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]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #130]

I think it's fair to say we're the universe become aware, but find little data to suggest it was a mind that put it here.
Given the young age of the human specie and the minute period of time we each have within it, 'little data' is all we have Joey.
Even so, it is enough data to make the call which only MIND can make.

Yes, we of human minds make such kinds of calls quite often.

But that doesn't mean that reality requires our perception, which is what I was originally getting at.

Are you saying that The Universe does not require our consciousness? IF so, THEN was consciousness accidental?

It has been suggested that 'The Universe' has always existed in that it begins and ends and begins again [even as something slightly of entirely different than previously] and we are currently experiencing an infinitesimal part one such Universe cycle.
What is to say that a mind has not always being an aspect of that?

I find the data weak for drawing firm conclusion in this matter, so...I think we'd be hard pressed to draw firm conclusions in this'n.

So you are not one who thinks that everything which exists within the Universe were contained in the seed that is theorized as the infinitesimal object which exploded?

Speculation's a poor method of determining the truth.

The Big Bang theory is speculation. Even the theory that everything accidently happened, is speculation.

What truth do you think has been 'determined' Joey?

[Purple Knight]

Can't you see? if a person truly believes that because 99% of biologists accept evolution then evolution must be true, there's no way to ever change their mind with science so long as the doubters are in the minority, no evidence, no data, no facts, nothing matters to such a person.

The second someone begins to think like this, they cause that field to not be science anymore, at least, in their head. They may as well be worshiping a god or an alien spaceship or a golden calf.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #125]

Where's it been established there's a mind behind evolution?

In the facts Joey. Mind is involved. I think of it as a Planetary Mind.

In what facts?

[otseng]

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.

Moderator Comment

Please debate without making comments about others.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian,

One of the responses, counter arguments that you posted earlier said this:

Last time I checked that was about 0.3% of PhD biologists (or a similar discipline) rejecting evolutionary theory.

Right there, the popularity of evolution is presented as a defense of it, [/quiote]

Nope. I merely showed that your claim that scientists are doubting evolutionary theory, is very wrong. It was a big mistake for you to assert an appeal to authority, when almost all of the authorities don't agree with you.

[quiote]You don't want to talk about the scientific problems, shortcomings at all,

Since you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think these (so far hypthetical) shortcomings are, people have concluded you don't know of any.

You started to talk about popularity, until I made it clear that was a loser for you. But you don't have much else to show us, it seems. Here's the way it works:
You make an assertion.
You provide evidence for it.
Others examine the evidence and agree or disagree, providing evidence if they disagree. That the terms of debate.

Sorry man, I just won't waste my time seriously discussing an important subject like that on these terms

So far, you haven't discussed it seriously. Everyone sees your excuses; no one buys them.

Go find some facts you think undermine evolutionary theory, and then show what you have.

instead I'm going to listen to this Jazz.

Ah yes, "if it's on You Tube, it has to be true."

Feel free to copy down whatever arguments you find there, and present them. And then you won't have to make excuses.
Show us what you learned and we'll talk about it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Given the young age of the human specie and the minute period of time we each have within it, 'little data' is all we have Joey.
Even so, it is enough data to make the call which only MIND can make.

Yes, we of human minds make such kinds of calls quite often.

But that doesn't mean that reality requires our perception, which is what I was originally getting at.

Are you saying that The Universe does not require our consciousness? IF so, THEN was consciousness accidental?

My point about consciousness goes back to someone's claim that reality requires perception to be it.

I merely pointed out the best available data indicates perception is a product of the biological, and that biological critters weren't always around, while there sat reality.

It has been suggested that 'The Universe' has always existed in that it begins and ends and begins again [even as something slightly of entirely different than previously] and we are currently experiencing an infinitesimal part one such Universe cycle.
What is to say that a mind has not always being an aspect of that?

I find the data weak for drawing firm conclusion in this matter, so...I think we'd be hard pressed to draw firm conclusions in this'n.

