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.

[Difflugia]

In another thread, you said this:

I've been debating (online) against atheism for many years, I'm very well educated in the sciences and to a lesser degree, philosophy.

Here, you said this:

But that was 160 years ago, since then the questions and problems that are raised by the theory have grown and some of the fundamental ones have not only remained but become even more problematic.

That sounds to me like you're in the very small group of people that are Chirstian, understand the science behind evolution, but are also familiar with creationist apologetics.

In the course of your studies in both, you must have come across at least a few of the many, many, many things that creationists get wrong about evolution. What are some that you find the most interesting or entertaining?

[Sherlock Holmes]

But that was 160 years ago, since then the questions and problems that are raised by the theory have grown and some of the fundamental ones have not only remained but become even more problematic.

Perhaps you could offer some support for that claim as it is generally accepted that the theory has strengthened over time with advances in scientific techniques.

I'm afraid I cannot, I now regard the theory as falsified, the evidence I've seen and studied is more consistent with evolution not being true.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In another thread, you said this:

I've been debating (online) against atheism for many years, I'm very well educated in the sciences and to a lesser degree, philosophy.

Here, you said this:

But that was 160 years ago, since then the questions and problems that are raised by the theory have grown and some of the fundamental ones have not only remained but become even more problematic.

That sounds to me like you're in the very small group of people that are Chirstian, understand the science behind evolution, but are also familiar with creationist apologetics.

In the course of your studies in both, you must have come across at least a few of the many, many, many things that creationists get wrong about evolution. What are some that you find the most interesting or entertaining?

I'd have to look, it's been quite a while since I argued against a Christian fundamentalist with respect to evolution (though I have argued against them), so simply can't recall their general position.

[David the apologist]

But that was 160 years ago, since then the questions and problems that are raised by the theory have grown and some of the fundamental ones have not only remained but become even more problematic.

Perhaps you could offer some support for that claim as it is generally accepted that the theory has strengthened over time with advances in scientific techniques.

I'm afraid I cannot, I now regard the theory as falsified, the evidence I've seen and studied is more consistent with evolution not being true.

Surely you can give a brief overview of the evidence that you've studied? As I'm fairly certain that's what Brunumb is getting at.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

People, people, people...

Dogs produce dogs.

And anything beyond that does seem crazy.

It does. I wouldn't believe a dog would give birth to a cat unless you showed it to me, and even then my first thought would go right to trickery.

Expecting people to believe that this actually happens, just with extra steps, actually is a pretty big ask, particularly since nobody lives long enough to see it happen, which is a huge natural overcomer of incredulity - usually the sole one - in the case of something that seems fantastical being true. This is my point with this thread. It goes against common sense, really.

Now, I will preface this with no, the DNA test apparently showed this to be untrue, but this chimp was suspected by many to have been half-human.

Hey! that's Oliver, the Humanzee, there's a great documentary on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTB4t5_N6x4 about him, really interesting documentary, sit back with a beer and enjoy.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

People, people, people...

Dogs produce dogs.

And anything beyond that does seem crazy.

It does. I wouldn't believe a dog would give birth to a cat unless you showed it to me, and even then my first thought would go right to trickery.

Expecting people to believe that this actually happens, just with extra steps, actually is a pretty big ask, particularly since nobody lives long enough to see it happen, which is a huge natural overcomer of incredulity - usually the sole one - in the case of something that seems fantastical being true. This is my point with this thread. It goes against common sense, really.

Now, I will preface this with no, the DNA test apparently showed this to be untrue, but this chimp was suspected by many to have been half-human.

Hey! that's Oliver, the Humanzee, there's a great documentary on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTB4t5_N6x4 about him, really interesting documentary, sit back with a beer and enjoy.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But that was 160 years ago, since then the questions and problems that are raised by the theory have grown and some of the fundamental ones have not only remained but become even more problematic.

Perhaps you could offer some support for that claim as it is generally accepted that the theory has strengthened over time with advances in scientific techniques.

I'm afraid I cannot, I now regard the theory as falsified, the evidence I've seen and studied is more consistent with evolution not being true.

