How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1

Post by 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.

Image

Image

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.

User avatar
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 #1121

Post by Diogenes »

William wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 3:29 pm
So - on the surface the similarities between apes and humans is undeniable, but what is also undeniable are the vast differences which make the similarities fundamentally different and therefore quiet the absurd thing to be equating ones self with.
What 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

User avatar
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

Post by William »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1120]
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?
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 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.

User avatar
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

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #1124]
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.
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?
Image

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

User avatar
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 #1124

Post by Diogenes »

William wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:47 pm It is like claiming that "apes are people".
No, 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

User avatar
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 #1125

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Wed May 18, 2022 8:47 pm The result/conclusion isn't that "people are apes" which is the point I was attempting to make.
Again, taxonomically we most certainly are apes.
I am not okay with that result/conclusion.
Why not?
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".
Why is it erroneous?
Yet even with their similarities they clearly are two different types of similar species.
"Ape" is not a species designation. It refers to the taxonomic superfamily Hominoidea, which contains many 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.
How 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.
Sorry, but you merely saying "the claim is incorrect" doesn't automatically make it so.

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?
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 science" is unambiguous.....from a taxonomic standpoint humans are apes. I know some folks don't like that, but really....so what?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Eloi
Banned
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 #1126

Post by Eloi »

I 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?

User avatar
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 #1127

Post by Jose Fly »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 1:32 pm I do not believe that evolution is a scientific fact
Well that's weird, since we see evolution occur all the time. You may as well say that erosion isn't a scientific fact.
because no one has ever demonstrated it in the way that scientific theories must be demonstrated
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).
I am even amazed that it is considered a "scientific theory" of those that peer-reviewers accept
Well given what you said above, evolutionary biology isn't really your area of expertise, is it?
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?
It would help if you learned some basic taxonomy. It's a hierarchal system, with categories and sub-categories like this...

Image

So humans are both animals (members of the Kingdom Animalia) and apes (members of the superfamily Hominoidea), as well as chordates, vertebrates, mammals, etc.

Image
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Eloi
Banned
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 #1128

Post by Eloi »

I 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.

User avatar
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 #1129

Post by William »

Taxonomy - 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.

User avatar
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

Post by William »

[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?
Image

Post Reply