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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[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.

How do you know?

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.

How do you know?

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.

Or unless you are a non-evolutionary biologist.

I trust that the system works well enough that this would apply to any field of science, not just evolution.

Yes, that's true, people trust authorities, they assume that what a trusted authority says is safe to regard as true, the only question then is who does one trust and why.

People claim all kinds of scientific discoveries and always have, but the ones that can't survive extensive scrutiny are discarded.

Discarded by whom?

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.

No that was not an argument I put forward.

People should be believed if their facts and arguments are reasonable, they should not be automatically disbelieved simply because they might form a minority or make claims that are at odds with established beliefs.

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.

What do you mean "force"? nobody is forced to believe anything, take a look around, was Trump forced to believe he lost the election? was Giuliani forced to do so?

You are assuming all humans are completely honest, selfless and dispassionate with these kinds of questions, but in my experience that's a very bad assumption.

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?

I don't know, if there was such a conspiracy I do wonder how it would look, how it would differ from what we see today.

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.

Another question could be who is disadvantaged if they express disagreement with orthodoxy? Are people ever put at a disadvantage when disagreeing with prevailing beliefs?

Of course they are, be it matters of politics, history, art or science, in all these domains people become victims when they challenge an existing edifice.

Most people who accept evolution - this is in my experience of this subject over many decades - defend it without understanding it, without even an awareness of its potential flaws.

Therefore it is not because it is sound science that evolution is popular with people is it belief, trust, fashion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

No, you pretty much prove my point, you vocally defend evolution yet know nothing of its foundational problems, know nothing about observations that undermine it.

I won't help you at all, if you care go and find out if you don't then carry on believing what you believe, the important point is you didn't know.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

The theory stands falsified, this is a fact, it meets the criteria for falsification.

Cover of Time. Nobel prize. Lauded from every Christian pulpit in the country.

Your analysis is flawed, it stands falsified but nobody has received a Nobel prize.

No more sermons involving Job or the prodigal son or Corinthians verse something or other. Evolution has been falsified! But, alas, nothing.

I recently posted a list of the names and affiliations of over 1,100 PhD's, professors, teachers and academics, most with scientific credentials who do not accept evolution, that is not "nothing" not if you are honest anyway.

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.

This is emotional language, not a word about any specific scientific objection, just disparaging remarks. All you are doing is trying to discredit those who disagree with evolution not by open mindedly examining their arguments but by attacking them for daring to disagree.

Given that you (and most other defenders of evolution) behave like this routinely, ignore the science and attack the person routinely, is it any wonder that a Nobel prize is unlikely? is it any wonder that with such prejudice rampant, that there's no front page of Time?

[The Barbarian]

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.

No, you pretty much prove my point, you vocally defend evolution yet know nothing of its foundational problems, know nothing about observations that undermine it.

In fact, given your lack evidence to support your beliefs, he doesn't know if they even exist. In a debate, it's up to you to support your claim. Since you seem to be unable to do so, we can make only one conclusion.

[JoeyKnothead]

Sorry, I'm not going to feed you here.

Kinda hard to feed folks when the cupboards're bare.

If you already really, really, believe there are no serious epistemological problems in evolution theory then so be it, that's up to you.

I propose if you'd really, really support your claims in this regard, well how bout that.

Ya see, your claimer works fine, it's your supporter that's malfunctioning.

Your answer is typical, you have no idea of these problem areas, likely because you've been told by the "authorities" that there are none or that those that are admitted are merely apparent.

Are we to read your mind to divine what areas are so problematic?

Let's try an experiment...

Read my mind, and tell me if I'm athinking "doofus", or "this guy's on to something".

This proves my point - most evolution advocates are unaware of the theory's serious problems because in their world there can be no problems, because it is axiomatic that evolution is true no matter what objections or concerns others might raise, they do not matter because they know evolution is true.

Yeah, it's kinda obvious we're unaware of the problems you carry on about, when ya steadfastly refuse to present em.


"It's all the atheist's fault for not accepting an argument I refuse to support" is right up there with the pretty thing expecting me to know what it is she's gonna be mad at me for here come tomorrow.

