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: 15258
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 #681

Post by William »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #680]

I am asking you to identify the position you hold based on your lack of interest.

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 #682

Post by Jose Fly »

William wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:45 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #680]

I am asking you to identify the position you hold based on your lack of interest.
Again, the position I hold on.....what? Gods? Something else?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #683

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:23 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:18 pm

Well you'll find if you think about this, that nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false).

The only way one can attempt this is to first assume some fundamental axioms and then on the strength of those reason scientifically (inductively).

I don't like to dwell on trivial, uninteresting examples like a unicorn on the moon, but more fundamental, interesting propositions like can it be proved that all natural things have natural explanations or can it be proved that nothing can happen that is at variance with laws of nature and so on.

I don't make any sort of judgment about humanity not having answers only that it is important that there might be aspects of reality beyond the reach of scientific testability.

1.

“There are no scientific axioms. Axioms apply only to mathematics and logic.
Mathematical axioms like definitions define a context. You can look at a context as being the boundaries of a mathematical universe.
The boundaries of mathematical universes-contexts, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world.
Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived.
“Scientific axiom” is an oxymoron. To create an axiom about the natural world is an attempt to create boundaries of the natural world, but the natural world is not a human contrivance. The natural world exists outside of the human minds, and thus, is not subject to contrived human constraints.
The scientific method relies on the falsifiability of a theory. Scepticism, taken to the extreme(Solipsism) is not falsifiable because it has no presuppositions.

Steps of the Scientific Method:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Science doesn't proceed from logic alone, which when taken to extremes can result in scepticism or Solopsism. Some scepticism exists in science but not to the degree of non-falsifiability. Further, pure logic rests on shaky ground due to Gödel's theorem.
Science, then, postulates that pure logic alone is not enough to model how the universe works. If it were, then science would have no ground to start from and certainly wouldn't be capable of falsifiability.

“Scientific axiom” is similar to "scientific proof", another oxymoron. "Proof" gives an air of objectivity, rigor, and completeness, even though proof is impossible in a scientific context. Similarly, 'axiom' gives an excuse not to have to justify, or a reason to disdain challenge, even though 'axiom' is meaningless in a scientific context. You (Sherlock Holmes) can use rhetorical doublespeak to game the language, to assign false legitimacy to otherwise unsupportable propositions: God-Creationism.”

2.

Assumption: I assume the three fundamental axioms-laws of logic (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity are absolutely true.

Concept C: Yahweh-Jesus is supposedly according to the bible an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that wants me to believe in him and have a relationship with me based on love, trust.

Existence of my genuine disbelief in Yahweh-Jesus and existence of innate psychopathy prove C to be false, to be debunked.

Q: Is it ok to say nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false) because the three fundamental laws of logic may be false? Is it possible for them to be false?

You need to prove these absolutes can be false first and only then you can say nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false) because the three fundamental laws of logic may be false. 8-)
See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #684

Post by The Barbarian »

I think Sherlock is confusing deductive reasoning (wherein we have all the rules and determine the particulars) with inductive reasoning (wherein we observe particulars and infer the rules.)

Science and almost everything in our existence in this world is based on inductive reasoning. We only use it because it's reliable.

There are, of course, deductive proofs, but we don't generally deal with them in science.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #685

Post by Miles »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:23 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:18 pm

Well you'll find if you think about this, that nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false).

The only way one can attempt this is to first assume some fundamental axioms and then on the strength of those reason scientifically (inductively).

I don't like to dwell on trivial, uninteresting examples like a unicorn on the moon, but more fundamental, interesting propositions like can it be proved that all natural things have natural explanations or can it be proved that nothing can happen that is at variance with laws of nature and so on.

I don't make any sort of judgment about humanity not having answers only that it is important that there might be aspects of reality beyond the reach of scientific testability.

1.

“There are no scientific axioms. Axioms apply only to mathematics and logic.
Mathematical axioms like definitions define a context. You can look at a context as being the boundaries of a mathematical universe.
The boundaries of mathematical universes-contexts, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world.
Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived.
“Scientific axiom” is an oxymoron. To create an axiom about the natural world is an attempt to create boundaries of the natural world, but the natural world is not a human contrivance. The natural world exists outside of the human minds, and thus, is not subject to contrived human constraints.
The scientific method relies on the falsifiability of a theory. Scepticism, taken to the extreme(Solipsism) is not falsifiable because it has no presuppositions.

Steps of the Scientific Method:
Observation/Research
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experimentation
Conclusion

Science doesn't proceed from logic alone, which when taken to extremes can result in scepticism or Solopsism. Some scepticism exists in science but not to the degree of non-falsifiability. Further, pure logic rests on shaky ground due to Gödel's theorem.
Science, then, postulates that pure logic alone is not enough to model how the universe works. If it were, then science would have no ground to start from and certainly wouldn't be capable of falsifiability.

“Scientific axiom” is similar to "scientific proof", another oxymoron. "Proof" gives an air of objectivity, rigor, and completeness, even though proof is impossible in a scientific context. Similarly, 'axiom' gives an excuse not to have to justify, or a reason to disdain challenge, even though 'axiom' is meaningless in a scientific context. You (Sherlock Holmes) can use rhetorical doublespeak to game the language, to assign false legitimacy to otherwise unsupportable propositions: God-Creationism.”

2.

Assumption: I assume the three fundamental axioms-laws of logic (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity are absolutely true.

Concept C: Yahweh-Jesus is supposedly according to the bible an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being that wants me to believe in him and have a relationship with me based on love, trust.

