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.

[The Barbarian]

Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.

Deuteronomy 4:2 You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Did God say that the Bible was 'The Word of God'?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4 For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

1 Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord remains forever.” And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

I see nothing there which tells us that God said that the Bible was The Word of God.

In fact it says all of Scripture is breathed out by God. Pretty hard to deny it.

[The Barbarian]

What genetic information do you have from the Cambrian?

We can look at the DNA of existing members of each phylum to see what relationships are. DNA phylogenies give something like this:


Which is consistent with the transitional forms in the fossil record.

I see, so we have no actual genetic material from the Cambrian at all.

Thought you realized that. All we can do is look at the descendants of those phyla and see what their genetics will tell us. As you see, genetics confirms what the fossil record says.

Genetic similarities are not evidence of common ancestry either,

We can test that with organisms of known descent. Turns out, they are evidence of common descent.

How can you prove, that because true common descent leads to some common genes then any common genes are definitely due to common descent?

Because, in cases where we can actually check, there has never been a case of a DNA phylogeny not being due to common descent. It's kinda like asking how I can prove that if I let go of a ball, it will fall to the ground. It just always does.

You can only do that if you can prove there is absolutely no other way for organisms to have common genes except for common descent but you cannot prove that.

You can't prove that all the oxygen molecules won't diffuse to the other side of the room and suffocate you. Just in case you were wondering, it's never going to happen, although it's not impossible.

Logic is my profession.

Pity they never taught you about induction. And yes, there are inductive proofs.

I am very familiar with induction

You've given us no reason to think so. You seem completely surprised that science is not about deduction, for example.

Barbarian more so than you are familiar with decorum it seems.

Well, you know how inappropriate old barbarians can be...

But unfortunately this is not an inductive proof that all gene commonality is caused by biological propagation;

It is, as you just learned, an inference from evidence. Which is the way induction works. Thought you knew.

Induction is used for gravitation for example, every time someone throws a ball it will always follow a parabolic trajectory, we do not induce that every time we see an object following a parabolic trajectory then someone threw something.

No, you've confused this, too. A parabolic path means that a moving object is acted upon by a continuous outside force on the object that is moving. This is why any objected projected above the Earth's surface will move in a parabolic arc. (unless it happens to be at escape velocity) But in every case where an object is moving, and it is acted upon by a second force (with no others acting on it), it will move in a parabola. You've got it backwards. Deduction is knowing the rules and applying them to particulars. Induction is observing the particulars and inferring the rules.

See? "every time" -> "always" - that is the pattern of induction, proving for some cases leads to the inference for all cases.

Yes. There might someday be a counter-example, but so far, Newton is vindicated every time. There is a possibility that all the oxygen atoms will randomly move to the other side of the room and suffocate you. But induction will tell you that it's not going to happen.

Logic is my profession.

I would think you'd be better able to provide an example of induction, if it was.

[William]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #981]

I see nothing there which tells us that God said that the Bible was The Word of God.

In fact it says all of Scripture is breathed out by God. Pretty hard to deny it.

If we are going to use that rational, then all life is the Word of God - and everything to do with inspiring individuals to connect with the creator would have the same underlying attributes that scripture is recognized here as having. Pretty hard to deny that either...

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #981]

I see nothing there which tells us that God said that the Bible was The Word of God.

In fact it says all of Scripture is breathed out by God. Pretty hard to deny it.

If we are going to use that rational, then all life is the Word of God - and everything to do with inspiring individuals to connect with the creator would have the same underlying attributes that scripture is recognized here as having. Pretty hard to deny that either...

Since scripture explicitly says it's the Word of God, that's not at issue. You bring up a good point, though. Sola Scriptura was never a valid doctrine. Indeed, the Bible itself says that it's not the only authoritative source of knowledge about God.

Romans 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #981]

I see nothing there which tells us that God said that the Bible was The Word of God.

In fact it says all of Scripture is breathed out by God. Pretty hard to deny it.

If we are going to use that rational, then all life is the Word of God - and everything to do with inspiring individuals to connect with the creator would have the same underlying attributes that scripture is recognized here as having. Pretty hard to deny that either...

Since scripture explicitly says it's the Word of God, that's not at issue. You bring up a good point, though. Sola Scriptura was never a valid doctrine. Indeed, the Bible itself says that it's not the only authoritative source of knowledge about God.

Romans 1:19 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

I must agree with William, I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

[The Barbarian]

I must agree with William, I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I must agree with William, I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Yes, I know, as I said I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #963]

In the Church today, it's called "textual criticism." And I'm with St. Augustine on this.

He merely noted that where scripture was not clearly supporting any particular thing, we should be very careful not to add our own ideas to it, and we should be willing to revise our ideas if new information became available.

You're probably thinking of what is now called "textual criticism." You see it in creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" for example when they point out that the development of new species from older species is not anywhere denied in Scripture

The Church has always had to contend for the faith by defending "textual Criticism" or "sola Scriptura".

