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.

[Purple Knight]

Hey! that's Oliver, the Humanzee, there's a great documentary on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTB4t5_N6x4 about him, really interesting documentary, sit back with a beer and enjoy.

I watched it. They showed quite a lot of evidence that he was half-human, then ultimately just said, oh, we did a DNA test and it turned out he wasn't half-human.

I do still wonder.

[Sherlock Holmes]

...
I find ID thought provoking and admire writers like Behe and Meyer and others, much of their analysis rightly forces us to face the philosophical basis of science, too many ID critics adopt a knee-jerk attitude of dismissiveness too.

Though I reject the "attitude" part as too ad hominy, I think your point is plenty fair. Particular examples'd be nice, but I think it fair to say we nigh all of us have our knee-jerk reactions to stuff.

Yes the Cambrian is characterized by "suddenness" (and this is the way paleontologists and biologists express it)

They mean sudden on a geological timescale, where some less aware might consider it a blink of the eye.

but at a more fundamental level the entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example.

I get that (and by no means would wish to imply you're pointing to the god of the gaps argument). As an amateur, my lifelong studies indicate a rather robust fossil record combines with reams of other disciplines, to paint a clear picture.

The reliance on a dramatically discontinuous record (i.e. a record of discontinuity) as "compelling evidence" for a continuous process is truly fascinating, the way this has been accomplished, leaving a largely indifferent population to disregard it, is a science lesson in itself.

As above, I combine data from a multitude of disciplines, and find a compelling argument. (My amateur studies here are less in fossils, and more in extant species).

I pologize if this gets side-tracky...
"Rabbits in the precambrian" comes to mind, where the absence of fossils can steer us towards - if not confirm - reasonable and logical conclusions.

So it ain't always what we find in the data (across disciplines), but sometimes what we don't.

Well these are all rather typical, predictable objections, objections I once relied upon myself many years ago. If you're satisfied though that the fossil record is consistent with evolution then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Difflugia]

Well these are all rather typical, predictable objections, objections I once relied upon myself many years ago.

Though the context implies that this is meant as a pejorative, keep in mind that yes is also the "typical, predictable" response to "is water wet?"

If you're satisfied though that the fossil record is consistent with evolution then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's sort of where things were until you insisted that there is some evidence that it's not, but you won't actually tell us what it is. "Too bad you don't know what my evidence is" comes across a bit like "you don't know her, she's from Canada."

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well these are all rather typical, predictable objections, objections I once relied upon myself many years ago.

Though the context implies that this is meant as a pejorative, keep in mind that yes is also the "typical, predictable" response to "is water wet?"

If you're satisfied though that the fossil record is consistent with evolution then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's sort of where things were until you insisted that there is some evidence that it's not, but you won't actually tell us what it is. "Too bad you don't know what my evidence is" comes across a bit like "you don't know her, she's from Canada."

It is not my intention here to argue a point by point case against evolution, I did say that the fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity) and I'm satisfied that this is the case.

The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity and so has every reason to be regarded as in actual fact, evidence of discontinuity and that is evidence against evolution.

If life did arise through a discontinuous process then I'd expect the fossil record to look exactly as it does look.

I'm very familiar with responses like yours, I've studied this in some detail for decades (and once argued for evolution in fact) and if you are satisfied that the fossil record does not present any problems for the theory then that's your position - I respect it but disagree.

If you believe already that I am wrong then so be it, that's your right.

[JoeyKnothead]

Well these are all rather typical, predictable objections, objections I once relied upon myself many years ago. If you're satisfied though that the fossil record is consistent with evolution then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Naw now, you ain't counting that part there when I told how it ain't just the fossils atelling the tale.

So, you either couldn't understand you that important bit of it, or you left that detail out cause it fussed against your position.

But who's to judge?

Pretty thing'll ask me how come her floors she done mopped got my boot prints on em, and I set in on them missing fossils.

[Difflugia]

It is not my intention here to argue a point by point case against evolution,

In a debate forum? That seems a poor choice of venue to make an unsupported assertion and expect it to go unchallenged.

I did say that the fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity) and I'm satisfied that this is the case.

You've vaguely asserted such without support, yes. You haven't defined what you mean by "discontinuous" or why it's "inexplicably inconsistent" with your understanding of evolution, but only that you find the combination "satisfying."

The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity and so has every reason to be regarded as in actual fact, evidence of discontinuity and that is evidence against evolution.

What do you mean by "continuous" and "discontinuous" in this context?

If life did arise through a discontinuous process then I'd expect the fossil record to look exactly as it does look.

Or that fossilization itself is the result of a discontinuous process. Subject to your definition of "discontinuous," of course.

I'm very familiar with responses like yours, I've studied this in some detail for decades (and once argued for evolution in fact)

So you've asserted. I'm sure flat-Earthers are familiar with being told they're wrong, too.

and if you are satisfied that the fossil record does not present any problems for the theory then that's your position - I respect it but disagree.

So you keep saying.

If you believe already that I am wrong then so be it, that's your right.

I'm glad we at least agree on that. I was starting to worry.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well these are all rather typical, predictable objections, objections I once relied upon myself many years ago. If you're satisfied though that the fossil record is consistent with evolution then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Naw now, you ain't counting that part there when I told how it ain't just the fossils atelling the tale.

So, you either couldn't understand you that important bit of it, or you left that detail out cause it fussed against your position.

