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.
How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Moderator: Moderators
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1132 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #231It depends. For example, the people who work at places like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research all have to agree to abide by the organizations' "statements of faith", which require them to reject any and all data that contradicts the organizations' interpretation of the Bible. That's a fundamentally non-scientific and dishonest framework, thus it would be foolish to assume that the people who works there are doing their work objectively or honestly. OTOH, people who work for legitimate science orgs and do legitimate science, I do tend to assume they're working in good faith.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:50 pmWould you extend the same courtesy, praise of honest neutrality, open mindedness etc, to scientists (biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc.) that dispute evolution? or do you regard that as an oxymoron? much like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #232Do you believe all, or most scientists are corrupt? Incompetent? Biased to the point that their work is unreliable?Purple Knight wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:33 pmI call BS. Scientists absolutely get into ruts assuming their pet theories are correct. This is a well-known phenomenon.
Well most "people who believe in evolution" have little to no scientific training or experience, and mostly rely on trusting that the relevant experts know what they're doing. And to be clear, that's fine. No one can be an expert in everything and we all have to trust the experts at various points in our lives.And I didn't even say scientists. I meant people who believe in evolution.
Nah. I'm frequently involved in the peer review process and that's not how it goes at all. Specific to evolution, there are no papers that are like "New evidence for evolution" or anything like that, so there's no pressure to keep confirming something we've known for well over a century.That's aside from the fact that in a competitive society, correct gets you published. Correct keeps you in the field. There's enough dirty motivation here to cause a replicability crisis.
Do you have a third alternative in mind?I absolutely affirm that evolution happens. I have seen it. I'm still worried because in the whole world, scientists included, it's just, evolution or intelligent design, and nobody seems to believe in any third parties. This is a bad, bad metagame.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1132 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #233No. I believe most scientists, in fact the vast, vast majority of people who have the inclination to become scientists, want to seek truth. The problem is that seeking truth is not rewarded and getting the desired result is, so there's a skew in that direction, and that's borne out by the replicability crisis.
Of course not. Again, you're the one who started talking about scientists. And I've got a bug up my butt about the replicability crisis so I responded in kind even though I just meant people who believe in evolution are motivated to defend it. Not solely scientists.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:04 pmNah. I'm frequently involved in the peer review process and that's not how it goes at all. Specific to evolution, there are no papers that are like "New evidence for evolution" or anything like that, so there's no pressure to keep confirming something we've known for well over a century.
But there is a problem with replicability. To me it seems like people are welcome to fudge and make up as much data as they please as long as they get the correct result, because the field is dominated by one ideology. The fact that it's the correct ideology makes no difference; it's still bad for science.
Sure. The first thing that came to my mind is that we're entropy's order siphons, and we develop to be the best order siphons we can be in the current biological metagame, driving apparent evolution.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:04 pmDo you have a third alternative in mind?I absolutely affirm that evolution happens. I have seen it. I'm still worried because in the whole world, scientists included, it's just, evolution or intelligent design, and nobody seems to believe in any third parties. This is a bad, bad metagame.
Why is a river shaped as it is? Because it is the most efficient path for the water to flow. Why are we shaped as we are? Because we are the most efficient destroyers of order, absorbers of resources, and breakers down of other orderly things, though we are orderly ourselves, we create net disorder so that we may maintain that.
- brunumb
- Savant
- Posts: 6002
- Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6627 times
- Been thanked: 3222 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #234From your point of view, what caused the fossil record and how was the ordered layering achieved?Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 11:26 am The fossil record is in fact evidence of evolution if and only if we assume evolution caused the fossil record.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.
- Difflugia
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3044
- Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
- Location: Michigan
- Has thanked: 3276 times
- Been thanked: 2022 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #235Neither sincerity nor being a scientist confers immunity to being sincerely wrong. Linus Pauling and his vitamin C crusade offers a bit of a cautionary tale there. On the other hand, there are certain things that no reasonably competent scientist would get wrong. The rub there is that most creationist talking points are wrong in one or more pretty fundamental ways. A scientist, especially a biologist, that honestly questioned evolution would do so because of some weird, esoteric detail that few nonscientists would pick up on in the first place.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:57 pmIt depends. For example, the people who work at places like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research all have to agree to abide by the organizations' "statements of faith", which require them to reject any and all data that contradicts the organizations' interpretation of the Bible. That's a fundamentally non-scientific and dishonest framework, thus it would be foolish to assume that the people who works there are doing their work objectively or honestly. OTOH, people who work for legitimate science orgs and do legitimate science, I do tend to assume they're working in good faith.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:50 pmWould you extend the same courtesy, praise of honest neutrality, open mindedness etc, to scientists (biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc.) that dispute evolution? or do you regard that as an oxymoron? much like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
Last edited by Difflugia on Sat Jan 22, 2022 1:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.
