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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

[JoeyKnothead]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

Lol

Now that your source gets called out as working for folks who seek to establish a theocracy in the US, you don't wish to engage.

Don't fret though, you ain't the only theist I've seen who gives up on a discussion when it takes a turn they're not prepared to consider.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

Lol

Now that your source gets called out as working for folks who seek to establish a theocracy in the US, you don't wish to engage.

Don't fret though, you ain't the only theist I've seen who gives up on a discussion when it takes a turn they're not prepared to consider.

We're done talking because you are an unchallenging debating opponent. The last response said absolutely nothing about anything Berlinski said, instead you launch an ad-hominem attack.

If you want to critique the Discovery Institute then start a thread about that, don't derail this one which is primarily concerned with aspects of evolution that some scientists regard as a problem.

It is you who "gives up on a discussion" by focusing on what organizations Berlinski is associated with rather than the issues he raised, that's not a scientific debate.

Since you are under probation perhaps I too can safely dismiss everything and anything you say, sounds equitable, yes?

You cannot evaluate a proposition in science based on the attributes of the person making it, whether it be what clubs they attend, who they date, whether they have a criminal record, whether they've ever been under probation, what clothes they wear, what their politics is, as soon as you do that you disqualify yourself, this focus on the person rather than their argument is unhealthy and worrying, Trump does it all the time so you're in good company.

[Jose Fly]

Why do you need to talk about that analogy? I also don't reagrd the earth as being flat (although locally it is, this is an important point in relativity by the way) so a better anlogy is something we disagree on.

Like I said, because it's an apt analogy. Both are denials of well established and long standing science, primarily for religious reasons.

I also object to you saying "for religious reasons". First even if that were true it's irrelevant, its called the genetic fallacy, that the reason for some view somehoew show the view to be untrue or suspect, its a fallacious argument.

Incorrect. It would be a genetic fallacy if I said something like "Your position is based on religion, therefore it is wrong". I've not said anything like that at all.

If you are at a loss for words then how is that my doing?

Because your argument that it isn't anti-scientific for AiG to mandate that their employees reject any data that even appears to contradict the Bible is so utterly bizarre and absurd, I'm not sure how to respond.

It is not anti scientific to apply some kind of interpretation to what we observe, there is always that interpretation whether its explicit or implicit. If you were to observe something that is consistent with evolution then would you interpret that as being evidence of evolution? Yes of course, you would not say "Hmm this looks just like what I'd expect if evolution were at work here but I want to leave open the possibility that it is not evolution, it might be evidence of God for all I know"? No, you would interpret the data as shedding light on evolution, because it has some consistency with the expectations of evolution.

This is what I mean. That you see their statement of faith a merely "some kind of interpretation" akin to how actual science organizations operate is.....well.....bizarre and absurd. It's just ridiculous, and I don't know if you appreciate it but it seriously calls into question your ability to think about and discuss this subject rationally.

And since you insist on concealing your own views, I'm assuming that the reason you've been defending AiG's statement of faith is because you agree with it.

Why? all organizations have rules of membership, unless those rules call for one to be dishonest, falsify data and so on, then the presence of rules has no bearing on whether science is being undertaken.

Seriously? You really think that it's the mere existence of rules, regardless of what those rules actually are, that led me to conclude that AiG isn't a scientific organization? Again, that's so weird and ridiculous I don't know how to respond.....except to point out how absurd and ridiculous it is.

As I said before (and you've seemed to ignored) the majority of those who drove the scientific revolution were Christians, they held to the tenets of whatever Church they were members of, this is true of Galileo, Newton and so on, were these people not doing science in your opinion? Did the fact that they agreed to these ecclesiastical rules prevent them from doing science?

According to your reasoning they were not real scientists, they could not have done real science, perhaps you should write to the Royal Society, Nobel Institute, in fact perhaps all of these international science organizations and warn them that most of the science we've been believing for the past four hundred years is bogus because it was done by people who were creationists.

Same thing....that you apparently think my conclusion about AiG not being a scientific organization is merely because they're Christians is just....well....weird, bizarre, and ridiculous.

Being a Christian and being vocal about why one is a Christian is not in any way incompatible with being a scientist, do you agree with that?

Yes. I have colleagues who are Christian and also fine scientists. Try and remember that.

Most of the folks I’ve talked with about this issue made it clear that they really don’t care all that much about it; it’s just not really relevant to their daily lives. The main ones who do care are either folks who work in science (and thus are interested in defending science) or are Biblical creationists who see science education as a threat to their prospects of gaining converts.

