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.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1147]

The point I was making is the choice as to kind of definition is arbitrary, one can choose to use the taxonomic definition or not, I never meant to imply the taxonomic definition itself was arbitrarily established, only one's adoption of it as "the" definition.

Taxonomically I accept there are many physical similarities but as I pointed out there are also huge, vast differences that I think differentiate us from "apes" from "animals" so for that reason don't favor a definition based on taxonomy.

Aren't you the same guy that argued that humans are not animals because vets work on animals and not humans?
Perhaps you inadvertently entered the science sub forum?

[Sherlock Holmes]

(...) What mechanism do you propose better explains all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare your mechanism against the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you.

There is no fossil record verifying evolution. There are no links between species ... Species that are supposed to be later appear together with species that are supposed to be earlier, all in the same geological layers.

Good luck. I labored this point here too, that the "record" is characterized by discontinuities yet proffered as "evidence" for continuous process. The fact is the discontinuities are regarded as largely irrelevant, an artifact not a real attribute of the record, this is how evolutionists look at it.

[Jose Fly]

I don't think I want to have a dialog with someone who is questioning what I say, what I am doing here, or questioning the value of my way of reasoning. I talk to whoever I do want and I won't with who I don't. I am sure you'll appreciate my honesty.
Good bye.

It's always fascinating to observe the myriad of ways creationists shut down discussions. And again I have to wonder....if you don't want anything you post or your reasoning to be questioned, what the heck are you doing in a debate forum?

If you just want to preach, there are forums for that you know.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The point I was making is the choice as to kind of definition is arbitrary, one can choose to use the taxonomic definition or not, I never meant to imply the taxonomic definition itself was arbitrarily established, only one's adoption of it as "the" definition.

Taxonomically I accept there are many physical similarities but as I pointed out there are also huge, vast differences that I think differentiate us from "apes" from "animals" so for that reason don't favor a definition based on taxonomy.

Which brings us to another difference - only humans devise taxonomies.

So basically you reject taxonomy as a means of classification?

No, taxonomy is fine if you want to focus on taxonomic characteristics. If you want to focus on other characteristics like humans cooking, playing chess, driving cars, keeping pets, writing and so on, then taxonomic classification is no good because it doesn't consider these other differences.

[Eloi]

(...) What mechanism do you propose better explains all the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? I would like to compare your mechanism against the Theory of Evolution.

Thank you.

There is no fossil record verifying evolution. There are no links between species ... Species that are supposed to be later appear together with species that are supposed to be earlier, all in the same geological layers.

Good luck. I labored this point here too, that the "record" is characterized by discontinuities yet proffered as "evidence" for continuous process. The fact is the discontinuities are regarded as largely irrelevant, an artifact not a real attribute of the record, this is how evolutionists look at it.

It is like thinking a man was never a child. Very scientific (sarcasm).

[Eloi]

(...) It's always fascinating to observe the myriad of ways creationists shut down discussions. (...)

You never asked me if I was a creationist. We, Jehovah's Witness, are not.
I only answered taking into account that for some of you creationists are all those who believe in a Creator God, not necessarily in the literal biblical account. Not even in that you are right; which reaffirms that a dialogue with you is not worth it.

[Jose Fly]

Good luck. I labored this point here too, that the "record" is characterized by discontinuities yet proffered as "evidence" for continuous process. The fact is the discontinuities are regarded as largely irrelevant, an artifact not a real attribute of the record, this is how evolutionists look at it.

Incorrect. Barbarian provided you multiple examples and explanations, and I provided you with the example of the continuous fossil record of forams, which exhibited Darwinian gradualism. You ignored all of it.

I've never understood why creationists do this sort of thing so often....make claims about the data, ignore contrary data, wait a while, and then just restate their original claims again as if no one had ever provided anything.

But then, I guess that's just one of the things some folks have to do to maintain their religious beliefs. "By any means necessary"

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1167]

His arguments didn't convince me, it's as simple as that.

[Jose Fly]

No, taxonomy is fine if you want to focus on taxonomic characteristics.

What other classification system do you prefer?

If you want to focus on other characteristics like humans cooking, playing chess, driving cars, keeping pets, writing and so on, then taxonomic classification is no good because it doesn't consider these other differences.

Do you believe you have a superior classification method? If so, can you present it?

[Eloi]

The reality is that a homo-sapiens like the "primitive man" style that evolutionist place in what they call "the stone age" (or whatever), we can still find him today in a lot of places... and they can be civilized like any city man. Try to do it with an ape to see if it's the same.