- DrNoGods
- Prodigy
- Posts: 2716
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
- Location: Nevada
- Has thanked: 593 times
- Been thanked: 1642 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #236[Replying to Jose Fly in post #222]
I doubt the ID crowd could ever be convinced of any alternative given that the overwhelming evidence for evolution has not fazed them one bit after 150+ years.
I agree and mentioned that it is faith-based only (ie. not science), but it remains the dominant alternative for people who don't believe in evolution and/or science. Purple Knight is asking for more options apart from ID or evolution and proposed an entropy alternative. That faces the same hurdle any other alternative hypothesis would in that it has to be supported sufficiently to displace the current scientific consensus (evolution), or to convince the nonscientific but somehow still wildly popular ID crowd that they are wrong."Intelligent design" never was an option in science.
I doubt the ID crowd could ever be convinced of any alternative given that the overwhelming evidence for evolution has not fazed them one bit after 150+ years.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
John Paul Jones, 1779
The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3497
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1132 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #237A person working in good faith has no problem with being assumed to work in bad faith, because he welcomes scrutiny.
A person actually working in bad faith becomes immediately offended and demands trust, because he abhors scrutiny.
Therefore trust none and scrutinise all.
- Me
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #238So making claims in the name of science is valid, legitimate except when those making the claims have agreed to some preconditions that might limit what they can say.Jose Fly wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 3:57 pmIt depends. For example, the people who work at places like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research all have to agree to abide by the organizations' "statements of faith", which require them to reject any and all data that contradicts the organizations' interpretation of the Bible. That's a fundamentally non-scientific and dishonest framework, thus it would be foolish to assume that the people who works there are doing their work objectively or honestly. OTOH, people who work for legitimate science orgs and do legitimate science, I do tend to assume they're working in good faith.Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 1:50 pmWould you extend the same courtesy, praise of honest neutrality, open mindedness etc, to scientists (biologists, biochemists, molecular biologists etc.) that dispute evolution? or do you regard that as an oxymoron? much like the "No true Scotsman" fallacy?
Consider then:
So to be a teacher of biology means that one is unable to voice criticisms of anything that contradicts the stated curriculum.Other courts have similarly found that teachers do not have a First Amendment right to trump school district decisions regarding the curriculum (Clark v. Holmes, 7th Cir. 1972, Webster v. New Lenox School Dist. No. 122, 7th Cir. 1990). One court wrote: “the First Amendment has never required school districts to abdicate control over public school curricula to the unfettered discretion of individual teachers.” (Kirkland v. Northside Independent School Dist., 5th Cir. 1989)
This too then seems - based on what you have said - to also be "a fundamentally non-scientific and dishonest framework".
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #239So what's wrong with asking the question "Was X designed"?DrNoGods wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 9:43 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #222]
I agree and mentioned that it is faith-based only (ie. not science), but it remains the dominant alternative for people who don't believe in evolution and/or science. Purple Knight is asking for more options apart from ID or evolution and proposed an entropy alternative. That faces the same hurdle any other alternative hypothesis would in that it has to be supported sufficiently to displace the current scientific consensus (evolution), or to convince the nonscientific but somehow still wildly popular ID crowd that they are wrong."Intelligent design" never was an option in science.
Answer: Nothing, absolutely nothing, asking questions underpins science, the freedom to ask any question and question any dogma, underpins scientific inquiry.
Discouraging such question, punishing those who ask them, passing laws and regulations designed to stifle open discussion is not the hallmark or attitude of science, ask Galileo.
What's wrong with not paying attention to confirmatory observations and instead focusing instead on the problem observations?
It is almost like an instinct among evolutionists, the leap to "the overwhelming evidence for evolution" and blissful disregard for the problems.
Another important point here is that questioning evolution does no societal material harm to anyone anywhere, absolutely no harm yet is treated by some as if it were Fascism or slavery or child labor.
- Jose Fly
- Guru
- Posts: 1462
- Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
- Location: Out west somewhere
- Has thanked: 337 times
- Been thanked: 906 times
Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?
Post #240Agreed. In my work we've probably learned as much from our errors as anything else.
Yup. Well said.Linus Pauling and his vitamin C crusade offers a bit of a cautionary tale there. On the other hand, there are certain things that no reasonably competent scientist would get wrong. The rub there is that most creationist talking points are wrong in one or more pretty fundamental ways. A scientist, especially a biologist, that honestly questioned evolution would do so because of some weird, esoteric detail that few nonscientists would pick up on in the first place.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.