So you are not one who thinks that everything which exists within the Universe were contained in the seed that is theorized as the infinitesimal object which exploded?

I make no claims about a potential origin for the universe. It may have always existed for all I know

Speculation's a poor method of determining the truth.

The Big Bang theory is speculation. Even the theory that everything accidently happened, is speculation.

So truth'll be harder to come by than a mouth full of teeth in Appalachia.

What truth do you think has been 'determined' Joey?

None regarding anothern's claim that reality only exists if perception does.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Barbarian,

One of the responses, counter arguments that you posted earlier said this:

Last time I checked that was about 0.3% of PhD biologists (or a similar discipline) rejecting evolutionary theory.

Right there, the popularity of evolution is presented as a defense of it, [/quiote]

Nope. I merely showed that your claim that scientists are doubting evolutionary theory, is very wrong. It was a big mistake for you to assert an appeal to authority, when almost all of the authorities don't agree with you.

Well first the claim "scientists are doubting evolutionary theory" cannot be wrong if there's at least one scientist expressing doubt about evolution's efficacy as an explanation, since there is more than one that really ends that dispute.

Second the mention of scientists who question evolution's efficacy arose not as an argument from authority but as a response to remarks by others, for example Difflugia cited Donald R. Prothero, Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters, p. 55, in post #57.

Citing sources and individuals who share my opinions is not an argument from authority either, at no point did I claim that because these dissenters are scientists that therefore they must be right, whereas you say precisely that when you use "99% of PhDs accept evolution" as an argument, as a defense of evolution!

The fact is there are dissenters (if you disagree then please just say so), it is a true statement that there are scientifically educated dissenters - right there this dispels any implied arguments from others that doubt in evolution is confined to the uneducated, to those who do not understand.

[quiote]You don't want to talk about the scientific problems, shortcomings at all,

Since you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think these (so far hypothetical) shortcomings are, people have concluded you don't know of any.

Well such a conclusion would be wrong and illogical, because I explained repeatedly that I refuse to debate the scientific shortcomings of evolution with anyone who - IMHO - argues non scientifically.

Arguments based on the % of scientists who support evolution, arguments based on the % of dissenters who are Christians, arguments about debates and decisions regarding schools and so on are all non-scientific arguments.

You started to talk about popularity, until I made it clear that was a loser for you. But you don't have much else to show us, it seems. Here's the way it works:
You make an assertion.
You provide evidence for it.
Others examine the evidence and agree or disagree, providing evidence if they disagree. That the terms of debate.

I did talk about popularity but I was not the first to do so in this thread.

As for "how it works" I agree, that is the way it works once I choose to enter into a debate but I have not because so far (with the notable exception of Difflugia) most arguments are non-scientific and if that is to be your modus operandi debate serves no purpose.

If you truly believe that the popularity of evolution carries evidential weight and I do not then of course we'll never agree so why even start?

Sorry man, I just won't waste my time seriously discussing an important subject like that on these terms

So far, you haven't discussed it seriously. Everyone sees your excuses; no one buys them.

Go find some facts you think undermine evolutionary theory, and then show what you have.

instead I'm going to listen to this Jazz.

Ah yes, "if it's on You Tube, it has to be true."

Feel free to copy down whatever arguments you find there, and present them. And then you won't have to make excuses.
Show us what you learned and we'll talk about it.

I refuse to argue and debate the subject on your terms, I have that right, by the way that was true, that really is a Jazz track on youtube.

Here's two questions for you, each has a yes/no answer:

1. Are there any competent professional scientists who are skeptical that evolution is true?
2. Is it possible for widely held, very popular beliefs, to be wrong?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Can't you see? if a person truly believes that because 99% of biologists accept evolution then evolution must be true, there's no way to ever change their mind with science so long as the doubters are in the minority, no evidence, no data, no facts, nothing matters to such a person.

