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.

[William]

Of course, who would suggest that this is the result of intelligent design?

Frankly, at first glance, it would seem to be the result of neither. For this to be the work of God, God would have to be an abstract artist who doesn't care about symmetry. And for it to be the result of evolution, some lazy fish would have had to have been lying on the ocean floor and getting some benefit from that which outweighed not being able to use their other eye, before, at long last, evolution gave them a way to use both their eyes by making one of those eyeballs slide slowly to the other side.

Wandering eyeballs, really? Maybe so but this is one of the points that makes people doubt evolution and rightly so. We have tons of other examples of evolution proceeding nicely so I can accept (and do accept) that wandering eyeballs are just the odd man out.

I am also open to other options that perhaps proceed in tandem with evolution. I'm not utterly convinced Lamarkian evolution is always false.

It is really only about personal preference and how that affects ones critiquing.

What 'things' look like have no bearing on the intelligence of anyone who made it to look like it does.

It is just school-boy yarning for the sake of obtaining laughs and likes, from other such minds....

[Jose Fly]

Or they could just say "I really don't know all that much about it". It's what I do with subjects that I....well....don't know much about.

They can. That's encompassed by my saying they shouldn't just trust people blindly.

But they're also welcome to think otherwise and go on the best understanding they can personally come to.

Of course. What often perplexes me though are the people who don't know much about a subject, yet still form strong opinions about it and expect their opinions to be taken seriously by those who do know the subject.

[JoeyKnothead]

Spoken like the true "post-modernist that you are". There is one truth singular, not plural. The Bible has one meaning not many meanings. This is why for centuries theologians argued about the truth contained in the Bible. They argued because they knew that it has one meaning and they wanted to know the Word and that dwelt among us.

And now we'll pass the plate. Please give generously, God says I need me a new jet.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Or they could just say "I really don't know all that much about it". It's what I do with subjects that I....well....don't know much about.

They can. That's encompassed by my saying they shouldn't just trust people blindly.

But they're also welcome to think otherwise and go on the best understanding they can personally come to.

Of course. What often perplexes me though are the people who don't know much about a subject, yet still form strong opinions about it and expect their opinions to be taken seriously by those who do know the subject.

You mean subjects like theology? creation? intelligence? epistemology? philosophy? yes, I do have to say, I do see rather a lot of posts on these subjects by people who don't know much about these subjects.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1093]

And now we'll pass the plate. Please give generously, God says I need me a new jet.

If you feel compelled to pass the plate, I am ok with that. I do not need a jet. But whatever will do.

[William]

Spoken like the true "post-modernist that you are". There is one truth singular, not plural. The Bible has one meaning not many meanings. This is why for centuries theologians argued about the truth contained in the Bible. They argued because they knew that it has one meaning and they wanted to know the Word and that dwelt among us.

And now we'll pass the plate. Please give generously, God says I need me a new jet.

The Bible has

one meaning not many meanings

. This is why for centuries theologians argued about the truth contained in the Bible.

Truly, the best example of contradiction I have read in a while.

If we consider that "The Bible" means "The book Christians believe in as true" and that meaning is the only meaning for "The Bible";

Then there would be no reason whatsoever why anyone should argue about that meaning.

Search "The Bible" - the Christian scriptures, consisting of the Old and New Testaments. a book regarded as authoritative in a particular sphere.

If it just sat on the shelf, unread - it would still be "The Bible" and the meaning would stay intact.

However, once it is pulled off the shelf and opened and read - well it no longer can mean the same thing - because folk argue over what its content 'means' and 'for centuries' this has been evident - sometimes with disastrous, insidious results.

According to others who may not buy into the arguments stirred up, this is what "The Bible" means;

[Jose Fly]

Or they could just say "I really don't know all that much about it". It's what I do with subjects that I....well....don't know much about.

They can. That's encompassed by my saying they shouldn't just trust people blindly.

But they're also welcome to think otherwise and go on the best understanding they can personally come to.

Of course. What often perplexes me though are the people who don't know much about a subject, yet still form strong opinions about it and expect their opinions to be taken seriously by those who do know the subject.

You mean subjects like theology? creation? intelligence? epistemology? philosophy? yes, I do have to say, I do see rather a lot of posts on these subjects by people who don't know much about these subjects.

It applies to any subject.

[Purple Knight]

It's both. It has asymmetrical eye placement and its mouth is sideways. Clear sings of evolution from upright swimming to flat.

It depends on what you believe the fish's "right-side-up" is. I can see the thing's dorsal fin and there's nothing contradictory about saying it's lying on its side all the time.

Of course. What often perplexes me though are the people who don't know much about a subject, yet still form strong opinions about it and expect their opinions to be taken seriously by those who do know the subject.