That doesn't matter, do you recall what it was that I said? it was:

"The entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example".

I consider this to be a demonstrably true statement that any open minded investigator could go and check for themselves. It is on that basis that I declare evolution stands falsified, the evidence is inconsistent with empirical expectations.

Of course there are numerous other arguments used to defend evolution but they do not matter one iota, they are irrelevant, no amount of supporting evidence for a theory can negate a failed test, a falsifying observation.

Look at Newton, even today there are many many experiments we can do that are totally consistent with Newtonian mechanics but that does not alter the fact that theory has been falsified, it is wrong.

It is all too common a tactic for the defenders of evolution to push problems aside, focus on where theory does match expectations and dismiss, disregard and downplay areas where it is in trouble.

Whatever genuine problems are raised, the evolutionist doesn't worry, they just reach for some other area where there is consistency and continue with their insistence that everything is hunky dory, this is why it is not really even a theory, no matter what problems come up they are never treated as significant, they are always treated as only being apparent problems.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is not my intention here to argue a point by point case against evolution,

In a debate forum? That seems a poor choice of venue to make an unsupported assertion and expect it to go unchallenged.

I did say that the fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity) and I'm satisfied that this is the case.

You've vaguely asserted such without support, yes. You haven't defined what you mean by "discontinuous" or why it's "inexplicably inconsistent" with your understanding of evolution, but only that you find the combination "satisfying."

The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity and so has every reason to be regarded as in actual fact, evidence of discontinuity and that is evidence against evolution.

What do you mean by "continuous" and "discontinuous" in this context?

If life did arise through a discontinuous process then I'd expect the fossil record to look exactly as it does look.

Or that fossilization itself is the result of a discontinuous process. Subject to your definition of "discontinuous," of course.

I'm very familiar with responses like yours, I've studied this in some detail for decades (and once argued for evolution in fact)

So you've asserted. I'm sure flat-Earthers are familiar with being told they're wrong, too.

and if you are satisfied that the fossil record does not present any problems for the theory then that's your position - I respect it but disagree.

So you keep saying.

If you believe already that I am wrong then so be it, that's your right.

I'm glad we at least agree on that. I was starting to worry.

I'll leave you to investigate what "discontinuous" means with respect to the fossil record, it is not hard to run a search, there are books aplenty out there too.

But tell me, how do you distinguish between a continues process that has been subject to discontinuous preservation and discontinuous process that has been subject to some, perhaps better preservation?

How can one claim that the fossil record is evidence for evolution when it can more reasonably be claimed it is evidence of discontinuous change, dramatic morphological changes with no fossil trace, no evidence, of any transition?

This is the situation, the fossil record does not support claims of continuous morphological change through natural selection, the fossil record shows the opposite, that's what it shows, but will you accept what the evidence shows you? or persist in concocting defensive arguments and dismiss these problems as being only apparent, always, always just apparent?

[Difflugia]

I'll leave you to investigate what "discontinuous" means with respect to the fossil record, it is not hard to run a search, there are books aplenty out there too.

Is it an important part of your argument to make me guess? If your answer is "books aplenty," could you provide the title of one with which you agree?

But tell me, how do you distinguish between a continues process that has been subject to discontinuous preservation and discontinuous process that has been subject to some, perhaps better preservation?

I give up. How?

How can one claim that the fossil record is evidence for evolution when it can more reasonably be claimed it is evidence of discontinuous change, dramatic morphological changes with no fossil trace, no evidence, of any transition?

If that were true, then one wouldn't. Perhaps you could suggest the title of a book that explains how the fossil evidence "can more reasonably be claimed" to be "evidence of discontinuous change."

This is the situation, the fossil record does not support claims of continuous morphological change through natural selection, the fossil record shows the opposite, that's what it shows, but will you accept what the evidence shows you?

This assertion is false.

or persist in concocting defensive arguments and dismiss these problems as being only apparent, always, always just apparent?

Considering that you refuse to even explain what you mean, your statement is a bit (unintentionally, I'm sure) ironic.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I'll leave you to investigate what "discontinuous" means with respect to the fossil record, it is not hard to run a search, there are books aplenty out there too.

Is it an important part of your argument to make me guess? If your answer is "books aplenty," could you provide the title of one with which you agree?

But tell me, how do you distinguish between a continues process that has been subject to discontinuous preservation and discontinuous process that has been subject to some, perhaps better preservation?

I give up. How?

How can one claim that the fossil record is evidence for evolution when it can more reasonably be claimed it is evidence of discontinuous change, dramatic morphological changes with no fossil trace, no evidence, of any transition?

If that were true, then one wouldn't. Perhaps you could suggest the title of a book that explains how the fossil evidence "can more reasonably be claimed" to be "evidence of discontinuous change."

This is the situation, the fossil record does not support claims of continuous morphological change through natural selection, the fossil record shows the opposite, that's what it shows, but will you accept what the evidence shows you?

This assertion is false.

or persist in concocting defensive arguments and dismiss these problems as being only apparent, always, always just apparent?

Considering that you refuse to even explain what you mean, your statement is a bit (unintentionally, I'm sure) ironic.

I've said what I've said, engaging in a debate with more back and forth is not my intention so lets leave it at that.

The fact is you believe what you already believe and it seems you are satisfied with that and have no doubts about evolution, therefore any discussion about it between us will almost certainly be a waste of time.