The second someone begins to think like this, they cause that field to not be science anymore, at least, in their head. They may as well be worshiping a god or an alien spaceship or a golden calf.

I know and those who should know better, do this all the time and set a bad example for the young or inexperienced.

Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, (the late) Christopher Hitchens and Peter Atkins and plenty of others, all have presented non-scientific arguments to defend both evolution and atheism.

[The Barbarian]

Well first the claim "scientists are doubting evolutionary theory" cannot be wrong if there's at least one scientist expressing doubt about evolution's efficacy as an explanation, since there is more than one that really ends that dispute.

Just pointing out that only a tiny minority of biologists doubt macroevolution. As you see, those that do, are almost entirely doing so for religious reason. Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, for example, admit that evolution is a successful theory with strong evidnece for it. They just prefer their particular interpretation of Genesis.

[quiote]You don't want to talk about the scientific problems, shortcomings at all,

Since you've repeatedly refused to tell us what you think these (so far hypothetical) shortcomings are, people have concluded you don't know of any.

Well such a conclusion would be wrong and illogical, because I explained repeatedly that I refuse to debate the scientific shortcomings of evolution with anyone who - IMHO - argues non scientifically.

Not a very convincing excuse. "I'd love to talk about the problems in evolution, but the Evil Barbarian won't let me." is a rather transparent dodge.

You started to talk about popularity, until I made it clear that was a loser for you. But you don't have much else to show us, it seems. Here's the way it works:
You make an assertion.
You provide evidence for it.
Others examine the evidence and agree or disagree, providing evidence if they disagree. That the terms of debate.

As for "how it works" I agree, that is the way it works once I choose to enter into a debate but I have not because so far (with the notable exception of Difflugia) most arguments are non-scientific and if that is to be your modus operandi debate serves no purpose.

We all know what you're doing. You don't want to get drawn into a discussion of the facts, because... well, you know, don't you?

If you truly believe that "a few scientists don't accept evolution" carries evidential weight, being reminded of just how few there are, seems to have stopped that nonsense.

Sorry man, I just won't waste my time seriously discussing an important subject like that on these terms

So far, you haven't discussed it seriously. Everyone sees your excuses; no one buys them.

Go find some facts you think undermine evolutionary theory, and then show what you have.

(suggests You Tube videos)

Feel free to copy down whatever arguments you find there, and present them. And then you won't have to make excuses.
Show us what you learned and we'll talk about it.

I refuse to argue and debate the subject on your terms,

Or any other, for that matter.

Here's two questions for you, each has a yes/no answer

First, we'd like to see those important problems in evolutionary theory. You appear to not have any, since you refuse to even tell us what they are.

You're on.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Emphasis in red is mine:

Well first the claim "scientists are doubting evolutionary theory" cannot be wrong if there's at least one scientist expressing doubt about evolution's efficacy as an explanation, since there is more than one that really ends that dispute.

Just pointing out that only a tiny minority of biologists doubt macroevolution. As you see, those that do, are almost entirely doing so for religious reason. Kurt Wise and Todd Wood, for example, admit that evolution is a successful theory with strong evidnece for it. They just prefer their particular interpretation of Genesis.

Which serves as a perfect example of why you and I cannot meaningfully debate evolution.

As I explained:

You regard the popularity of evolution theory as an argument in favor of evolution theory, I regard it as irrelevant.

You regard the fact that most evolutionists are atheists as an argument in favor of evolution theory, I regard it as irrelevant.

(HINT: imagine I had argued "evolution supporters entirely do so for atheistic reasons").

Theories in the sciences stand or fall on the basis of how well their empirical expectations stand up against observation, nothing else is relevant, nothing, not the beliefs of the proponents, not the number of the proponents, none of that matters.

This is why I have refused to debate and discuss this with you, I do not and will not debate evolution on your unscientific terms.

I see you refused to answer my two questions, well let the audience judge that refusal for themselves, you've had lots of opportunities now to engage me on equitable terms and you refuse, so be it.