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]

The fact that multiple people disagree with me seems to be a weak attempt at an argument from authority, as I said elsewhere the truth or falsity of a proposition is not a function of its popularity.

You completely missed the point. The general agreement I referred to is about about your behavior in this thread, not your arguments.

Right, so an accusation that you personally disapprove of something I said (my "behavior" !) yet no quote to show what that was, I understand, you either do not know how to quote or doing so won't support your contention about my "behavior".

oh look, more paraphrasing.

Identifying the logical fallacy you've been committing is not paraphrasing. But if you're intent on repeating this error, that's not my problem.

It is an accusation nothing more.

I mean I've never seen or encountered such a continuity in all my years, only claims based on inferred, presumed continuity. The fossil record is repeatedly held up as being superb evidence for evolution yet upon cold dispassionate inspection it is in fact evidence of abrupt non-gradual morphological changes.

This is exemplified in the Cambrian explosion, diverse, sophisticated morphologies purportedly serving as evidence for descent from a common ancestor(s) yet lacking any evidence of the hundreds of thousands of generations of imperceptible changes.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Anomalocaris and Opabina are descended from a common ancestor, none, and this is the case for all of the Cambrian fossils.

Disparate Cambrian beasts with mineralized exoskeleton fossils are known, yet if they - any pair of them - are truly descended from a common ancestor then we'd fully expect to see fossil evidence of these since they too will have carried genes that produce mineralized exoskeletons.

But there is nothing, no trace whatsoever that such "branches" ever did exist, it all just supposition based on the presumption that evolution must have taken place because evolution is the only explanation being considered.

You didn't answer the question. Again, if there were say, a complete fossil record of a taxonomic order, with hundreds of speciation events recorded in it and no "missing links", would that be an example of "exhibiting continuity"?

Well that's another example of you paraphrasing isn't it? perhaps if you showed me what you have in mind rather than trying to describe it, I could give a clear answer; as written your question amounts to "if I showed you evidence that met your criteria for evidence would you regard it as evidence".

[Jose Fly]

Right, so an accusation that you personally disapprove of something I said (my "behavior" !) yet no quote to show what that was, I understand, you either do not know how to quote or doing so won't support your contention about my "behavior".

It's pretty simple...multiple people have assessed your behavior in this thread in the same way, i.e., that you've made some rather bold assertions but have utterly refused to back them up.

If you reject that, that's fine and isn't really surprising. What would make a difference though would be for you to either start backing up your assertions or show where you'd already done so. It's up to you.

perhaps if you showed me what you have in mind rather than trying to describe it, I could give a clear answer; as written your question amounts to "if I showed you evidence that met your criteria for evidence would you regard it as evidence".

Nah, I've played this game with creationists too many times. The creationist will say "X doesn't exist" and as soon as people start showing examples of X, the creationist reflexively makes up one excuse after another for why they aren't X. So tactically it's far better to get a clear understanding and agreement of what X is, and then look at the info to see if they meet the agreed-to criteria/definition.

In this case, you've made claims about the non-existence of "continuity in the fossil record". So before we look at the data to see what's there, it makes sense to clarify what you mean by that. Thus my question.....would a complete fossil record of a taxonomic order, showing hundreds of speciation events, and with no "missing links" constitute "continuity"? If not, why?

[Miles]

Right, so an accusation that you personally disapprove of something I said (my "behavior" !) yet no quote to show what that was, I understand, you either do not know how to quote or doing so won't support your contention about my "behavior".

It's pretty simple...multiple people have assessed your behavior in this thread in the same way, i.e., that you've made some rather bold assertions but have utterly refused to back them up.

If you reject that, that's fine and isn't really surprising. What would make a difference though would be for you to either start backing up your assertions or show where you'd already done so. It's up to you.

perhaps if you showed me what you have in mind rather than trying to describe it, I could give a clear answer; as written your question amounts to "if I showed you evidence that met your criteria for evidence would you regard it as evidence".

Nah, I've played this game with creationists too many times. The creationist will say "X doesn't exist" and as soon as people start showing examples of X, the creationist reflexively makes up one excuse after another for why they aren't X. So tactically it's far better to get a clear understanding and agreement of what X is, and then look at the info to see if they meet the agreed-to criteria/definition.

In this case, you've made claims about the non-existence of "continuity in the fossil record". So before we look at the data to see what's there, it makes sense to clarify what you mean by that. Thus my question.....would a complete fossil record of a taxonomic order, showing hundreds of speciation events, and with no "missing links" constitute "continuity"? If not, why?

What has always amused me is that creationists, lacking any compelling evidence for their position, seldom, if ever, try to prove creationism, but instead try to disprove evolution-----Not at all surprising, just amusing.


.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Right, so an accusation that you personally disapprove of something I said (my "behavior" !) yet no quote to show what that was, I understand, you either do not know how to quote or doing so won't support your contention about my "behavior".

It's pretty simple...multiple people have assessed your behavior in this thread in the same way, i.e., that you've made some rather bold assertions but have utterly refused to back them up.

If you reject that, that's fine and isn't really surprising. What would make a difference though would be for you to either start backing up your assertions or show where you'd already done so. It's up to you.

perhaps if you showed me what you have in mind rather than trying to describe it, I could give a clear answer; as written your question amounts to "if I showed you evidence that met your criteria for evidence would you regard it as evidence".

Nah, I've played this game with creationists too many times. The creationist will say "X doesn't exist" and as soon as people start showing examples of X, the creationist reflexively makes up one excuse after another for why they aren't X. So tactically it's far better to get a clear understanding and agreement of what X is, and then look at the info to see if they meet the agreed-to criteria/definition.