Note how you seem to think "are either folks who work in science" and "or are Biblical creationists who see science education as a threat to their prospects of gaining converts"!

So what about scientists who are creationists? or is that an oxymoron in your world view? (despite the historic facts I mentioned earlier).

Please pay closer attention to what I write. I specifically referred to "most of the folks I've talked with about this issue".

Wait….is it your position that Cambrian-era organisms appeared in a flash….literally “instantaneously”? If that’s what you mean, then no I don’t see that as reasonably possible.

Even if the evidence is consistent with that and has been since Darwin?

You completely dodged my question. Again, is it your position that Cambrian-era organisms appeared in a flash….literally “instantaneously”?

No it doesn't, this is supposition.

Huh? Are you denying that every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species that we've seen arise has done so via evolution? If so, can you provide an example of one of those things arising via non-evolutionary means?

The compound eye in early Cambrian life is but one example where evolution is assumed, ineferred. How can you show that every ability, trait or gene arose because of evolution? where you present to watch 550 million years ago? It is therefore inferred.

Again please pay closer attention to what I write. I specifically referred to traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species that we've seen arise.

Constantly implying, STATING, that inferences are facts is not science, no other scientific disciplines abuses the terms to this extent. Why is it that evolutionists routinely do this? other disciplines don't seem to suffer frome the insecurities that the evolution club does.

Can you provide a specific example of what you're referring to?

I see and an example would be?

Finches (in the wild): https://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20141

Fruit flies (in the lab): https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14519211/

Lizards (in the lab): https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011 ... hort?rss=1

There is a scientific debate, what do you call this discussion we are having? what do you call the various rebuttals were to Meyer's book? what do you call the many debates between people like Dawkins, Hitchens, Krauss, Lennox, Craig, Atkins are if they are not debates!

FYI, people debating things online does not mean there is an actual "scientific debate" about those things. If it did, then we'd have to say that there are "scientific debates" about whether the earth is flat and all sorts of crazy things. Genuine scientific debates about scientific issues take place in the professional journals or at conferences.

Within the relevant scientific community, there is zero debate about the validity of creationism. As I said, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

No it is absolutely not relevant. When students hand you their papers or homework do you ask them if they are creationists? do you ask them if they believe in God, before you mark their paper? I work at a large university and I think we both know the correct answer to this question...

Sorry, but in this sort of discussion, what you believe and how you approach this issue is indeed relevant, especially when you've anointed yourself to be an expert in the subject and qualified to examine and pass judgement on the work of actual experts. So if you're harboring significant biases, that's important to know, don't you think?

The fact that you are intent on concealing your own views is very notable IMO.

I want to discuss the science, the facts, the data, the fossil record, etc you want to discuss my beliefs? my views on the Bible? this is what I was talking about, the thought police.

LOL.....you're not making sense. I'm not telling you what you can and can't believe or think (FYI that's what "thought police" refers to). I'm simply asking what your views on this are. Apparently you're rather frightened to say, which again is quite notable.

Also I have to ask....why are you seeking a discussion about paleontology and evolutionary biology in an internet message board that's specifically about "debating Christianity"? Doesn't that strike you as a little misguided? Were you expecting to encounter paleontologists here?

So you no longer want to talk about the Cambrian, the challenges facing evolution theory, as is often the case in these discussions the evolutionist wants to talk about the motives, beliefs of his opponent, you do realize that this is the standard definition of an ad-hominem attack? it is fallacious in a debate.

You should pay closer attention to what constitutes the fallacies you keep citing. An ad hominem fallacy would be something like "You're dumb, so you're wrong", or in this context "You're a creationist, therefore you're wrong". I've done nothing of the sort and am simply attempting to gauge how you approach this topic. But for whatever reason, you have chose to conceal that info, which doesn't reflect well on you.

Also, as I noted earlier I am a biologist but I'm not a paleontologist nor am I an evolutionary biologist. So while I'm fine with discussing the Cambrian, let's not lose sight of what this really is.....two people with effectively no expertise in paleontology, debating paleontology.

Finally, I have to ask again....why did you choose a forum entitled "debating Christianity" as the place to "leave a public record" about this topic? Wouldn't you be better served by going to a site where there are actual experts in the subject? Also, I hope you appreciate how silly it is for you to refuse to state your views relative to creationism in a specifically Christian forum.