[The Barbarian]

The theory stands falsified, this is a fact, it meets the criteria for falsification.

Show us that. Or will you again insist youi're right, but unwilling to show anyone?

I recently posted a list of the names and affiliations of over 1,100 PhD's, professors, teachers and academics, most with scientific credentials who do not accept evolution,

Last time I checked that was about 0.3% of PhD biologists (or a similar discipline) rejecting evolutionary theory. The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationism.

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.

I'm thinking that he's maybe gotten bruised in the past, trying to put an argument together with evidence, now hopes to persuade by just making unsupported

All you are doing is trying to discredit those who disagree with evolution not by open mindedly examining their arguments but by attacking them for daring to disagree.

Maybe you should try making a cogent argument, using facts. Stamping your foot and insisting that you are right, isn't going so well for you.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

No, you pretty much prove my point, you vocally defend evolution yet know nothing of its foundational problems, know nothing about observations that undermine it.

In fact, given your lack evidence to support your beliefs, he doesn't know if they even exist. In a debate, it's up to you to support your claim. Since you seem to be unable to do so, we can make only one conclusion.

What conclusion have you drawn exactly?

[Sherlock Holmes]

The theory stands falsified, this is a fact, it meets the criteria for falsification.

Show us that. Or will you again insist youi're right, but unwilling to show anyone?

Showing you will achieve nothing, if you were truly open minded then you'd be able - and willing - to go and explore this, there's a wealth of data available on the web.

I recently posted a list of the names and affiliations of over 1,100 PhD's, professors, teachers and academics, most with scientific credentials who do not accept evolution,

Last time I checked that was about 0.3% of PhD biologists (or a similar discipline) rejecting evolutionary theory. The bandwagon argument is a very bad one for creationism.

All this tells anyone is that the majority of people who have been educated about evolution were taught there was no controversy, that there is no grounds for questioning the theory.

It is hardly surprising then that people who have been taught - and had to sit professional exams - that evolution is not to be questioned, will go through life not questioning it!

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.

I'm thinking that he's maybe gotten bruised in the past, trying to put an argument together with evidence, now hopes to persuade by just making unsupported

All you are doing is trying to discredit those who disagree with evolution not by open mindedly examining their arguments but by attacking them for daring to disagree.

Maybe you should try making a cogent argument, using facts. Stamping your foot and insisting that you are right, isn't going so well for you.

I'm only prepared to spend time doing that with an opponent who exhibits open mindedness, a true willingness to seriously consider the possibility that there might be compelling evidence undermining evolution.

So far all I see is disparaging remarks, glorified claims that "the majority is always right" and the rather silly point that the majority of people who believe evolution is true were taught that in school and university that evolution is true, as if that is a meaningful statistic.

The attitude is all too familiar to me, that the very act of questioning something that is believed by the majority to be true, is in and of itself proof that it is true, that those daring to question must inevitably be wrong, this is a terrible terrible argument but it is all over these pages and I will not waste my time presenting evidence or arguments to such an audience.

That's not open mindedness.

[Difflugia]

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!

When pushed to support any of your arguments, all you've given us so far is the title of a book, the claim of which you applied more broadly than the author's actual argument can be pushed. You still haven't actually defended your use of that or any other argument, but have instead now made the claim that there's some creationist somewhere that has a valid argument, if only we were "interested" enough to find it.

Your main debate strategy so far has been to assert something, refuse to support it, and then insult us for not supporting your argument ourselves.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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!

When pushed to support any of your arguments, all you've given us so far is the title of a book, the claim of which you applied more broadly than the author's actual argument can be pushed. You still haven't actually defended your use of that or any other argument, but have instead now made the claim that there's some creationist somewhere that has a valid argument, if only we were "interested" enough to find it.

Your main debate strategy so far has been to assert something, refuse to support it, and then insult us for not supporting your argument ourselves.

I'm not that interested in spending time debating or discussing this with those who are closed minded, already absolutely convinced beyond any shadow doubt that evolution is an absolute unquestionable fact.

That because a majority believe it to be true then therefore it is true - this is an "argument" several have expressed here.