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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

What specifically has you so upset today? did I overlook or miss a question you asked me? unless you can express your problem clearly regarding what's upset you I can hardly be expected to address it, this is a reasonable question Jose, just engage openly and in good faith.

LOL....no, not upset. "Amused" is more accurate. I'm amused at how often creationists think they, or their arguments, are new and unique yet as the thread moves forward it quickly becomes clear that it's all just a rehash of stale talking points that have been done to death.

Y'all could really use some new arguments.

Barbarian accused me of not responding too, yet look at the facts in that case, I don't expect an apology of course, that would be asking too much.

Did you ever respond to the papers on the Cambrian he linked to? Did you ever respond to the papers on speciation I linked to? Did you ever acknowledge that a definition of science that includes natural explanations isn't unique to the AAAS? Did you ever acknowledge that one of your preferred sources (Wiki) defines it that way? Have you ever presented your case that you claim has falsified evolution? Have you ever explained what specifically in Berlinski's video you think is compelling?

Again, the stereotype of the creationist is "makes bold claims, dodges requests to back them up". Prove me wrong here....deviate from that stereotype.

Yes.

[Jose Fly]

What specifically has you so upset today? did I overlook or miss a question you asked me? unless you can express your problem clearly regarding what's upset you I can hardly be expected to address it, this is a reasonable question Jose, just engage openly and in good faith.

LOL....no, not upset. "Amused" is more accurate. I'm amused at how often creationists think they, or their arguments, are new and unique yet as the thread moves forward it quickly becomes clear that it's all just a rehash of stale talking points that have been done to death.

Y'all could really use some new arguments.

Barbarian accused me of not responding too, yet look at the facts in that case, I don't expect an apology of course, that would be asking too much.

Did you ever respond to the papers on the Cambrian he linked to? Did you ever respond to the papers on speciation I linked to? Did you ever acknowledge that a definition of science that includes natural explanations isn't unique to the AAAS? Did you ever acknowledge that one of your preferred sources (Wiki) defines it that way? Have you ever presented your case that you claim has falsified evolution? Have you ever explained what specifically in Berlinski's video you think is compelling?

Again, the stereotype of the creationist is "makes bold claims, dodges requests to back them up". Prove me wrong here....deviate from that stereotype.

Yes.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

[The Barbarian]

BTW, Johannes Kepler (of Kepler's Laws fame) actually did horoscopes for people. He was one of the few Renaissance scientists who were not independently wealthy, and because he could use extremely accurate information on the position of stars and planets, he made a pretty good living from it.

After I retired from my first career, I became a teacher for a few years. Once, in a science class, several students expressed confidence in Astrology. I suggested a test to see how it worked. Each student gave me their birthday, I made up horoscopes for the class. The next day, I handed them out. Each had a place to rate how accurate it was. All but one student found them to be extremely accurate. After this, I had them hand theirs to another student to see if they agreed as to how accurate it was.

Then they discovered that I had given identical horoscopes to every one of them. I had written about things true of most people, along with a few things all people like to believe about themselves. And then I asked them if they could hypothesize why so many people believe in astrology.

The student who did not find the horoscope accurate was a devout Christian who believed astrology was an affront to God, and possibly demonic.

Fascinating; and the relevance of astrology to this discussion is? ahh of course! the relevance is that it's a handy little strawman, an oft used tool of my opponents when all else fails them.

Your guy Belinski is a believer in astrology as well as creationism. At least he's intellectually consistent.

[The Barbarian]

Again, the stereotype of the creationist is "makes bold claims, dodges requests to back them up". Prove me wrong here....deviate from that stereotype.

We can't because we aren't creationists. But you are. So here's your chance. You said that evolutionary theory has been falsified. I showed you Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory. Show us which of them have been falsified.

What do you have? Your response will tell us everything.

[The Barbarian]

All emphasis mine:

But you were going to tell us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. When do you think we'll be seeing that from you?

I'm beginning to suspect that we aren't going to get an answer.

You are quite mistaken; I must refer you to this post from yesterday:

Sherlock Holmes

In there lies the answer to your question:

Point 4. That this is sufficient to explain the presence of complex life we see today, the sufficiency has not been demonstrated so why should I believe it is sufficient?

So you're unable to show that it's been falsified, but you think your unsupported claim that it has not been demonstrated is now a "falsification?" First show us what in the diversity of life can be shown to be impossible for evolutionary processes to produce. As you seem to realize, you can't even do that. So you're now trying to argue that failing to prove something means it's falsified.

