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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #92]

Are there any accredited, certificated, scientific experts who are skeptical of evolution and some of the claims made in its name?

Of course there are! This is true for most (all?) areas of science. I expect there are flat earthers who are "real" scientists but for religious or other reasons refuse to believe reality. The question is whether there is broad and overwhelming scientific consensus, and in the case of evolution there is. If a small number of scientists challenge the consensus, and could make their case in peer-reviewed journals, they might change the consensus. But so far this hasn't happened.

[Difflugia]

Are there any accredited, certificated, scientific experts who are skeptical of evolution and some of the claims made in its name?

Can you answer yes or no to that question?

I'm not sure how that relates to anything I wrote or how "just asking questions" will help with any of your still unsupported assertions, but you've given us nothing else to talk about.

Yes.

There's an apologetics book that lists 50 of them: In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. How "certificated" they are varies a bit, but pretty much even the narrowest definition applies to at least one of them.

I'm pretty sure that showing you how to analyze the data yourself is pointless, too ("horse to water" and all that), but hope springs eternal, I guess.

Ahh, that old gem! imply that the skeptic is uneducated, knows little about evolution, attack their supposed ignorance rather than deal with the facts at hand.

I did deal with the facts at hand. You ignored them and then once again made claims contrary to those facts. I didn't have to imply anything.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #92]

Are there any accredited, certificated, scientific experts who are skeptical of evolution and some of the claims made in its name?

Of course there are! This is true for most (all?) areas of science. I expect there are flat earthers who are "real" scientists but for religious or other reasons refuse to believe reality.

Very well, so then what are some of the concerns that these scientific skeptics express?

The question is whether there is broad and overwhelming scientific consensus, and in the case of evolution there is.

But that wasn't the question at all, the question was do you know what are some of the more serious problems facing evolutionary theory.

If a small number of scientists challenge the consensus, and could make their case in peer-reviewed journals, they might change the consensus. But so far this hasn't happened.

That's not what I was asking, the question is do you know what it is some of these scientist skeptics raise as being problems?

See? you are not the slightest bit interested in the issues, all you want to do is discredit them without even knowing what they are, right away all you want to talk about is the number of such scientists, not what it is they might be concerned about!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Are there any accredited, certificated, scientific experts who are skeptical of evolution and some of the claims made in its name?

Can you answer yes or no to that question?

I'm not sure how that relates to anything I wrote or how "just asking questions" will help with any of your still unsupported assertions, but you've given us nothing else to talk about.

Yes.

There's an apologetics book that lists 50 of them: In Six Days: Why 50 Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation. How "certificated" they are varies a bit, but pretty much even the narrowest definition applies to at least one of them.

Right, so moving on, what are some of the concerns raised by some of these scientists? (oh and speaking of apologists, Richard Dawkins is a renowned evolution apologist just FYI).

(Oh and by the way, here's a further 1,120 of them form here.).

I'm pretty sure that showing you how to analyze the data yourself is pointless, too ("horse to water" and all that), but hope springs eternal, I guess.

Ahh, that old gem! imply that the skeptic is uneducated, knows little about evolution, attack their supposed ignorance rather than deal with the facts at hand.

I did deal with the facts at hand. You ignored them and then once again made claims contrary to those facts. I didn't have to imply anything.

Very well.

[Difflugia]

Right, so moving on, what are some of the concerns raised by some of these scientists?

Sure. Are you now trying to establish claims for a different debate or just fishing? How about you pick one that you're willing to defend?

[The Barbarian]

Some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

There's a way to test that assumption, using your link. There is "Project Steve" which lists scientists with a PhD in biology or a related field who accept evolutionary theory and are named "Steve" or some variant of that name. There are 1472 signed up currently. Going through your list with the same qualifications, we get an estimate of about 0.3% of scientists doubting Darwin. Note, that it's not 3%, it's 0.3%.

Which is a pretty good clue, no?

The validity of claims made in the name of science is not based on democratic voting.