It doesn't perplex me at all. They naturally have a higher degree of trust for the people around them, their family and churches for example, than for scientists who have nothing to do with them. And I even think they should. Some churches do try to help their communities, and that generates genuine trust.

The only thing that bothers me really is what the huge investment is. If evolution is the method of creation, that doesn't disprove intelligent design or a creator so I'm not sure why so many religiosos are stuck on this.

I also don't think people want to have been apes or monkeys. It disgusts them. We naturally condense things that occur along timespans too great for our 100-year-max brains to comprehend, so somewhere in the idea of evolution is something more human coming from something markedly more primitive.

For some reason fables that involve having been greater in the past and then fallen are more attractive than having wormed and clawed one's way up from the mud. For example, Gummi Bears occurs in a fantastical universe similar to your typical D&D medieval fantasy, and rather than starting out being essentially kobolds - creatures that live in the forest and don't have too much care for the world - the main characters start out as disenfranchised members of a once-great civilisation. They have a big book, passed down through the ages, and that's a big deal. They have a medallion, passed down through the ages, and that's a big deal. When the humans are in trouble, the decision to help is based on, well, the Great Gummies would have done it, so we should too. And for some reason this makes a more attractive fable while a story about becoming the first Great Gummies is less so.

[Jose Fly]

It doesn't perplex me at all. They naturally have a higher degree of trust for the people around them, their family and churches for example, than for scientists who have nothing to do with them. And I even think they should. Some churches do try to help their communities, and that generates genuine trust.

Well to be clear, when I say it "perplexes me", it's not that I don't understand what's going on. It's mostly just sheer tribalism, as you describe. What I don't understand though is how people can be so blind to it.

The only thing that bothers me really is what the huge investment is. If evolution is the method of creation, that doesn't disprove intelligent design or a creator so I'm not sure why so many religiosos are stuck on this.

I also don't think people want to have been apes or monkeys. It disgusts them. We naturally condense things that occur along timespans too great for our 100-year-max brains to comprehend, so somewhere in the idea of evolution is something more human coming from something markedly more primitive.

For some reason fables that involve having been greater in the past and then fallen are more attractive than having wormed and clawed one's way up from the mud. For example, Gummi Bears occurs in a fantastical universe similar to your typical D&D medieval fantasy, and rather than starting out being essentially kobolds - creatures that live in the forest and don't have too much care for the world - the main characters start out as disenfranchised members of a once-great civilisation. They have a big book, passed down through the ages, and that's a big deal. They have a medallion, passed down through the ages, and that's a big deal. When the humans are in trouble, the decision to help is based on, well, the Great Gummies would have done it, so we should too. And for some reason this makes a more attractive fable while a story about becoming the first Great Gummies is less so.

I think you answered your own question. From what I've seen, it boils down to the conflict between how scripture describes the past and how science does. Scripture says God created humans specially and separately, whereas science says humans share a common ancestry with other primates. And yes, the ick factor you describe is part of that. For example, during the Scopes trial days much of the anti-evolution literature centered around the "don't make a monkey out of me" sentiment.

The interesting thing though is, usually when I attempt to address the real root of the issue (religion) most creationists head for the hills. They just don't want to go there at all. But I suppose I understand that too, given how vital their religion is to their identity and emotional well being.

[Purple Knight]

It doesn't perplex me at all. They naturally have a higher degree of trust for the people around them, their family and churches for example, than for scientists who have nothing to do with them. And I even think they should. Some churches do try to help their communities, and that generates genuine trust.

Well to be clear, when I say it "perplexes me", it's not that I don't understand what's going on. It's mostly just sheer tribalism, as you describe. What I don't understand though is how people can be so blind to it.

Well my point is, they should. Survivalistically it's more important not to be tricked by people smarter than you than to hold the best belief about where the universe came from. It's why they run for the hills. You see this turning away behaviour when you're telling the truth, but he doesn't know that. And it's frustrating.

Sometimes I tell people the best way to see if someone is lying to you is to call them a liar. If they get offended to be called a liar, they're lying. If they say, yeah, I can see that you have no way to discern that I'm telling the truth, you really ought to assume I'm lying... Well then they're at least not certainly lying.

For example, during the Scopes trial days much of the anti-evolution literature centered around the "don't make a monkey out of me" sentiment.

I don't really understand why, but the ick is there. My only friend up through high school was a neo-Nazi and he just did not want to believe that humans originally came from Africa, and I think it's the exact same ick. By my thinking he should be happy if he thinks that the kind of thing he is, is better than the kind of thing that his distant ancestors were. I would be more happy to move up than to have moved down.