How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1130 times
Been thanked: 732 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
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 #1291

Post by Jose Fly »

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"?
Because, as we discussed before, not all questions are scientific, such as "What is art".
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

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 #1292

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1290]
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.
I was reponding to this:

"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.
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?
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?
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1293

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:21 pm
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"?
Because, as we discussed before, not all questions are scientific, such as "What is art".
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?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1294

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:22 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1290]
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.
I was reponding to this:

"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.
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?
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?
So 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?
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri May 20, 2022 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 #1295

Post by Jose Fly »

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?
Some 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?"
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1296

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:36 pm
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?
Some 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?"
How do you decide if a question does or does not lie outside of the realm of scientific explicability?

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 #1297

Post by Jose Fly »

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?
In general....is it testable by scientific means?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1298

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:42 pm
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?
In general....is it testable by scientific means?
Is 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?

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 #1299

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:52 pm Is what testable?
The 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.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1300

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 5:52 pm Is what testable?
The 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.
Jose, a question is not "testable" it is a question not a proposition!

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:
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.
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?

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.

Post Reply