I presented the dissenters list in response to a question I believe.

You attempted to present it as an example of a scientific organization disagreeing with the world's academies of science on evolution. That obviously failed (the list doesn't constitute a scientific organization, and it doesn't deny evolution).

I see, so collectives that deny evolution are "propaganda" but those who affirm it are not? The fact is there is propaganda that is pro evolution and there is propaganda that is ant evolution, this is true, people write for audiences and influencing that audience is their objective, this is not unique to "creationists".

The list is propaganda because it is misleading and is typically presented in a misleading manner. As I showed, the statement doesn't deny or even question evolution, yet it's frequently presented as if it represents a widespread disagreement within the scientific community about evolution (similar to how you tried to present it). That's propaganda. If you have a specific example of the same thing from "pro evolution" folks, then present it.

That's right, I did not answer the question because once again you are eager to change the subject

Bizarre. We're discussing evolution and I asked you if you believe that no population has evolved ever, and to you that's changing the subject? Again, you deliberately hiding your views on this subject doesn't reflect well on you.

rather than talk about the glaring abyss that the Cambrian represents you want to talk about something else. The fact is that even if there was convincing evidence that a new species did evolve, even if there was convincing evidence that genes changed over time, that cannot help with the Cambrian.

I'm fine with discussing the Cambrian, but in doing so it'd help if you actually participated in the discussion in good faith, rather than dodging questions, refusing to state your own views, and the like. Plus, given that neither of us have any expertise in paleontology, I'm not sure what sort of discussion you're expecting.

I'm asking about over the course of the history of life on earth, do you believe that no population ever evolved a new trait, ability, genetic sequence, or species?

I don't know, this is why I asked for an example of what you mean.

I'm not sure what part of what I said is tripping you up. Which of the terms I used did you not understand?

So rather than explain 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?" Instead you ask me what the alternative might be? what other mechanism might be?

I take it then, that you are saying one should believe the Cambrian ancestors existed because if one did not one would need another explanation, but we don't have another explanation, therefore we must believe it was evolution despite there being no evidence.

You call that a scientific argument? You'll notice that I have not speculated on the cause of the Cambrian, I don't know the cause of the Cambrian (and I've said this several times) I am simply confident that evolution is untenable in the cold light of day.

Your concern (it seems) is that there is no palatable alternative to evolution so we must cling to evolution despite absence of evidence, evidence matters to you, the lack of evidence does not, it is glossed over, apparent not real, nothing to worry about!

Again, let me see if I have this straight.....you're expecting a full write-up of the all the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian fauna, with a full explanation of ancestor-descendant relationships including full descriptions of how those relationships were derived? And you feel the best place to get such a write-up is at a "debating Christianity" message board? Do you really think that's reasonable?

As I noted before, at a very basic level (i.e., your and my non-expert level) it's a reasonable inference. Every single new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've ever seen arise has done so via evolution. We've never observed any other process generate those things. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude that the same is true of the past. When we look at the fossil record and we see new traits and species appear, it's reasonable to conclude that they came about via evolution.

Now to reiterate....that's at a very basic level. Don't try and twist that into me saying that that's the full state of the science or anything like that. If you want a deeper, more detailed discussion of actual specimens and the like, then.....well....you're in the wrong place dude. I can refer you to some better places online where you can interact with actual experts if you'd like.

Yes that's the typical time window I've seen mentioned. They regard the "unannounced" (their term) appearance (insofar as the fossils and strata are concerned) during that time frame to be "sudden" so sudden they use the term "explosion" for it. It seems they expect such complexity and diversity to arise over a much longer period, given that for most of the preceding 3.5 billion years little more than bacteria and very simple life is all that existed.

Okay, so "over millions of years" is not "instantaneously" is it? IOW, no one in the relevant fields thinks Cambrian organisms appeared "instantaneously", correct?

That's how I'm using the term here.

Fine, but keep in mind that I will continue to use the term as it is most commonly used in biology (rather than your made-up definition).

Scientists are humans, they have egos, they can love, hate and lie as much as any other profession. The question should be why would anyone do that sort of thing, being a scientist does not impute some high standard of morality over the rest of the human race.

Exactly....they're just like any other group of people doing their jobs. So there's no reason to think they're exceptionally nefarious and are engaged in some sort of cover up or suppression of information.