The opinions of scientists in their field of expertise are a good indicator, however. The facts I've pointed out, just debunk the story about "some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution." In fact, until the early part of the last century, many scientists did not accept Darwin's theory. The discovery of the way genes work cleared up some important problems in the theory, and that lead to the vast majority of biologists accepting evolutionary theory.

Most of the general public accept and defend evolution while at the same time knowing very little about it or about its major problem areas.

But of course, all biologists know about the theory, which is why it's overwhelmingly accepted by them. What do you think the "major problems" of evolutionary theory are?

Some 30% of the US public think Trump won the election, that's not 0.3% nor 3% its 30%.

This is apparently true. But of course, these aren't the most knowledgeable people:
How could the “big lie” campaign convince so many Republicans that Trump won an election he so clearly lost? Some observers wonder whether these beliefs are genuine or just an example of expressive responding, a term social scientists use to mean respondents are using a survey item to register a feeling rather than express a real belief. In this case, it would mean that these Republicans, upset about Biden winning, say his victory was not legitimate even though they know deep down that it was.

Apparently, about 79% of republicans are in denial about the election. Which is very disturbing; democracy depends on an informed electorate:

From Gallup comes news that its regular polling on party affiliation shows the largest quarterly gap in major party affiliation since 2012, with 49 percent of U.S. adults identifying themselves as either Democrats (30 percent) or as Democratic-leaning independents (19 percent), while 40 percent call themselves Republicans (25 percent) or Republican-leaning independents (15 percent).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/04 ... allup.html

But do show us those significant problems. Start with the one you think is most important, we'll work down. I see above that some have concluded you aren't willing to discuss them for various reasons, but maybe we just need to take a look at them, one at a time. What have you got?

[The Barbarian]

https://www.aaas.org/part-i-i-dont-believe-evolution
https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ion-2016-9

Interesting. About the same percent of Americans doubt evolution as think that Trump won the election.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #95]

But that wasn't the question at all, the question was do you know what are some of the more serious problems facing evolutionary theory.

That's not what I was asking, the question is do you know what it is some of these scientist skeptics raise as being problems?

See? you are not the slightest bit interested in the issues, all you want to do is discredit them without even knowing what they are, right away all you want to talk about is the number of such scientists, not what it is they might be concerned about!

You missed my point entirely. It does not matter what their specific objections are. If they were valid they would find enough support within the overall science community to justify investigations and prompt other people to find out if the objections were legitimate. Everyone would be curious that there may be a problem, and the more serious this might be the more urgency there would be to find out if the objection was valid or not. There's no need for me to know anything at all about what those objections are unless I'm an evolutionary biologist interested in investigating the point being raised. I trust that the system works well enough that this would apply to any field of science, not just evolution. People claim all kinds of scientific discoveries and always have, but the ones that can't survive extensive scrutiny are discarded.

You seem to be suggesting that a very small percentage of naysayers should be believed over the much greater community that is in agreement based on data and evidence. If any of these people you mention had valid objections to evolution that they could justify, this would force their objections to be heard and investigated. Or do you think there is some giant conspiracy to force evolution down our throats for some reason and to ignore anyone who challenges it? Who benefits from something like that? There would be huge rewards for anyone who could supply a replacement theory that worked better than evolution, or genuinely disproved evolution.

[brunumb]

No, go and seek for yourself without me imposing my ideas, if you are truly open minded you will find this, it is out there.

OK, I am keen to find out. Please at least help with a couple of links to get me started. That's not too much to ask, surely.

[brunumb]

If any of these people you mention had valid objections to evolution that they could justify, this would force their objections to be heard and investigated.

So true. Whoever succeeded in falsifying the theory of evolution would achieve the pinnacle of notoriety. Cover of Time. Nobel prize. Lauded from every Christian pulpit in the country. No more sermons involving Job or the prodigal son or Corinthians verse something or other. Evolution has been falsified! But, alas, nothing. All we get is some whimpering and hand waving from internet bloggers making unsupported claims and expecting others to just drink the Kool Aid in one mad gulp. "Put up or shut up" springs to mind.