How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 times

How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1

Post by 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.

Image

Image

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.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15260
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #661

Post by William »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #657]
I'm happy to debate but I simply won't waste my time on these ridiculous playground tactics that only serve to show how weak some of the other participants' positions are.
This is likely strawman stuff.

When it comes to issues for and against the science of evolution, what I look for are the participants positions re the subject matter.

I understand the materialist position is one where they have the advantage of science, whereas the theist position only has a creator/creators.

The theist position is further complicated by the variety of creators the religious branch have, and how these mythologies are used in a competitive manner in order to gain adherents.

Why I think of you as a Christian has to do with your opposition to ToE - because most Christians I have encountered are opposed to that theory due to their belief in the bible story of Adam and Eve and the fall of Humanity and the sacrifice of Jesus to pay for the sins of said Humanity.

Theory of Evolution threatens that whole belief system and so those clinging to said mythologies are adamant in their opposition, simply because of that bias of belief.

It is a weak position with nothing substantial to offer the reader other than religious promises which will manifest sometime in the unstipulated future.

Yet, upon deeper inspection, I find the idea of Jesus returning as something which would not prove ToE as incorrect.

My own thoughts re the subject, is that it doesn't matter how the creator-mind went about bringing the universe into existence, only that It did.

The better question to answer is 'why', and religious stories are simply there to muster folks minds into a collective yard, where the spinning of yarns creates a tapestry of imagery which captivate said minds, which in turn opposes the idea of teaching ToE as an alternative to bible mythology...it is not even a matter of sharing the curriculum as ToE is regarded as a tool of the devil, and there simply cannot be 2 gods at the helm.

Understandably, materialists will jump on any opportunity to support anything which such religion opposes.

I myself am a Theist.
I think that the universe is a Holographic Experiential Reality Simulation
I think it was created by whomever created it, to use it for the purpose it was created for.
I think the purpose it was created for was for the experience it was able to provide.

Neither belief in religious mythology nor belief in emergence theory - in and of themselves - are able to bring everything together in one wholesome understandable picture.

That is why the argument I have given;
Since it is conjecture either way, both conjectures rule each other out.

The truest position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than those two positions.
[Source]

Your hand-waving reply;
Very well, a supernatural God exists as I can verify through my personal subjective experience of God.
[Source]

showed that you disagreed with me that the truest position to adopt on the matter therefore must be something other than belief in a supernatural god or belief in emergent theory.


I count such dismissiveness as blatant attempt to turn a blind eye, something oxymoron to the adage

"When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

which in turn shows me that whomever you are, you are not a great role model for the actual Sherlock Holmes character.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #662

Post by Jose Fly »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 9:22 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 8:53 am I'm at a loss to see what that post has to do with evolution.

Ignored for the reason I gave earlier in Post #41
You don't seem the least bit bothered by the apparent contradiction in telling people that you are "not responding" as opposed to "ignoring," and then stating out right a post is "ignored."
I'm often struck by how some folks join discussion boards and then start giving a list of reasons why they won't talk with people. IMO it shows a level of insecurity and lack of confidence, in that it's basically "If I can't control the conversation, then I won't participate in it".

But then when dealing with creationists, I think it's important to keep in mind that creationism is, at its heart, a form of denialism. Denialism itself is mostly a reactionary position, which leads to some fairly predictable behaviors (e.g., a person reading a paper with the primary intent of finding reasons to wave it away). It's why a lot of responses from creationists are effectively little more than "Nuh uh".
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #663

Post by Jose Fly »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 12:38 pm Having glanced very briefly at the paper in question, the experimental results were that single cells evolve into cells that clustered together after 60 rounds of selection. The experiment is used to show that "key steps in this transition [between unicellular and multicellularity] could have occurred quickly." Sounds like a rather modest conclusion to me. This in turn was used by one of us here to show that evolutionary mechanisms can generate new cell types. Which still sound modest to me.
It's important to remember why I posted the paper in the first place. SH and I were discussing "genetic information" and Stephen Meyer's claim that evolutionary mechanisms can't generate it. In that discussion SH mentioned that Meyer offered up Valentine's suggestion of using different cell types as a way to quantify genetic information. So I posted the paper in question to show that if we go with Valentine's suggestion, then Meyer's claim has been falsified, a conclusion that's pretty straight-forward.

The question was, can evolutionary mechanisms generate new cell types?

In the experiment, new cell types were observed to arise.

It was determined that the new cell types were produced by mutations.

Mutations are a mechanism of evolution.

Therefore our question has been answered....evolutionary mechanisms can indeed generate new cell types, which renders Meyer's claim false.

Of course SH tried to wave that away by saying the experiment didn't count because it took place in a controlled setting where the researchers selected out variants for further study, but that fails for two reasons. First, the original question wasn't "Can evolutionary mechanisms generate new cell types in 100% natural environments that have not been influenced by humans in any way". That means SH was guilty of moving the goalposts. Second, as we eventually agreed to, the researchers did nothing to cause the mutations to occur, nor did they manipulate any of the yeasts' DNA. So the actual generation of the new cell types was not influenced by humans.