[Sherlock Holmes]

No it is absolutely not relevant. When students hand you their papers or homework do you ask them if they are creationists? do you ask them if they believe in God, before you mark their paper? I work at a large university and I think we both know the correct answer to this question...

Sorry, but in this sort of discussion, what you believe and how you approach this issue is indeed relevant, especially when you've anointed yourself to be an expert in the subject and qualified to examine and pass judgement on the work of actual experts. So if you're harboring significant biases, that's important to know, don't you think?

You never answered my question, do you or do you not ask your students? and - whatever your answer is - why?

Explain to me please how exactly do you decide when evaluating a proposition about science, whether the motives and beliefs of the proponent are a necessary part of that evaluation process?

The desire to dwell on someone's personal beliefs or biases is nothing more than a means of discrediting an argument that you cannot discredit scientifically, objectively.

You're on a slippery slope here and I if were a science student of yours reading this I think I'd be somewhat alarmed at your words, that if I hold some belief, bias, preference that you disapprove of, I might get bad marks.

As soon as you seek information on my biases you introduce the risk that they might conflict with your biases.

By refusing, avoiding any mention of our respective beliefs and biases we eliminate any prospect that such conflict might thwart the pursuit of objectivity.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #345]

FYI, people debating things online does not mean there is an actual "scientific debate" about those things. If it did, then we'd have to say that there are "scientific debates" about whether the earth is flat and all sorts of crazy things. Genuine scientific debates about scientific issues take place in the professional journals or at conferences.

Within the relevant scientific community, there is zero debate about the validity of creationism. As I said, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.


The relevant scientific community = 360
The Entity I Am - The Entity You Are
Where are we getting our news from?

Do The Science

[Jose Fly]

You never answered my question, do you or do you not ask your students? and - whatever your answer is - why?

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not a teacher; I don't have students.

Explain to me please how exactly do you decide when evaluating a proposition about science, whether the motives and beliefs of the proponent are a necessary part of that evaluation process?

Sure. When one of my fellow biologists writes up a draft manuscript, they'll usually share it with colleagues and ask them to review it before they send it in for formal peer review and publication. If someone in our circle is well known for being very biased with certain subjects (as has happened), then oftentimes they won't be selected to pre-review the draft. And if a journal is looking for experts to conduct the formal peer review, if they get wind that someone is very biased on the subject of the manuscript, then they won't be selected to be part of the review team.

Now, if in selecting reviewers (either informally or formally) they come across someone who goes out of their way to conceal their views and approach to not only the subject at hand, but science in general.....FYI that's even worse. So someone behaving like you in this thread would immediately raise concerns that they are hiding something, and so it'd be better overall to just pick someone else.

The desire to dwell on someone's personal beliefs or biases is nothing more than a means of discrediting an argument that you cannot discredit scientifically, objectively.

It seems to me that you're basically afraid that if you stated your views and approach to this topic, it would discredit you and your arguments. That's why I've assumed that you agree with AiG's statement of faith and are likely a Biblical young-earth creationist.

You're on a slippery slope here and I if were a science student of yours reading this I think I'd be somewhat alarmed at your words, that if I hold some belief, bias, preference that you disapprove of, I might get bad marks.

Again, you seem to have me confused with someone else.

As soon as you seek information on my biases you introduce the risk that they might conflict with your biases.

By refusing, avoiding any mention of our respective beliefs and biases we eliminate any prospect that such conflict might thwart the pursuit of objectivity.

You're trying to have it both ways.....you want to be granted the default status that you are approaching this subject objectively, while at the same time concealing whatever biases and presuppositions you actually have. That's pretty deceptive, don't you think?

Obviously you do have biases and presuppositions that you feel were they to be revealed, would immediately discredit you and your arguments. That's a good indication that those biases and presuppositions are significant.

[Jose Fly]

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.

Incorrect. You're conflating philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that the material is all there is, with methodological naturalism, which is an operational framework that basically says that the non-natural (whether it exists or not) is outside the ability of science to test and study.

Try and keep that in mind.

[William]

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.

Incorrect. You're conflating philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that the material is all there is, with methodological naturalism, which is an operational framework that basically says that the non-natural (whether it exists or not) is outside the ability of science to test and study.

Try and keep that in mind.

Are you therefore stating that verifying the existence of a Cosmic Mind, is "outside the ability of science to test and study"?

Is the statement one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion]

eta
Is the statement one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] = 593
Opinion is that which has yet to be established as a matter of fact