The Roman Catholic Church exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of religious tradition. One of the earliest deceptions to infiltrate the church on a massive scale was Romish Sacramentalism, the idea that an individual can connect with God through ritualism and religious ceremony; that somehow we connect to God in a mechanical external way. Religious ritual became the enemy of the true gospel, standing in opposition to genuine grace and undermining the authority of God and His Word. This led to the Reformation and the reformer's 5 solas.

After the reformation, along came higher criticism, or historical-critical theory; and that exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of human reason and atheistic naturalism. This second major wave crashed on the life of the church, a wave of rationalism. As European society emerged from the Dark Ages, the resulting Age of Enlightenment emphasized human reason, scientific empiricism, simultaneously discounting what was spiritual, supernatural, and consequently biblical. Philosophers no longer look to God as the explanation for the world, but rather sought to account for everything in rationalist, naturalistic, and in deistic terms. As men began to place themselves above God and their own reason over Scripture, it was not long until rationalism gained access into the church through its claim to academic elitism – denied the inspiration of Scripture, denied the inerrancy of the Bible, infiltrated Protestantism in Europe and then America. So-called Christian scholars began to question everything, including Scripture, including the historical Jesus, Mosaic authorship, whatever.

There has always been those that have been textualist. There have always been those that have believed in Sola Scriptura. Since you seem to be so fond of Augustine, he also belived in Sola Scriptura.

Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. In other books the reader may form his own opinion, and perhaps, from not understanding the writer, may differ from him, and may pronounce in favor of what pleases him, or against what he dislikes. In such cases, a man is at liberty to withhold his belief, unless there is some clear demonstration or some canonical authority to show that the doctrine or statement either must or may be true. But in consequence of the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.

Augustine of Hippo, “Reply to Faustus the Manichæan,” translated by Richard Stothert, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume IV: St. Augustine: The Writings Against the Manichaeans and Against the Donatists, edited by Philip Schaff (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 180.

Augustine could have believed in an eternal universe, but he did not and he would not. Because he believed that, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows. He did not say as what logic says is true which was the science of his day. He said that we are bound to receive as true whatever the CANON shows. Augustine was bound to what Scripture said was true.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #963]

In the Church today, it's called "textual criticism." And I'm with St. Augustine on this.

He merely noted that where scripture was not clearly supporting any particular thing, we should be very careful not to add our own ideas to it, and we should be willing to revise our ideas if new information became available.

You're probably thinking of what is now called "textual criticism." You see it in creationist organizations like "Answers in Genesis" for example when they point out that the development of new species from older species is not anywhere denied in Scripture

The Church has always had to contend for the faith by defending "textual Criticism" or "sola Scriptura".

The Church has never held Sola Scriptura to be true. Indeed, as you have see, the Bible itself says that there are other authoritative sources of information about God.

The Roman Catholic Church exchanged the authority of Scripture for the authority of religious tradition.

Since the Bible was compiled by men, depending on tradition, it would be impossible to separate the two. Two sides of one thing.

There has always been those that have been textualist. There have always been those that have believed in Sola Scriptura.

We are closer in time to the inventor of Sola Scriptura than we are to The apostles. And as you have seen, the Bible itself rules out Sola Scriptura.

Augustine never denied Romans 1:19-20 Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them. [20] For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.

Since scripture itself says that there are other sources of understanding about God, it produces an interesting problem. If you believe Sola Scriptura, you cannot consistently believe Sola Scriptura.

Augustine could have believed in an eternal universe, but he did not and he would not. Because he believed that, we are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows.

And he says that where scripture does not definitively state one or another things, we should always be ready to change our opinions when new evidence is found. He opposed an eternal universe, because the main pagan groups in Rome believed in an eternal universe, while Christians believed in a moment of creation.

He did not say as what logic says is true which was the science of his day.

That sounds like a testable assumption. Let's take a look...

Often, a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, … and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, which people see as ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn.

The shame is not so much that an ignorant person is laughed at, but rather that people outside the faith believe that we hold such opinions, and thus our teachings are rejected as ignorant and unlearned. If they find a Christian mistaken in a subject that they know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions as based on our teachings, how are they going to believe these teachings in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think these teachings are filled with fallacies about facts which they have learnt from experience and reason.

Reckless and presumptuous expounders of Scripture bring about much harm when they are caught in their mischievous false opinions by those not bound by our sacred texts. And even more so when they then try to defend their rash and obviously untrue statements by quoting a shower of words from Scripture and even recite from memory passages which they think will support their case ‘without understanding either what they are saying or what they assert with such assurance.’ (1 Timothy 1:7)
St. Augustine, De Genisi ad litteram

St. Augustine warns us, "not to make rash assertions, or to assert what is not known as known."(51) If dissension should arise between them, here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: "Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so."(52) To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.
https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/ ... -the-bible

[The Barbarian]

I must agree with William, I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

(Bible says that scripture is the word of God)
2 Timothy 3:16-17 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Yes, I know, as I said I see nothing in scripture that says the Bible is the Word of God, do you?

Ah, so you don't think the Bible is scripture. We've found the problem.