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.
How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Moderator: Moderators
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3465
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1129 times
- Been thanked: 729 times
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1121What science teaches makes sense. It takes religion to make us believe the absurd.
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1122[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1120]
Genetic coding in and of itself tells part of the story, but not every aspect of the story. Therefore, to claim that "people are apes" as a result/conclusion is erroneous.
It is like claiming that "apes are people".
Yet even with their similarities they clearly are two different types of similar species.
My points were to agree with what the eye tells us [humans and apes look similar] but also to show that what the eye sees is only flesh and bone, and to peel those away from what makes a personality, one is left with something distinctly non-human or ape-like.
Take the example of Fungi. Until recently [the latter half of the 20th century,] Fungi were classified in the Plant Kingdom...this was because of what the eye saw rather than because it was an established fact.
Animals and fungi share a common ancestor and branched away from plants. Only later did animals and fungi separate on the genealogical tree of life, making fungi more closely related to humans than plants.
Genetic coding tends to show the relationship between different types of Specie, all of which appear to have evolved from the same Source-Code as it were.
If one's argument was that humans are related to apes through genetics, well and good - we are also related to banana's, slugs, and fungi among many other Species.
Underneath it all, there is sequence, so it is not about percentage rates [how much DNA humans share with apes] which determine this non-fact [that people are apes] as actual fact.
I suspect what is happening is that - as you mentioned - "are you okay with the result/conclusion? As we've seen, quite a few religious folks aren't." so the declaration/claim is made [most often by non-theists] in order to annoy the religious [because pushing buttons to get a reaction is fun, right?] but the claim itself is incorrect and should be acknowledged as such, and set aside.
It is suggested that we let the science teach us without skewering it to "make sense" to theist or non theist positions, as that is what makes the absurd.
The result/conclusion isn't that "people are apes" which is the point I was attempting to make. I am not okay with that result/conclusion.Genetic errors work the same way, which is why they're used to determine relatedness in courts for things like paternity. There's no reason for two people to have the same errors in the same spots in their genomes, other than having a shared ancestry. The same methods applied on a broader scale unequivocally show that humans share a common ancestry with other primates.
Once one becomes aware of this info, the question then becomes....are you okay with the result/conclusion?
Genetic coding in and of itself tells part of the story, but not every aspect of the story. Therefore, to claim that "people are apes" as a result/conclusion is erroneous.
It is like claiming that "apes are people".
Yet even with their similarities they clearly are two different types of similar species.
My points were to agree with what the eye tells us [humans and apes look similar] but also to show that what the eye sees is only flesh and bone, and to peel those away from what makes a personality, one is left with something distinctly non-human or ape-like.
Take the example of Fungi. Until recently [the latter half of the 20th century,] Fungi were classified in the Plant Kingdom...this was because of what the eye saw rather than because it was an established fact.
Animals and fungi share a common ancestor and branched away from plants. Only later did animals and fungi separate on the genealogical tree of life, making fungi more closely related to humans than plants.
Genetic coding tends to show the relationship between different types of Specie, all of which appear to have evolved from the same Source-Code as it were.
If one's argument was that humans are related to apes through genetics, well and good - we are also related to banana's, slugs, and fungi among many other Species.
Underneath it all, there is sequence, so it is not about percentage rates [how much DNA humans share with apes] which determine this non-fact [that people are apes] as actual fact.
I suspect what is happening is that - as you mentioned - "are you okay with the result/conclusion? As we've seen, quite a few religious folks aren't." so the declaration/claim is made [most often by non-theists] in order to annoy the religious [because pushing buttons to get a reaction is fun, right?] but the claim itself is incorrect and should be acknowledged as such, and set aside.
It is suggested that we let the science teach us without skewering it to "make sense" to theist or non theist positions, as that is what makes the absurd.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1123[Replying to William in post #1124]
I don't think claims that humans are apes is designed to annoy the religious ... it is just the natural conclusion from analysis of the fossil record that leads to diagrams like the one above.
What conclusion can be drawn from a diagram like this other than that humans are the current result of several million years of evolution within the apes and are part of that group?I suspect what is happening is that - as you mentioned - "are you okay with the result/conclusion? As we've seen, quite a few religious folks aren't." so the declaration/claim is made [most often by non-theists] in order to annoy the religious [because pushing buttons to get a reaction is fun, right?] but the claim itself is incorrect and should be acknowledged as such, and set aside.
I don't think claims that humans are apes is designed to annoy the religious ... it is just the natural conclusion from analysis of the fossil record that leads to diagrams like the one above.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Diogenes
- Guru
- Posts: 1304
- Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
- Location: Washington
- Has thanked: 862 times
- Been thanked: 1265 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1124No, it is not. People ARE apes [see DrNoGods, post #1124]. This is very different from claiming "Apes are people." Apes are not people, by definition. Do you understand the difference between "people are apes" and "apes are people?"
