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: 3497
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1132 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14142
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
- Contact:
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1171[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1145]
When it gets to the nervous system, we have a different sight to see.
My argument isn't concerned even with the similarities between ape nervous systems as in 'the shape of' said systems.
Those systems are evident in all of the "Kingdoms' of classification, [fish. plants, fungi et al] and follow the shape of the external bodies...but are all the same in regard to relative function...thus the categorizing emphasizes apparent differences rather than overall similarities, and it is this which allows for the exclamation that humans are 'apes' but as we all really should know - humans are obviously far more than that.
Add to that, human beings specifically have the ability to consciously develop personality and character and self identity through this system, and the gap between humans and other animals becomes very obvious - significantly so.
Therefore, since we share the same system with every other critter, we have to look at why we are able to do what other critters cannot do, which has to lead us to the realization that we have something else which other critters do not.
whereas taxonomy is simply interested in categorizing the human being in relation to the external flesh and bone material which encases the nervous system.
You are missing the point though...the argument presented by those who point out that humans and apes look similar and are therefore related, has only been [up until now] concerned with the surface material.Taxonomic classifications are based on more than just "external flesh and bone". If the human nervous system were significantly different than that of all the other primates, that would be factored into their designation. But since it isn't (they're actually quite similar), it fits very nicely with all the other data that feeds into classification.
When it gets to the nervous system, we have a different sight to see.
My argument isn't concerned even with the similarities between ape nervous systems as in 'the shape of' said systems.
Those systems are evident in all of the "Kingdoms' of classification, [fish. plants, fungi et al] and follow the shape of the external bodies...but are all the same in regard to relative function...thus the categorizing emphasizes apparent differences rather than overall similarities, and it is this which allows for the exclamation that humans are 'apes' but as we all really should know - humans are obviously far more than that.
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.
Therein is why you are stuck in your belief that humans are apes.Um....no, not at all.
By observing the similarity of structure. It is undeniably "Jellyfish looking'. One could see by that, that Jellyfish are floating nervous systems devoid of the outer layers of flesh and bone which humans and other animals have that hide the identity of form which is the central reason for human personality being what it is - the Nervous system.Where did you get that idea?
Add to that, human beings specifically have the ability to consciously develop personality and character and self identity through this system, and the gap between humans and other animals becomes very obvious - significantly so.
Therefore, since we share the same system with every other critter, we have to look at why we are able to do what other critters cannot do, which has to lead us to the realization that we have something else which other critters do not.
- 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 #1172You don't believe Jehovah created Adam, Eve, and other organisms? That's new to me.
Biblical literalism/young-earth creationism is merely one type of creationism. There is also old-earth creationism, progressive creationism, day-age creationism, gap theory creationism, ID creationism, and a plethora of types outside of Christianity (e.g., Hindu creationism).I only answered taking into account that for some of you creationists are all those who believe in a Creator God, not necessarily in the literal biblical account. Not even in that you are right; which reaffirms that a dialogue with you is not worth it.
So not being a young-earth creationist doesn't mean you're not a creationist.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1173[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1169]
Superior? No, as I said one's choice of definition reflects the kinds of things one wants to focus on. Taxonomy is fine if its taxonomy you want to focus on.
Another definition could be IQ, humans are then seen as very much not apes if we classify animals by IQ.
Superior? No, as I said one's choice of definition reflects the kinds of things one wants to focus on. Taxonomy is fine if its taxonomy you want to focus on.
Another definition could be IQ, humans are then seen as very much not apes if we classify animals by IQ.
-
- 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 #1174[Replying to Jose Fly in post #3]
What part of I do not want to dialog with you you do not understand?
I don't like forum members who become too personal on their posts.
I know you'll appreciate my honesty.
What part of I do not want to dialog with you you do not understand?
I don't like forum members who become too personal on their posts.
I know you'll appreciate my honesty.
- 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 #1175That's not the issue. You're trying to recreate history by making it seem as if we're the ones who are ignoring data when the record clearly shows it's been you ignoring the data that people present you.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:20 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #1167]
His arguments didn't convince me, it's as simple as that.