In this case, you've made claims about the non-existence of "continuity in the fossil record". So before we look at the data to see what's there, it makes sense to clarify what you mean by that. Thus my question.....would a complete fossil record of a taxonomic order, showing hundreds of speciation events, and with no "missing links" constitute "continuity"? If not, why?

It is indeed simple, your posts amount to nothing more than an ad-hominem attack, attacking me the person and not anything I actually wrote, a logical fallacy that might fool some people some of the time.

In future, if you wish to engage me then attack something I've actually written rather than something imagined, something you wish I had written.

All you're doing is attacking what you perceive as "creationism" some phantom of your own making, some idea or concept that you disapprove of, that's not a very impressive way to debate someone and I won't fall for or tolerate such trickery.

Unless and until you state clearly what it is I've written that you take issue with (i.e. quote me) then I'll likely have very little to say to you.

[Purple Knight]

What has always amused me is that creationists, lacking any compelling evidence for their position, seldom, if ever, try to prove creationism, but instead try to disprove evolution-----Not at all surprising, just amusing.

This is how falsifiability works, though. You don't prove anything; you just test everything, blow it all up, as hard as you can, hit it with everything you've got, and whatever falls to the ground intact we say is probably, tentatively true.

It's a good thing that we have people motivated to attack evolution. I want the biggest hammers out there trying to smash it to smithereens. I want nukes and rocket artillery pointed at it. And the thing that blows up the universe from Slaughterhouse Five.

What's not a good thing is that we have people trying to falsify the two main beliefs to the benefit of the other one. If it wasn't either evolution or intelligent design, if we were all wrong, we'd never know about it.

[Jose Fly]

What has always amused me is that creationists, lacking any compelling evidence for their position, seldom, if ever, try to prove creationism, but instead try to disprove evolution-----Not at all surprising, just amusing.

Oh I can't tell you how many times I've seen people start "make a positive case for creation" threads, only to have the creationists ignore the request and just use them to post a bunch of old anti-evolution talking points.

In the Kitzmiller-Dover intelligent design trial, the judge referred to this tactic as "contrived dualism", and the fact that the ID creationists invoked the tactic in the same way as their Biblical creationist predecessors was one of the pieces of evidence used to show that "intelligent design" is a form of creationism.

[Jose Fly]

It is indeed simple, your posts amount to nothing more than an ad-hominem attack, attacking me the person and not anything I actually wrote, a logical fallacy that might fool some people some of the time.

In future, if you wish to engage me then attack something I've actually written rather than something imagined, something you wish I had written.

All you're doing is attacking what you perceive as "creationism" some phantom of your own making, some idea or concept that you disapprove of, that's not a very impressive way to debate someone and I won't fall for or tolerate such trickery.

Unless and until you state clearly what it is I've written that you take issue with (i.e. quote me) then I'll likely have very little to say to you.

You're still dodging my question. You made a claim about there being no "continuity in the fossil record". I'm trying to get you to explain what that means by asking: Would a complete fossil record of a taxonomic order, showing hundreds of speciation events, and with no "missing links" constitute "continuity"? If not, why?

[brunumb]

Every "claim" I make in this or any thread is or can always be, supported by some data, evidence or argument, whether I choose to present that is another matter entirely and does not prove that I have no supporting position, you're welcome to make that inference of course but it is just an inference.

And until you do present it, your claims remain unsupported. It's as simple as that.

[Difflugia]

This is how falsifiability works, though. You don't prove anything; you just test everything, blow it all up, as hard as you can, hit it with everything you've got, and whatever falls to the ground intact we say is probably, tentatively true.

That's true if we subject all hypotheses to the same rigor. If we can falsify some detail of electromagnetism, for example, we don't throw up our hands and revert to the ghost in the machine, especially if we intentionally avoid testing the ghost.

Trying to falsify another hypothesis while fighting to protect your own from the same thing isn't the falsification process of science, but simple lawyering.

[Purple Knight]

This is how falsifiability works, though. You don't prove anything; you just test everything, blow it all up, as hard as you can, hit it with everything you've got, and whatever falls to the ground intact we say is probably, tentatively true.

That's true if we subject all hypotheses to the same rigor. If we can falsify some detail of electromagnetism, for example, we don't throw up our hands and revert to the ghost in the machine, especially if we intentionally avoid testing the ghost.

Trying to falsify another hypothesis while fighting to protect your own from the same thing isn't the falsification process of science, but simple lawyering.

I know, and a lot of that happens on this forum, from both sides.

I don't know how you'd falsify intelligent design, though. It's (conveniently, one could say) formed in such a way that all the observable bits already happened. People may say this or that is evidence against intelligent design, mosquitos being high on the list, but nothing really serves that purpose since the designer being crazy or sadistic doesn't preclude intelligent design being true. No matter what that thing is, the designer might have wanted that thing. The fact that we're looking at the best thing (a cat) and the worst thing (a mosquito, or possibly a cockroach) and scratching our heads wondering, "What was he thinking?" doesn't mean there's no possible answer, or that no possible designer would want both those things, or even that there aren't multiple designers butting heads on whether the universe should be full of good things or bad. It's not even as if we can understand the world in a way free enough of our own benchmarks to judge like this, since there was bound to be one best thing and one worst thing, and we are bound to measure by it. Creationists will put a good face on it and assume that even the cockroach is among the very best of possible things, and there are infinite worse, but this could also be true in reverse, and the cat could be among the worst of possible things, infinite even better things being possible and simply not having been created.