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: 3493
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1130 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
- 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 #1291Because, as we discussed before, not all questions are scientific, such as "What is art".Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:20 pm That's rather odd, how do you reconcile "I don't believe absolutely everything is explainable by science" with "people throwing up their hands and declaring one thing or another to be unsolvable by science"?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #1292[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1290]
"So what do you think life was like prior to the point at which evolution arose? What differentiates pre-evolution life from post-evolution life?"
The comments all refer to "life" so I assumed you meant life forms already existed but were not subject to evolution somehow. We don't know the mechanism for how the first living organisms came into existence.
I was reponding to this:Well the first living thing obviously cannot have evolved, that's what I meant, they did not evolve from ancestors if they were the first examples of life.
"So what do you think life was like prior to the point at which evolution arose? What differentiates pre-evolution life from post-evolution life?"
The comments all refer to "life" so I assumed you meant life forms already existed but were not subject to evolution somehow. We don't know the mechanism for how the first living organisms came into existence.
I would assume that if the first living things ... however they came about ... contained some sort of RNA and/or DNA they would have been subject to the mechanisms of evolution. Do we know of any present or prior life forms that do not contain some sort of replication mechanism involving RNA/DNA?How do you know that? Presumably abiogenesis gave rise to something alive yes? do you believe that the first living things arose with the ability to evolve already present? that the ability to evolve did not itself evolve?
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
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1293So its OK sometimes to throw up one's hands and declare something to be unsolvable by science? You don't object it under certain circumstances?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:21 pmBecause, as we discussed before, not all questions are scientific, such as "What is art".Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:20 pm That's rather odd, how do you reconcile "I don't believe absolutely everything is explainable by science" with "people throwing up their hands and declaring one thing or another to be unsolvable by science"?
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1294So the very first life already possessed the ability to evolve? is that right? Surely the development of new biological function like an ability to evolve requires evolution does it not?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:22 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1290]
I was reponding to this:Well the first living thing obviously cannot have evolved, that's what I meant, they did not evolve from ancestors if they were the first examples of life.
"So what do you think life was like prior to the point at which evolution arose? What differentiates pre-evolution life from post-evolution life?"
The comments all refer to "life" so I assumed you meant life forms already existed but were not subject to evolution somehow. We don't know the mechanism for how the first living organisms came into existence.
I would assume that if the first living things ... however they came about ... contained some sort of RNA and/or DNA they would have been subject to the mechanisms of evolution. Do we know of any present or prior life forms that do not contain some sort of replication mechanism involving RNA/DNA?How do you know that? Presumably abiogenesis gave rise to something alive yes? do you believe that the first living things arose with the ability to evolve already present? that the ability to evolve did not itself evolve?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri May 20, 2022 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- 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 #1295Some things lie outside the realm of science, yes. "Is that painting of a red dot 'art'?" or "Is Allah or Jehovah the one true god?" or "Did a god create the universe?"Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:32 pm So its OK sometimes to throw up one's hands and declare something to be unsolvable by science? You don't object it under certain circumstances?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1296How do you decide if a question does or does not lie outside of the realm of scientific explicability?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:36 pmSome things lie outside the realm of science, yes. "Is that painting of a red dot 'art'?" or "Is Allah or Jehovah the one true god?" or "Did a god create the universe?"Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:32 pm So its OK sometimes to throw up one's hands and declare something to be unsolvable by science? You don't object it under certain circumstances?
- 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 #1297In general....is it testable by scientific means?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:37 pm How do you decide if a question does or does not lie outside of the realm of scientific explicability?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1298Is what testable? I asked how you go from some question to the decision that it cannot be explained by science. A theory can be tested but I'm speaking of a question like "How did the material universe come to exist" a question can't be "tested". So can that question be answered with science? what are the steps you follow to decide if it can or not? You do have a process...don't you?Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:42 pmIn general....is it testable by scientific means?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:37 pm How do you decide if a question does or does not lie outside of the realm of scientific explicability?
- 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 #1299The question. "Is that red dot art" is not a question that is scientifically testable, therefore it is outside the realm of science.
If I showed you two paintings and asked "Which one of these is art", AFAIK there's no scientific test to answer that question.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1300Jose, a question is not "testable" it is a question not a proposition!Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri May 20, 2022 5:59 pmThe question. "Is that red dot art" is not a question that is scientifically testable, therefore it is outside the realm of science.
If I showed you two paintings and asked "Which one of these is art", AFAIK there's no scientific test to answer that question.
How did you establish that "Which one of these is art" has no scientific answer rather than simply does not yet have a scientific answer?
Recall what you said earlier:
How do you know that the question "Which one of these is art" might not one day have a scientific answer, that someone might figure it out?Neil deGrasse Tyson we discussed earlier showed, there is a long history in science of people throwing up their hands and declaring one thing or another to be unsolvable by science, only to have someone else come along later (sometimes hundreds of years later) and figure it out.
To take the position you do you must be able to take any question and place into one of these categories:
1. The question does not yet have a scientific explanation. (Tyson's lecture thesis)
2. The question cannot have a scientific explanation. (God of the gaps)
You have to be able to do that to assert "I don't believe absolutely everything is explainable by science" which you did assert earlier.
What is it about a question that enables you to categorize it into one of the two above categories?
After all you seem extremely confident that "How did the material universe come to exist" is not a question that cannot eventually be answered scientifically, so how did you reach that conclusion?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri May 20, 2022 6:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.