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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Q: What is the Creationists problem with Cambrien explosion?

Why do you think it is a problem only for "creationists"?

[Jose Fly]

[William]

[Jose Fly]

I think there's a thin line between teaching science and teaching truth, this is the crux of my point. We should encourage students to not regard scientific theories as absolute truths, we should remind them - and often - that these are all models, human crafted models that could be wrong despite any strong correlation with observation.

Do you have any specific information showing that are doing otherwise?

I'd introduce Philosophy as a core subject as is done in many parts of Europe.

That's it? All this talk and complaining about science teachers being "censored" and the like, but when asked what specifically you'd change you reply with "require philosophy class"? Okay then.

Well I don't know if that would happen, I mean were talking about a discipline where the literature is filled with "evolution is a fact" either explicitly or implicitly

Again, evolution is a fact. We've seen populations evolve new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. We both exploit (domestication) and fight against (bacterial resistance) evolution all the time. If you're having trouble coming to terms with that, I have to ask.....why?

this tells me that the subject itself takes a very defensive position, almost intolerant of hard criticism, that doesn't inspire me with confidence. Those challenging it or challenging aspects of it are routinely disparaged, one need only call them "creationists" and the ridicule begins, then its a simple matter to dismiss their arguments as the ranting of a "Bible thumpers" and so on.

Well given the history of this subject, isn't that at least a somewhat reasonable assumption? Pretty much every anti-evolution organization that's existed has had an overt religious motive.

What specifically is your motivation on this? Are you a Christian? If so, how do you interpret the Genesis creation account? Are you a young-earth creationist? Old-earth creationist? Something else?

Sure, the list Dissent from Darwin with over a thousand signatures of professors, teachers, researchers is one such I suppose.

Um....first of all, the list is not an organization (which is what I asked for). So I'll take that as a tacit admission that there are no scientific organizations that disagree with the others regarding evolution.

Second, the "Dissent from Darwin" statement merely says, "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

That's not exactly a controversial statement. It presents only mutation and selection as mechanisms of evolution, which is rather weird. It also references "Darwinian theory", which depending on the audience can mean very different things, but there's no indication of which one the statement is referring to. Is it speciation via anagenesis? Gradualism? Pan-selectionism? Something else?

So if you're trying to put this list on the same level the world's national academies of science, I'm not sure what to say other than that's rather absurd.

I think we need to clear this up. Do you believe that no population has ever evolved? Not one has ever evolved a new trait, ability, or genetic sequence? Not one new species has ever been observed to evolve?

I do not know

Um......since you claim to have done all sorts of research into evolutionary biology, how can you not have ever come across any papers that describe the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, or species? I hope you realize how this calls your claim into question. It's like someone claiming to have read the Bible but they don't know if there was someone named Jesus Christ in it.

that change takes place is inarguable given the mechanism of genetics; that we can infer that all life is the result of that starting with say bacteria, is a different claim altogether

Are you then okay with the concept of populations evolving over time, but you object to the concept of universal common ancestry?

That right there is evidence not of evolution though. Most of the phyla we see today appear more or less simultaneously, already differentiated from one another with still no trace of common ancestry, that right there is evidence that something other than evolution caused these things to exist.

What you're referring to is "universal common ancestry", i.e., the theory that all life on earth shares a common ancestry.

Why, tell me why, I should believe each of the phyla had an ancestry, that any pair of phyla had a common ancestor when there is no trace of them? Isn't it the atheist who refuses to believe without evidence? well they contentedly believe without evidence all the time it seems to me!

First, I have to ask again....are you equating evolution with atheism? Second, IMO it's important to first understand your beliefs about this issue, so if you could answer the questions I asked above that'd help a lot.

Let me also emphasize something it is paleontologists who label this an "explosion" not just skeptics, in their eyes this appears to have been a dramatic sudden event, that is what "the scientific community" says.

And "sudden" is used in relative (i.e., geologic) terms, correct?

Also, what exactly are you referring to when you use the term "evolution"? For clarity's sake, I'm using the term as it is commonly used in biology, i.e., as a reference to changes in allele frequencies in populations over time.

="Sherlock Holmes"]I'm referring to the hypothesis that life can increase in sophistication and function due to random mutation and natural selection operating over great lengths of time. That in principle a bacteria colony could - in time - give rise to fish say.

Where did you get that definition?

Yes I have read several of those reviews, many of them were rebutted by Meyer.

And none of it has had any impact on the actual science of evolutionary biology, has it?

If a culture has been subliminally taught that "evolution is a fact" that those who question it are "creationists" (with all the connotations that carries these days) then is it any surprise that you'll see only a small number of scientists considering the book with an open mind? basically the evolution lobby has succeeded in discrediting critics simply on the basis that they are critics, what they have to say or argue is routinely dismissed as this and similar forums prove.

Do you see that as a deliberate, coordinated conspiracy?

[Jose Fly]

[William]

[Jose Fly]

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #317]

Okay, thanks for your input.

Not a problem.
Hopefully it will assist you with future expressions.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[brunumb]

I think there's a thin line between teaching science and teaching truth, this is the crux of my point. We should encourage students to not regard scientific theories as absolute truths, we should remind them - and often - that these are all models, human crafted models that could be wrong despite any strong correlation with observation.

And the level of support that we have for scientific theories takes us far closer to the truth than ancient, human crafted tales of gods and miracles.