Which confirms another stereotype people have about creationists.

And as you know, various independent lines of evidence are very good evidence for common descent:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and lesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence formacroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

As you see, even honest YE creationists admit that the evidence indicates common descent. So your assumption is demonstrably wrong. Try again?

[JoeyKnothead]

Snipping to get at what I wanna fuss on...

...
So, no existential problems face evolution in your opinion, no surprises there (there are several serious problems yet you do not know because your trust the theory too much).

This amateur finds no "existential problems" with evolution / theories.

Do you? If yes, please expound.

Right, so by extension bacteria four billion years ago - subject to that purported process - did lead to the animal life we see around us today, yes? that is a claim that the "theory" allow us to make, yes?

We gotta remember that a good bit of evolutionary theory relies on reasonable and logical conclusions. With that in mind, we have sound reasons to think of bacteria involvement with animal (and plant?) evolution...

A new study now suggests that bacteria may also have helped kick off one of the key events in evolution: the leap from one-celled organisms to many-celled organisms, a development that eventually led to all animals, including humans.

link

The Modern Synthesis added genetics to that, meaning differences have to do with alleles for each gene and mutations which are one way the allele frequencies change. Notice that evolution refers to populations, not individuals. So which of those things have "existential" problems?

4. That this is sufficient to explain the presence of complex life we see today, the sufficiency has not been demonstrated so why should I believe it is sufficient?

A mere rejection of an argument ain't the refuting of it..

We're left to ponder the reasons for your rejection, versus the conclusions of the experts.

Berlinski summarizes these existential problems quite well here, its only 4 minutes.

While I certainly agree that some things regarding evolution ain't been, and maybe can't even be observed, the data is quite clear on the main point...

Evolution is to fact what God is to pipe dreams.

For just one example, we can observe evolution in action every time we compare DNA of parents and offspring. By taking a mix of genetics from each parent, the child has his own unique DNA (especially when mutations are involved).

From that then, we can reasonably consider that given enough time, reproduction, and all such as that, new forms and species can occur.

[Sherlock Holmes]

BTW, Johannes Kepler (of Kepler's Laws fame) actually did horoscopes for people. He was one of the few Renaissance scientists who were not independently wealthy, and because he could use extremely accurate information on the position of stars and planets, he made a pretty good living from it.

After I retired from my first career, I became a teacher for a few years. Once, in a science class, several students expressed confidence in Astrology. I suggested a test to see how it worked. Each student gave me their birthday, I made up horoscopes for the class. The next day, I handed them out. Each had a place to rate how accurate it was. All but one student found them to be extremely accurate. After this, I had them hand theirs to another student to see if they agreed as to how accurate it was.

Then they discovered that I had given identical horoscopes to every one of them. I had written about things true of most people, along with a few things all people like to believe about themselves. And then I asked them if they could hypothesize why so many people believe in astrology.

The student who did not find the horoscope accurate was a devout Christian who believed astrology was an affront to God, and possibly demonic.

Fascinating; and the relevance of astrology to this discussion is? ahh of course! the relevance is that it's a handy little strawman, an oft used tool of my opponents when all else fails them.

Your guy Belinski is a believer in astrology as well as creationism. At least he's intellectually consistent.

I refer you to my earlier post about this, you are mistaken in your claim about Berlinski and Astrology, perhaps if I emphasize this it will help you:

The fundamental point that Berlinski wishes to drive home is that astrology, as conceived, altered, fine-tuned, and practiced over millennia by brilliant and intelligent theoreticians and experimentalists, is a failed science.

Is your error now clearer to you? Perhaps if you'd read his book rather than leapt excitedly to conclusions based on its cover you'd have avoided this embarrassment, hmm Barbarian by name, barbarian by nature?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Again, the stereotype of the creationist is "makes bold claims, dodges requests to back them up". Prove me wrong here....deviate from that stereotype.

We can't because we aren't creationists. But you are. So here's your chance. You said that evolutionary theory has been falsified. I showed you Darwin's four points of evolutionary theory. Show us which of them have been falsified.

What do you have? Your response will tell us everything.

The remark

Again, the stereotype of the creationist is "makes bold claims, dodges requests to back them up". Prove me wrong here....deviate from that stereotype.

was originally written by Jose in this post Barbarian.

[Sherlock Holmes]

All emphasis mine:

But you were going to tell us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. When do you think we'll be seeing that from you?

I'm beginning to suspect that we aren't going to get an answer.