Just in case:
It is accurate to say "All pigs are mammals."
That does not mean "All mammals are pigs."
The family Hominidae (hominids), consist of "the great apes" and include orangutans, gorillas, bonobos and chimpanzees, and humans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
___________________________________
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
“Before You Embark On A Journey Of Revenge, Dig Two Graves”
— Confucius
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1125Again, taxonomically we most certainly are apes.
Why not?I am not okay with that result/conclusion.
Why is it erroneous?Genetic coding in and of itself tells part of the story, but not every aspect of the story. Therefore, to claim that "people are apes" as a result/conclusion is erroneous.
It is like claiming that "apes are people".
"Ape" is not a species designation. It refers to the taxonomic superfamily Hominoidea, which contains many species.Yet even with their similarities they clearly are two different types of similar species.
How so?My points were to agree with what the eye tells us [humans and apes look similar] but also to show that what the eye sees is only flesh and bone, and to peel those away from what makes a personality, one is left with something distinctly non-human or ape-like.
Sorry, but you merely saying "the claim is incorrect" doesn't automatically make it so.I suspect what is happening is that - as you mentioned - "are you okay with the result/conclusion? As we've seen, quite a few religious folks aren't." so the declaration/claim is made [most often by non-theists] in order to annoy the religious [because pushing buttons to get a reaction is fun, right?] but the claim itself is incorrect and should be acknowledged as such, and set aside.
Also, I have to wonder....does it bother you that under taxonomy humans are classified as apes? Is that something you'd rather not be true?
"The science" is unambiguous.....from a taxonomic standpoint humans are apes. I know some folks don't like that, but really....so what?It is suggested that we let the science teach us without skewering it to "make sense" to theist or non theist positions, as that is what makes the absurd.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1126I do not believe that evolution is a scientific fact, because no one has ever demonstrated it in the way that scientific theories must be demonstrated... I am even amazed that it is considered a "scientific theory" of those that peer-reviewers accept... However, if it were a reality, someone saying "people are apes" is much closer to what this theory proposes than what a forum member answered me before here in the forum; He posted "we are animals" (I don't know who he means by "we", but I read it as "they, including him, consider themselves animals"). Isn't it closer to the theory to consider yourself (evolutionists) apes rather than animals in general?
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1127Well that's weird, since we see evolution occur all the time. You may as well say that erosion isn't a scientific fact.
In science, theories are constructed to explain phenomena. In this case, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs (e.g., by what mechanisms and pathways). So for example, one of the mechanisms of evolution under evolutionary theory is natural selection, and guess what? Natural selection has indeed been demonstrated (or more accurately, observed).because no one has ever demonstrated it in the way that scientific theories must be demonstrated
Well given what you said above, evolutionary biology isn't really your area of expertise, is it?I am even amazed that it is considered a "scientific theory" of those that peer-reviewers accept
It would help if you learned some basic taxonomy. It's a hierarchal system, with categories and sub-categories like this...However, if it were a reality, someone saying "people are apes" is much closer to what this theory proposes than what a forum member answered me before here in the forum; He posted "we are animals" (I don't know who he means by "we", but I read it as "they, including him, consider themselves animals"). Isn't it closer to the theory to consider yourself (evolutionists) apes rather than animals in general?
So humans are both animals (members of the Kingdom Animalia) and apes (members of the superfamily Hominoidea), as well as chordates, vertebrates, mammals, etc.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 1775
- Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
- Has thanked: 43 times
- Been thanked: 213 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1128I don't know who you think you're dealing with, but that's not true: we do not see any of that, and we'd never seen any of that, since "evolution" is a process that suppossily happened in millions and millions and millions of years. You are not that old. Otherwise, macroevolution is not microevolution.
PD: Are you going to try to convince me with a long speech that apes developed bigger brains because learning to cook gave them more time to think? ... I am not so easily impressed.
PD: Are you going to try to convince me with a long speech that apes developed bigger brains because learning to cook gave them more time to think? ... I am not so easily impressed.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1129Taxonomy - the classification of something, especially organisms.
Saying that "taxonomically, people are apes", is different than saying "people are apes"
Human bodies have been classified as "ape" [or in the family of "great apes"] and that is where the similarity ends.
There is far more to a human being than the body, and clear differences between the orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.
Saying that "taxonomically, people are apes", is different than saying "people are apes"
Human bodies have been classified as "ape" [or in the family of "great apes"] and that is where the similarity ends.
There is far more to a human being than the body, and clear differences between the orangutans, gorillas, bonobos, chimpanzees and humans.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14003
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 906 times
- Been thanked: 1629 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1130[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1125]
My points were to agree with what the eye tells us [humans and apes look similar] but also to show that what the eye sees is only flesh and bone, and to peel those away from what makes a personality, one is left with something distinctly non-human or ape-like.
How so?