Surely you can give a brief overview of the evidence that you've studied? As I'm fairly certain that's what Brunumb is getting at.

Sure, all one need do is ask me a clear question.

I regard the evidence from the Cambrian explosion as sufficient to falsify the theory, its claims about the development of life from prehistoric times.

I've studied this in some detail for decades, initially as an atheist in fact and slowly adjusting my position as I learned more.

[David the apologist]

Sure, all one need do is ask me a clear question.

I regard the evidence from the Cambrian explosion as sufficient to falsify the theory, its claims about the development of life from prehistoric times.

I've studied this in some detail for decades, initially as an atheist in fact and slowly adjusting my position as I learned more.

I used to believe in Intelligent Design, largely due to Behe's arguments in The Edge of Evolution that the "shape space" of functional biological systems is very discontinuous.

Then I realized that all of his arguments were in-principle arguments, based on similar human artifacts (like language, things you find around your house, etc). God didn't have to create all "shape spaces" equal. He could, instead of making "islands of functionality," have created "noodles of functionality" in a vast, tangled web.

Now, since your trouble with evolution isn't the same as mine was, being (correct me if I'm wrong) related to the suddenness of diversification, rather than the improbability of "island hopping," I'm not sure if I'm well informed enough to properly join the debate.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sure, all one need do is ask me a clear question.

I regard the evidence from the Cambrian explosion as sufficient to falsify the theory, its claims about the development of life from prehistoric times.

I've studied this in some detail for decades, initially as an atheist in fact and slowly adjusting my position as I learned more.

I used to believe in Intelligent Design, largely due to Behe's arguments in The Edge of Evolution that the "shape space" of functional biological systems is very discontinuous.

Then I realized that all of his arguments were in-principle arguments, based on similar human artifacts (like language, things you find around your house, etc). God didn't have to create all "shape spaces" equal. He could, instead of making "islands of functionality," have created "noodles of functionality" in a vast, tangled web.

Now, since your trouble with evolution isn't the same as mine was, being (correct me if I'm wrong) related to the suddenness of diversification, rather than the improbability of "island hopping," I'm not sure if I'm well informed enough to properly join the debate.

I find ID thought provoking and admire writers like Behe and Meyer and others, much of their analysis rightly forces us to face the philosophical basis of science, too many ID critics adopt a knee-jerk attitude of dismissiveness too.

Yes the Cambrian is characterized by "suddenness" (and this is the way paleontologists and biologists express it) but at a more fundamental level the entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example.

The reliance on a dramatically discontinuous record (i.e. a record of discontinuity) as "compelling evidence" for a continuous process is truly fascinating, the way this has been accomplished, leaving a largely indifferent population to disregard it, is a science lesson in itself.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
I find ID thought provoking and admire writers like Behe and Meyer and others, much of their analysis rightly forces us to face the philosophical basis of science, too many ID critics adopt a knee-jerk attitude of dismissiveness too.

Though I reject the "attitude" part as too ad hominy, I think your point is plenty fair. Particular examples'd be nice, but I think it fair to say we nigh all of us have our knee-jerk reactions to stuff.

Yes the Cambrian is characterized by "suddenness" (and this is the way paleontologists and biologists express it)

They mean sudden on a geological timescale, where some less aware might consider it a blink of the eye.

but at a more fundamental level the entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example.

I get that (and by no means would wish to imply you're pointing to the god of the gaps argument). As an amateur, my lifelong studies indicate a rather robust fossil record combines with reams of other disciplines, to paint a clear picture.

The reliance on a dramatically discontinuous record (i.e. a record of discontinuity) as "compelling evidence" for a continuous process is truly fascinating, the way this has been accomplished, leaving a largely indifferent population to disregard it, is a science lesson in itself.

As above, I combine data from a multitude of disciplines, and find a compelling argument. (My amateur studies here are less in fossils, and more in extant species).

I pologize if this gets side-tracky...
"Rabbits in the precambrian" comes to mind, where the absence of fossils can steer us towards - if not confirm - reasonable and logical conclusions.

So it ain't always what we find in the data (across disciplines), but sometimes what we don't.