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
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1201

Post by brunumb »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:53 pm Small changes in microevolution have a limit. All serious researchers on this subject know that.
Please elaborate on the identities of these serious researchers. Throwing out unsupported claims and hoping that they will stick is not a compelling argument in the least. In the same vein, I could simply reply that all serious researchers do not see any distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution and hence there is no limit. Would you accept that?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1202

Post by brunumb »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:03 pm ... to the extend of creating something like a Piltdown man, perhaps?

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _incidents
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What are you responding to?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

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 #1203

Post by Eloi »

brunumb wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:07 pm
Eloi wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:03 pm ... to the extend of creating something like a Piltdown man, perhaps?

Check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... _incidents
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. What are you responding to?
I am answering this:
brunumb wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 9:00 pm (...) How well one can evaluate the evidence while leaving aside any biases is a key issue. Personal integrity also matters. To what extent are some people willing to go to prop up their deeply held beliefs?
To what extent are peer-reviewed conclusions reliable?

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 #1204

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Eloi in post #1205]
To what extent are peer-reviewed conclusions reliable?
To the extent that they stand up to scrutiny over time. Efforts are made to review submitted manuscripts and send them out to experts in the field for comments, changes, challenges, etc. If a final manuscript passes muster for the journal it is published. But that is just the beginning. It is the first step in disseminating the information to the wider scientific community and the public. That is the whole purpose of scientific journals!

After publication the information is available to a far wider audience who then continue to throw darts at the conclusions. If they are shown to be wrong or need revision, errata are published, papers are withdrawn, or if things aren't so clear there is back and forth on the issues, challenges, etc. For something to last as long as evolution has it must stand up to this never-ending process of challenges, and it has. Peer-reviewed "conclusions" are the result of survival against challenges from anyone who cares to do so. Compare this to religious doctrine which is often disseminated in a holy book that in most cases is taken to be fact that cannot be challenged.

And why does every anti-evolutionist here bring up the Piltdown Man hoax? Who was it that continued to investigate that issue and finally reveal it as a hoax? That's right ... the scientific community who constantly challenge new ideas and findings to flesh out things that seem too good to be true (cold fusion from the 1980s anyone?), or where the story seems a little too fishy like Piltdown Man.
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
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 #1205

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Eloi in post #1194]
I do not believe in evolution, and microevolution is not macroevolution. I guess you guys confuse a lot of people with that fallacy.
Why can't successive "microevolution" result in "macroevolution? Explain why this is a fallacy. Nature sure doesn't seem to see it that way. It has happened far too many times to claim it is a fallacy, and we have proof in the fossil record. Personal incredulity has no bearing on what is true and what isn't.
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
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1206

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Eloi wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 8:19 pm Objection? I have none ... You have not demonstrated anything at all. I do not believe in evolution, and microevolution is not macroevolution. I guess you guys confuse a lot of people with that fallacy.
That might be a compelling argument, were it not coming from someone who thinks humans breeding with gods produces viable offspring.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #1207

Post by William »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1188]

I think that you misunderstood what I wrote...I was comparing the human nervous system as looking like a Jellyfish - not looking like a jellyfishes nervous system.

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 #1208

Post by William »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 5:49 pm
William wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 3:27 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:02 pm
William wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 2:01 pm [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
And.....?
GM: Who Knows Who?
The Limitations
When feeling lost
Have A Look At The Map
Adjusted Reality
Loving-kindness
The Jellyfish Image

William: The Jellyfish image is like the image of the nervous system. The nervous system is near the heart of what makes a human, a "person" whereas taxonomy is simply interested in categorizing the human being in relation to the external flesh and bone material which encases the nervous system.

The flesh and bone material does influence a persons idea of who they are, but without the nervous system, the person would not exist as a personality...so taxonomy can only offer an incomplete picture - surface scratching rather than digging deeper into what is beneath the surface. That is why the expression "Humans are Apes" is incomplete - gives an incomplete picture and defines according to that incompleteness.

In appearance, humans are more related to what Jellyfish look like - re the nervous system...once the flesh and bone are removed to reveal said system.

Consciousness goes even deeper than the nervous system, and cannot easily be pictured. I would say that consciousness does not reside only with the brain but throughout the nervous system...mostly operating without the personality being conscious of said operations, and in relation to subconscious operations [re psychology/ the human mind] the personality can connect and interact with said subconscious activity, thereby learning from that vast resource...
{SOURCE}
I hear ya friend.

You tend to look beyond the 'simple', though accurate definition of what it is to be an ape.

Instead, you invoke a fuller definition, where humans can be considered much more'n just human apes. I can't fuss with that.

There's some pride to be had knowing we humans have abilities unique and wonderful. If sometimes frightful.
I don't know if it is pride [being human] but it is wanting to be accurate regarding the type of definitions used - I have never had a problem with humans being related to apes (or bananas) as I understand the significance of all life being related and the idea of classification sometimes/often muddies those waters - the Earth is One System catering for a vast variety/library of critters and while classifying has it uses, if its main use is not to verify that there is one source to it all, then it fails overall.

Interestingly enough Genesis 2:20 remarks;
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field;

which is more the observation of the human beings propensity to name/categorize everything discovered [not just animals] and this is one of the clear differences between humans and other animals.

For me, I think that if one is going to argue that humans made up like apes, then it is fair to go deeper and say that apes look like Jellyfish...deeper still, and we face together, the hard problem of human consciousness...

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1209

Post by The Barbarian »

William wrote: Thu May 19, 2022 10:27 pm [Replying to The Barbarian in post #1188]

I think that you misunderstood what I wrote...I was comparing the human nervous system as looking like a Jellyfish - not looking like a jellyfishes nervous system.
Ah. O.K. I see what you mean. Sorry for the error. The human nervous system looks more like an inverted tree than like a jellyfish. The human nervous system has a central axis from which nerves branch out.
Image

Jellyfish have a ringlike structure with tentacles arranged around the ring:
Image

Some of the nerves are in the tentacles, but most of the nerves are in the form of a net distributed within the body of the jellyfish:
Image

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 #1210

Post by William »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #1209]

While there is also a similarity of a tree-like structure, [upside down at that] to me it is reminiscent of a Jellyfish...

Search "are humans and jellyfish related?"

Search "are humans and trees related?"

One answer is;

"All animals (including humans), plants and other organisms such as fungi and algae are Eukaryotes and share a common ancestor."

So in a real sense, the categorizing done should visually give us a tree-like structure - starting with a 'common ancestor' and branching out...which is why we see patterns in nature - because they are there to be seen.

Post Reply