But to be clear, that's extremely typical behavior among online creationists.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
-
- 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 #1176I do not think that a taxonomic classification has to do with the real origin of human beings.
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #1177Well, it is my position. The arguments for the fossil record being evidence of a continuous process don't convince me and never have. Not being convinced by someone's argument is not to be interpreted as ignoring that argument either.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:28 pmThat's not the issue. You're trying to recreate history by making it seem as if we're the ones who are ignoring data when the record clearly shows it's been you ignoring the data that people present you.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:20 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #1167]
His arguments didn't convince me, it's as simple as that.
But to be clear, that's extremely typical behavior among online creationists.
-
- 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 #1178And that is the point I asked before: if there is so "massive evidence" of that, why there are so many scientists who are still not convinced of it?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:40 pm (...) Not being convinced by someone's argument is not to be interpreted as ignoring that argument either.
Some evolutionists want us to believe that evolution is proven without a doubt. Obviously it isn't.
There are even non-believers theorists (according to what I have read somewhere) who say that in view of the unresolved questions of the theory, it is much more likely that living beings on earth have come from space in the first place ... because on earth there is not enough undisputtable proof of their real origin.
Last edited by Eloi on Thu May 19, 2022 4:49 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 #1179You're ignoring or forgetting what I posted to you earlier, i.e. that it's not just "they're similar therefore they're related".
Anatomists, zoologists, and taxonomists have been aware of what the human nervous system looks like for over a century.has only been [up until now] concerned with the surface material.
When it gets to the nervous system, we have a different sight to see.
My argument isn't concerned even with the similarities between ape nervous systems as in 'the shape of' said systems.
Taxonomic classification is based on a diversity of characteristics, not just one (such as the nervous system).Those systems are evident in all of the "Kingdoms' of classification, [fish. plants, fungi et al] and follow the shape of the external bodies...but are all the same in regard to relative function...thus the categorizing emphasizes apparent differences rather than overall similarities, and it is this which allows for the exclamation that humans are 'apes' but as we all really should know - humans are obviously far more than that.
You're not making sense. The fact is, the human nervous system does not resemble a jellyfish's makeup more than it does that of other primates. That's just reality and no amount of hand waving will change that.William wrote: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.Therein is why you are stuck in your belief that humans are apes.Um....no, not at all.
This just plain bizarre. Jellyfish don't even have a central nervous system or a brain! They basically have a neural network that controls swimming and another smaller one that controls everything else. And you're actually arguing that the human nervous system is more like that than that of other primates?By observing the similarity of structure. It is undeniably "Jellyfish looking'. One could see by that, that Jellyfish are floating nervous systems devoid of the outer layers of flesh and bone which humans and other animals have that hide the identity of form which is the central reason for human personality being what it is - the Nervous system.
Wow.
Yes, humans are different in some regards....that's why we are our own species.Add to that, human beings specifically have the ability to consciously develop personality and character and self identity through this system, and the gap between humans and other animals becomes very obvious - significantly so.
You should probably do a bit of reading before making claims like that.Therefore, since we share the same system with every other critter
And other organisms can do things that we can't. If there were no differences, we'd all be the same species.we have to look at why we are able to do what other critters cannot do, which has to lead us to the realization that we have something else which other critters do not.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- 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 #1180Congratulations.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu May 19, 2022 4:40 pm Well, it is my position. The arguments for the fossil record being evidence of a continuous process don't convince me and never have.
Again, the issue isn't whether you ignored people's arguments, it's that you repeatedly ignored data that contradicts your claims (and then you wait a bit and restate the same claims, acting as if no such data had ever been provided).Not being convinced by someone's argument is not to be interpreted as ignoring that argument either.
It's basically....
Creationist: "X doesn't exist"
JF: Here is an example of X.
Creationist: <ignores the data>
....2 months later....
Creationist: "X doesn't exist and those evolutionists refuse to admit it!"
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.