Existence of my genuine disbelief in Yahweh-Jesus and existence of innate psychopathy prove C to be false, to be debunked.

Q: Is it ok to say nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false) because the three fundamental laws of logic may be false? Is it possible for them to be false?

You need to prove these absolutes can be false first and only then you can say nothing really can be "debunked" (proven false) because the three fundamental laws of logic may be false. 8-)
See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
"Robert Priddy (born December 10, 1939) is a retired American professional baseball player. He was a right-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball from 1962 to 1971, with the exception of the 1963 season. Priddy batted right-handed, stood 6 feet 1 inch (1.85 m) tall and weighed 200 pounds (91 kg). He was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania."
Source: Wikipedia
*wink* wink*


.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #686

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Miles in post #687]
Robert Priddy (born December 10, 1939) is a retired American professional baseball player.
Wonder if he meant this one:

https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.go ... x_tr_hl=en

http://robertpriddy.com/robert_c_priddy.html

https://robertpriddy.wordpress.com/about/

Looks like there are lots of Robert Priddy's around.
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

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #687

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm

See here:
According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes;[31] that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.
From: Naturalism.

If you're still confused just reach out to me.

By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?

Image Image
I like how you quoted mined to look something else. So funny how creationists love to do that.

"Some claim that naturalism is the implicit philosophy of working scientists, and that the following basic assumptions are needed to justify the scientific method:"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Claiming does not entail truth.

Q: Who is Robert Priddy?

Some claim that those are problems for scientific method and that there are scientific assumptions when they don’t understand that axioms/rules and assumptions only exist in the mathematics and logic which science uses.

Science uses induction(inductive reasoning) to go about and find axioms/rules about “reality” may it be simulated or not. Axioms are the rules that are contained within a context. Again, the rules are only part of the context, but like the rest of the context, are utterly contrived. They are fabrications of human minds, with no necessary linkage to the natural world. Context can change, our contrived things can change based upon new findings, experimentations.
A simulated universe/ “reality” still obey certain rules one can discover them the same way.

A child uses inductive reasoning and informal scientific method to investigate their world. They do it without any formal mathematical framework.
One can do science without mathematics. The essence of math is to express things precisely so that one can expand and test the consequences implied by them.
Scientists can also expand on those rules(mathematics) and figure new possible aspects about reality(ex: black holes derived out of Einstein field equations ). They go and try to find evidence to support the mathematics which off course may be wrong and not congruent with reality.

One can use mathematics and logic to imagine all kinds of possible worlds, concepts and phenomena.

The scientific method comes as a useful tool to determined things about the reality we live in.

Positing imaginary problems like meaningless, incoherent concepts like solipsism(for anything to have meaning one must compare it self relative to something else: “I” without “not I” cannot exist) is laughable and have no practical use.

Frustrated creationists can complain all they want, but the inescapable truth remains: so far the scientific method has been useful and it works, has worked.
You type so much on and on, ad nauseum and complain talking down on science on a PC, using the Internet and electricity. Things that were invented using the scientific method.
The irony is superb. :P

Also its so absurd and inconsistent how Creationists talk of doubting objective reality(solipsism), the past(fake memories) and so on which is extraordinary skeptical but they are not skeptical of things like gods for which the evidence is basically non-existent or very weak(anecdotal personal unfalsifiable experience and testimonials).
I don’t understand.
They(ex:Sye Ten Bruggencate) can be more skeptical then the skeptics but at the same time many times more credulous.
The contradiction is so apparent is baffling.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 3:15 pm By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?
Q: I thought you were against name calling, talking about the person one debates? What is this, hypocrisy?
Q: The pot calling the kettle black? :)

Sherlock Holmes: “That's ad hominem, talking about me…”

Sherlock Holmes: “By the way, I've been meaning to ask, is your name David Hedison by any chance?”
Last edited by alexxcJRO on Fri Feb 11, 2022 10:53 am, edited 6 times in total.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15258
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 #688

Post by William »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #687]
“...most obviously because he is just another Christian trying to spread the word as he sees it, and what I have to offer may be seen [somewhat erroneously] to go against that grain.”
That looks to be something I wrote...

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 15258
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 #689

Post by William »

Jose Fly wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:51 pm
William wrote: Thu Feb 10, 2022 1:45 pm [Replying to Jose Fly in post #680]

I am asking you to identify the position you hold based on your lack of interest.
Again, the position I hold on.....what? Gods? Something else?
On why you lack interest in the idea of an intelligent universe.

The reason I am interested in what the position is re someone who lacks interest in the idea of an intelligent universe, is that the main positions [theism - agnosticism and non-theism] don't appear to me to lack this interest.

For example, atheism simply lacks belief in gods - so in that, lacking an interest in the universe being a mindful thing, isn't atheism.

Nor is it agnosticism, which also lacks belief in gods, but is open and thus interested in any evidence which looks to support the notion that the universe is mindful.

Theisms interest of course, goes without saying, even that there are branches of religious views which deny the universe itself is intelligent...

Perhaps the lack of interest is simple an attitude of indifference?
Last edited by William on Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #690

Post by alexxcJRO »

William wrote: Fri Feb 11, 2022 2:13 am [Replying to alexxcJRO in post #687]
“...most obviously because he is just another Christian trying to spread the word as he sees it, and what I have to offer may be seen [somewhat erroneously] to go against that grain.”
That looks to be something I wrote...
I corrected.
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

Post Reply