, and found to be valid via empirical evidence ... not simple popularity.

This is not relevant though, you continue to want to talk only about observations that are consistent with evolution, the "testing" you talk about is confined to tests that evolution passes not those that it fails.

This selectivity is typical in debates and discussions I had with evolution advocates.

But you continue to characterize it as if it has reached scientific consensus due to popluarity alone. No one else here is making that claim.

Whether it be consensus or naïve popularity matters not, a majority opinion is no guarantee of correctness, no matter what process may have led to that majority.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #174]

Who decides if what I show you does or does not prove my case? who decides if what I show you is or is not a "winning" case? you? me? a majority vote?

The science community would decide if you were to actually bring your ideas forward in an appropriate journal or other respected forum for introducing such ideas.

There's no such body or organization named "The science community" unless you mean the community of scientists that believe evolution, is that what you meant? or are you referring to the majority of scientists again?

But if you only post them on internet discussion forums you aren't likely to get the science community to investigate them and you end up as here with other participants challenging your claims and going back and forth.

Yet I'm not trying "to get the science community to investigate them" that's not my objective in this discussion.

The biggest issue you have so far, in my view, is that you won't get specific on these objections to evolution you keep mentioning, and continue to dodge that issue at every turn.

Because there's no point, the issues I raise - by your definition - will not tally with the "scientific community" and it's "consensus" and since that is your criteria for evaluating the validity of a scientific claim you'll conclude I am wrong so what's the point?

Pick what you think is the most valid and serious objection to evolution, throw it out for discussion, and see where the debate goes. At least then there would be something specific to debate.

Why can't you pick what you think is the most serious objection? or do you simply want to claim there are none?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #180]

Why does "popularity" bother you so much?

Because you are falsly equating it to scientific consensus.

This is not true, there are many surveys on evolution and how people feel, there are votes for/against this is where the statistics for this come from.

A survey on how people feel is not how scientific consensus is reached. That is how popularity is arrived at. Don't you see the glaring difference between the two?

This is not relevant though, you continue to want to talk only about observations that are consistent with evolution, the "testing" you talk about is confined to tests that evolution passes not those that it fails.

Yet again, give us an example of a test that evolution fails, and why. Kent Hovind has all kinds of arguments against evolution and spews them out at every chance. But they all have been shot down. Of course, his reasons are always because of some biblical conflict so his only justification is that holy book (ie. anything that contradicts the literal interpretation of the bible is by definition (in his head) wrong). But you seem to be referring to nonreligious objections, the specifics of which you avoid posting.

Whether it be consensus or naïve popularity matters not, a majority opinion is no guarantee of correctness, no matter what process may have led that majority.

Sure, but if majority opinion is wrong it will eventually be shown to be wrong (eg. the heliocentric model of our solar system) when technology, observations, measurements, etc. are able to arrive at an explanation that is consistent with the observations. We have the technology to show that evolution is correct and consistent with observations. You can't seem to knock any holes in it other than vague references to objections that are out there somewhere that presumably have yet to be investigated by the scientists working in the field.