But it seems SH still refuses to accept the conclusion, which is hardly surprising. That's the nature of denialism.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15260
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #664

Post by William »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #663]

Search "mutation"
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.


As a creationist, I see no problem in the idea of a creator making it so that is the way things unfold.

Said another way;

How the universe unfolds does not in itself provide evidence that there is no mind behind said process.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #665

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:22 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #663]

Search "mutation"
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.


As a creationist, I see no problem in the idea of a creator making it so that is the way things unfold.

Said another way;

How the universe unfolds does not in itself provide evidence that there is no mind behind said process.
Well put. IMO it's more reasonable to say that God was behind a process (in one way or another) rather than to deny that the process occurs at all....especially when it's a process that's been directly observed.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15260
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #666

Post by William »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:27 pm
William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 2:22 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #663]

Search "mutation"
the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.


As a creationist, I see no problem in the idea of a creator making it so that is the way things unfold.

Said another way;

How the universe unfolds does not in itself provide evidence that there is no mind behind said process.
Well put. IMO it's more reasonable to say that God was behind a process (in one way or another) rather than to deny that the process occurs at all....especially when it's a process that's been directly observed.
Indeed.

That is why I just call 'It' "The Cosmic Mind" in order to belay confusion which arises with the label "God" - in that Christians in particular [and Abrahamic religions in general] call their idea of god by the name "God".

The Christian God is presented as being in opposition to the directly observed process.

Therefore, that idea of a Creator-Mind, must have to be a false image which religion is superimposing over a true image [the directly observed process] and this method is proven problematic and not acceptable because of that.

However, it is equally problematic for those accepting of the directly observed process to also superimpose a false image of a mindless accident re said process.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #667

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:38 pm Indeed.

That is why I just call 'It' "The Cosmic Mind" in order to belay confusion which arises with the label "God" - in that Christians in particular [and Abrahamic religions in general] call their idea of god by the name "God".

The Christian God is presented as being in opposition to the directly observed process.

Therefore, that idea of a Creator-Mind, must have to be a false image which religion is superimposing over a true image [the directly observed process] and this method is proven problematic and not acceptable because of that.

However, it is equally problematic for those accepting of the directly observed process to also superimpose a false image of a mindless accident re said process.
You know....I rarely get into the debates about the existence/non-existence of gods, cosmic minds, universal consciousnesses, etc. For various reasons, it's just not something I see as worth debating. So my approach to what people believe about those thing is very much live and let live. :)
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15260
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #668

Post by William »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:18 pm
William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 3:38 pm Indeed.

That is why I just call 'It' "The Cosmic Mind" in order to belay confusion which arises with the label "God" - in that Christians in particular [and Abrahamic religions in general] call their idea of god by the name "God".

The Christian God is presented as being in opposition to the directly observed process.

Therefore, that idea of a Creator-Mind, must have to be a false image which religion is superimposing over a true image [the directly observed process] and this method is proven problematic and not acceptable because of that.

However, it is equally problematic for those accepting of the directly observed process to also superimpose a false image of a mindless accident re said process.
You know....I rarely get into the debates about the existence/non-existence of gods, cosmic minds, universal consciousnesses, etc. For various reasons, it's just not something I see as worth debating. So my approach to what people believe about those thing is very much live and let live. :)
Even that being the case, my points are solid.

Whatever reasons anyone has for not getting into it, are also likely explainable and just as likely not to change the solidity of my arguments, even when explained.

If it weren't for the condition you hold on such things being 'not worth debating' - my observations above will never be able to be shown by you to be incorrect. :(
Live and let live. = 152
Common Ground
The Next Level
Crazy Diamonds
Almost Accidental....
Positive Feedback
Get The Truth
Transposing
Time will tell
Carl Sagan Contact

Something not worth debating = 305
Keeping Things In Perspective
Positive Social Connections
Something has always existed


User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #669

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:41 pm If it weren't for the condition you hold on such things being 'not worth debating' - my observations above will never be able to be shown by you to be incorrect. :(
Well that's kinda the point. Gods can do absolutely anything and everything, which means it's impossible to show anything about them to be incorrect. That's why it's a pointless debate.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15260
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 975 times
Been thanked: 1801 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #670

Post by William »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 12:07 pm
William wrote: Tue Feb 08, 2022 5:41 pm If it weren't for the condition you hold on such things being 'not worth debating' - my observations above will never be able to be shown by you to be incorrect. :(
Well that's kinda the point. Gods can do absolutely anything and everything, which means it's impossible to show anything about them to be incorrect. That's why it's a pointless debate.
Therefore a pointless debate on such matters is significant that such matters are evidently unable to be debunked.

Folk who lack belief in gods, must therefore do so for some other reasons...

Post Reply