You are quite mistaken; I must refer you to this post from yesterday:

Sherlock Holmes

In there lies the answer to your question:

Point 4. That this is sufficient to explain the presence of complex life we see today, the sufficiency has not been demonstrated so why should I believe it is sufficient?

So you're unable to show that it's been falsified, but you think your unsupported claim that it has not been demonstrated is now a "falsification?" First show us what in the diversity of life can be shown to be impossible for evolutionary processes to produce. As you seem to realize, you can't even do that. So you're now trying to argue that failing to prove something means it's falsified.

Which confirms another stereotype people have about creationists.

And as you know, various independent lines of evidence are very good evidence for common descent:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. I'm motivated this morning by reading yet another clueless, well-meaning person pompously declaring that evolution is a failure. People who say that are either unacquainted with the inner workings of science or unacquainted with the evidence for evolution. (Technically, they could also be deluded or lying, but that seems rather uncharitable to say. Oops.)

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution. I am motivated to understand God's creation from what I believe to be a biblical, creationist perspective. Evolution itself is not flawed or without evidence. Please don't be duped into thinking that somehow evolution itself is a failure. Please don't idolize your own ability to reason.
YE creationist Dr. Todd Wood
https://toddcwood.blogspot.com/2009/09/ ... ution.html

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation — of stratomorphic intermediate species —include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation — of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates — has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacodontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation — of stratomorphic series — has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and lesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence formacroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact.
YE creationist Dr. Kurt Wise Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms

As you see, even honest YE creationists admit that the evidence indicates common descent. So your assumption is demonstrably wrong. Try again?

Firstly - One doesn't falsify a "point" Barbarian, but one can hypotheses and inferences based upon them.

Secondly you never asked me about falsification, the four points you posted were accompanied by this, the actual question you asked:

So which of those things have "existential" problems?

My answer was point 4 along with the explanatory note.

The claim that complex life arose from bacteria requires that point 4 be adequate for the claim and it cannot be demonstrated to be adequate, it is fancy, extrapolation, belief.

This poses an existential problem for your belief because you cannot demonstrate adequacy you can only infer it.

I can claim that if I shake a box of nuts and screws and gears and so on in a box and throw the contents onto the floor, that it is possible an assembled watch will fall out.

I can base that claim on experiments that sometimes when we do this a gear happens to end up with a pin through its center or a screw happens to get into a hole and partially rotated.

But the latter is not evidence for the former, we have no reason whatsoever to expect that the latter is adequate for an assembled watch to fall out.

Berlinski speaks of this too (as do most intelligent people who can see this is a sham "theory").

[The Barbarian]

Your guy Belinski is a believer in astrology as well as creationism. At least he's intellectually consistent.

I refer you to my earlier post about this, you are mistaken in your claim about Berlinski and Astrology, perhaps if I emphasize this it will help you:

The fundamental point that Berlinski wishes to drive home is that astrology, as conceived, altered, fine-tuned, and practiced over millennia by brilliant and intelligent theoreticians and experimentalists, is a failed science.

It's not a science at all. It's a religious belief. It's grounded in religious doctrines of older religions. As IDer Michael Behe put it, astrology is a science in the same sense that ID is a science. Which is to say, not at all. But let's take a look at Berlinski's opinion on astrology, from his book, The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky:
David Berlinski explains the power of humanity's oldest predictive system in this stunning and original new book. Astrology began at the dawn of time and over the centuries became a complex system with gifted seers often achieving results of eerie accuracy. For most of recorded history, astrologers have been found at the elbows of the rich and the powerful. However, Newton's system of the world put an end to one aspect of the astrological tradition. As a result, a method once widely used has become widely discredited, especially by scientific critics with little knowledge of astrology itself.
With a genius for storytelling and penetrating analysis, Berlinski explains how astrology works and how astrological ideas, although disguised, have reappeared in modern scientific theories.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234 ... aulted_Sky

Apparently Berlinski now says he's an "agnostic" about astrology. Well, there!

Perhaps if you'd read his book rather than leapt excitedly to conclusions based on its cover you'd have avoided this embarrassment, hmm Barbarian by name, barbarian by nature?

Funny about that. I was once debating a rather bumptious atheist who was fond of making pronouncements while avoiding any support for them. He finally told me that I just didn't understand how "barbaric" Christianity is. I replied, "call me the barbarian, then." The other guys on the board thought it was funny. He didn't, but the name stuck anyway. Don't know why I thought of that guy, just now...

Anyway, you need to take it up with Berlinski as to why he thinks astrologers achieve results of eerie accuracy. If you read my post, you probably have a good idea why that happens, now.