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.

[JoeyKnothead]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

[JoeyKnothead]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

Lol

Now that your source gets called out as working for folks who seek to establish a theocracy in the US, you don't wish to engage.

Don't fret though, you ain't the only theist I've seen who gives up on a discussion when it takes a turn they're not prepared to consider.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Here's a short clip I found of Berlinski talking about evolution and its merits as a scientific theory.



The things he speaks of are perfect examples of some of the major empirical problems raised by the theory.

I suspect that most lay people watching this will not have heard these views before, yet many of them will likely leap to the defense of evolution, the need to defend the theory even to the point of denying there's anything even wrong, has become so deeply ingrained.

He's a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute.

Discovery Institute, of Wedge Document, USA as a theocracy fame.

Fine, you and I are done talking.

Lol

Now that your source gets called out as working for folks who seek to establish a theocracy in the US, you don't wish to engage.

Don't fret though, you ain't the only theist I've seen who gives up on a discussion when it takes a turn they're not prepared to consider.

We're done talking because you are an unchallenging debating opponent. The last response said absolutely nothing about anything Berlinski said, instead you launch an ad-hominem attack.

If you want to critique the Discovery Institute then start a thread about that, don't derail this one which is primarily concerned with aspects of evolution that some scientists regard as a problem.

It is you who "gives up on a discussion" by focusing on what organizations Berlinski is associated with rather than the issues he raised, that's not a scientific debate.

Since you are under probation perhaps I too can safely dismiss everything and anything you say, sounds equitable, yes?

You cannot evaluate a proposition in science based on the attributes of the person making it, whether it be what clubs they attend, who they date, whether they have a criminal record, whether they've ever been under probation, what clothes they wear, what their politics is, as soon as you do that you disqualify yourself, this focus on the person rather than their argument is unhealthy and worrying, Trump does it all the time so you're in good company.

[Jose Fly]

[Sherlock Holmes]

No it is absolutely not relevant. When students hand you their papers or homework do you ask them if they are creationists? do you ask them if they believe in God, before you mark their paper? I work at a large university and I think we both know the correct answer to this question...

Sorry, but in this sort of discussion, what you believe and how you approach this issue is indeed relevant, especially when you've anointed yourself to be an expert in the subject and qualified to examine and pass judgement on the work of actual experts. So if you're harboring significant biases, that's important to know, don't you think?

You never answered my question, do you or do you not ask your students? and - whatever your answer is - why?

Explain to me please how exactly do you decide when evaluating a proposition about science, whether the motives and beliefs of the proponent are a necessary part of that evaluation process?

The desire to dwell on someone's personal beliefs or biases is nothing more than a means of discrediting an argument that you cannot discredit scientifically, objectively.

You're on a slippery slope here and I if were a science student of yours reading this I think I'd be somewhat alarmed at your words, that if I hold some belief, bias, preference that you disapprove of, I might get bad marks.

As soon as you seek information on my biases you introduce the risk that they might conflict with your biases.

By refusing, avoiding any mention of our respective beliefs and biases we eliminate any prospect that such conflict might thwart the pursuit of objectivity.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #345]

FYI, people debating things online does not mean there is an actual "scientific debate" about those things. If it did, then we'd have to say that there are "scientific debates" about whether the earth is flat and all sorts of crazy things. Genuine scientific debates about scientific issues take place in the professional journals or at conferences.

Within the relevant scientific community, there is zero debate about the validity of creationism. As I said, creationism has been 100% scientifically irrelevant for over a century.

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.


The relevant scientific community = 360
The Entity I Am - The Entity You Are
Where are we getting our news from?

Do The Science

[Jose Fly]

You never answered my question, do you or do you not ask your students? and - whatever your answer is - why?

You must have me confused with someone else. I'm not a teacher; I don't have students.

Explain to me please how exactly do you decide when evaluating a proposition about science, whether the motives and beliefs of the proponent are a necessary part of that evaluation process?

Sure. When one of my fellow biologists writes up a draft manuscript, they'll usually share it with colleagues and ask them to review it before they send it in for formal peer review and publication. If someone in our circle is well known for being very biased with certain subjects (as has happened), then oftentimes they won't be selected to pre-review the draft. And if a journal is looking for experts to conduct the formal peer review, if they get wind that someone is very biased on the subject of the manuscript, then they won't be selected to be part of the review team.

Now, if in selecting reviewers (either informally or formally) they come across someone who goes out of their way to conceal their views and approach to not only the subject at hand, but science in general.....FYI that's even worse. So someone behaving like you in this thread would immediately raise concerns that they are hiding something, and so it'd be better overall to just pick someone else.

The desire to dwell on someone's personal beliefs or biases is nothing more than a means of discrediting an argument that you cannot discredit scientifically, objectively.

It seems to me that you're basically afraid that if you stated your views and approach to this topic, it would discredit you and your arguments. That's why I've assumed that you agree with AiG's statement of faith and are likely a Biblical young-earth creationist.

You're on a slippery slope here and I if were a science student of yours reading this I think I'd be somewhat alarmed at your words, that if I hold some belief, bias, preference that you disapprove of, I might get bad marks.

Again, you seem to have me confused with someone else.

As soon as you seek information on my biases you introduce the risk that they might conflict with your biases.

By refusing, avoiding any mention of our respective beliefs and biases we eliminate any prospect that such conflict might thwart the pursuit of objectivity.

You're trying to have it both ways.....you want to be granted the default status that you are approaching this subject objectively, while at the same time concealing whatever biases and presuppositions you actually have. That's pretty deceptive, don't you think?

Obviously you do have biases and presuppositions that you feel were they to be revealed, would immediately discredit you and your arguments. That's a good indication that those biases and presuppositions are significant.

[Jose Fly]

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.

Incorrect. You're conflating philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that the material is all there is, with methodological naturalism, which is an operational framework that basically says that the non-natural (whether it exists or not) is outside the ability of science to test and study.

Try and keep that in mind.

[William]

This part of your statement is somewhat misleading in that it refers to the main cultural religious belief of an aspect of the terrain and calls it 100% when in reality it is only a fraction of what Theism is involved with.

Sorry, but that sentence doesn't make much sense.

Significantly, this "the relevant scientific community" is likely to only or largely consist of materialists, who have a world view which refuses to investigate and simply assumes there is no Cosmic Mind, based on assumption rather than science done to reach such conclusion.

As such, they are stating opinion, rather than supporting their statement with science.

Incorrect. You're conflating philosophical naturalism, which is the belief that the material is all there is, with methodological naturalism, which is an operational framework that basically says that the non-natural (whether it exists or not) is outside the ability of science to test and study.

Try and keep that in mind.

Are you therefore stating that verifying the existence of a Cosmic Mind, is "outside the ability of science to test and study"?

Is the statement one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion]

eta
Is the statement one of fact or conjecture? [science or opinion] = 593
Opinion is that which has yet to be established as a matter of fact