How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3490
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 732 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.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1221

Post by Eloi »

Hehehe, if you're really a scientist you should be able to make a summary for others and post it here, and not try to force forum members to read scientific papers that supposedly support whatever you say here. Obviously, you haven't read the articles either; otherwise you could explain what they say clearly here.

In the first place, what is produced in the laboratory from human experiments is just that: a product of human manipulation. All they show is how it takes an intelligent being to produce certain results. The truth is that microevolution does not produce new species, it is a lie ... less in nature, since genetic changes in nature have limits, which you seem not to know about.

About those limits I won't talk, since I am not an "expert" ... but since I am a Jehovah's Witness and we have abundant, true, impartial, brief, and clear information at our fingertips for reference, about everything we need to know to help others, I will refer you to some very interesting information here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200272045/92/0

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1222

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Eloi in post #1223]
Hehehe, if you're really a scientist you should be able to make a summary for others and post it here, and not try to force forum members to read scientific papers that supposedly support whatever you say here. Obviously, you haven't read the articles either; otherwise you could explain what they say clearly here.
So you didn't read my comments either, evidently, in addition to not reading the papers. I did provide a quick summary and included that in my post (ie. the flounders showed speciation over about 2,400 generations in about 8,000 years, the bacteria showed speciation in just a matter of days ... I got this from actually reading the papers). If you want more detail than that, then read the papers. This is the Science and Religion section after all, and I provided links to science papers. If you're too lazy to read them and instead try to rebutt with just "its all nonsense" that's fine ... but it is hardly a legitimate challenge.
In the first place, what is produced in the laboratory from human experiments is just that: a product of human manipulation. All they show is how it takes an intelligent being to produce certain results. The truth is that microevolution does not produce new species, it is a lie ... less in nature, since genetic changes in nature have limits, which you seem not to know about.
First, the marine animals paper was not a lab experiment, and none of the papers showed "how it takes an intelligent being to produce certain results." If you'd read them you'd know that. There aren't even any comments in the papers about intelligent beings at all.

You've said twice now that genetic changes in nature have limits, but can't seem to describe any of these. You're accusing me of not providing a summary when I actually did, while you're making claims that genetic changes in nature have limits but can't seem to describe what those are or provide any references to support the claim. What are those limits? Or is this just another personal opinion derived from religious beliefs?
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
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1223

Post by JoeyKnothead »

DrNoGods wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:01 pm ...
All you've presented so far is personal opinion and copius use of the word nonsense.
And that at risk of admitting an inability to understand.

I mean, the pretty thing there says stuff all the time. I'm certain she understands what she's saying....
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1224

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1205]
Why can't successive "microevolution" result in "macroevolution? Explain why this is a fallacy. Nature sure doesn't seem to see it that way. It has happened far too many times to claim it is a fallacy, and we have proof in the fossil record. Personal incredulity has no bearing on what is true and what isn't.
How about some math will that do it for you? Because evolution is nothing but craziness when you look at the math.

Point 1

Lenski's: E coli experiment. After 30 years 70,000 generations there were 11 "genetic" changes. Most of these can be shown to be degenerative. One the ability of the e coli to use citrate is not degenerative but simply a rearrangement of an existing function. There has been no increase in the number of nucleotides. Lenski's experiment still consists of E coli. The E coli as with many single-celled organisms have around 4.6E6 nucleotides.

Point 2

One of the earliest multi-celled organisms is the sponge which has around 3.6E9 nucleotides. (Is anyone seeing a problem yet) That means that a single-celled organism would have to add 3.6E9 new nucleotides when in experimentation we have not seen any in 30 years and 70,000 generations.

Point 3

Even if were to say that all 11 "genetic" changes were new nucleotides. That means it would have a rate of 0.4 per year. That means that it would take 8 billion years to make the first sponge. But that is not the case. Let's say that the 1 mutation is actually an increase in the genome. That means new genetic information would occur at a rate of 0.03 per year. That means it would take 120 billion years. But that is not the case either. We are at 30 years and there is no indication of any new nucleotides. So at the present time, we are at an estimation of the first sponge being created by evolution greater than 120 billion years. If we were to use the accepted mutation rate of 0.5E-9 bp-1yr-1. Then we would have an estimated time of evolution from a single-celled organism to a sponge of 7.2E18 years.

Point 4

It is said that sponge DNA is 70% that of human DNA. If that is true then there are 1.08E9 different nucleotides in a different sequence. The currently accepted rate of 0.5E-9 bp-1yr-1. That means for a sponge to evolve (at this point we can say miraculously change into a human) It would take 2.16E18 years.

Yes, I think it can be conclusively shown that microevolution is not possible.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1225

Post by Jose Fly »

[Replying to Eloi in post #1221]
Fascinating. You request/demand examples of observed evolution of new species, but after you were provided with multiple cases of exactly that, you suddenly can't be bothered to read any of it.

As I've figured for years now, creationists don't make those sorts of requests/demands in good faith. You weren't really interested in finding out if speciation has actually occurred, you were just hoping to "stump the evolutionists". I've seen that sort of thing countless times before.....

Creationist: "X has never happened"

JF: Here are several examples of X happening.

<creationist ignores the information>

Creationist: "X has never happened"


Positively fascinating behavior to observe.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1226

Post by Jose Fly »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:37 pm Lenski's: E coli experiment. After 30 years 70,000 generations there were 11 "genetic" changes. Most of these can be shown to be degenerative.
Show your work on this please.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1227

Post by Eloi »

Personal slurs don't show evolution... They just show that some human beings aren't educated.

Eloi
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1775
Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:31 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 213 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1228

Post by Eloi »

Eloi wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:10 pm Hehehe, if you're really a scientist you should be able to make a summary for others and post it here, and not try to force forum members to read scientific papers that supposedly support whatever you say here. Obviously, you haven't read the articles either; otherwise you could explain what they say clearly here.

In the first place, what is produced in the laboratory from human experiments is just that: a product of human manipulation. All they show is how it takes an intelligent being to produce certain results. The truth is that microevolution does not produce new species, it is a lie ... less in nature, since genetic changes in nature have limits, which you seem not to know about.

About those limits I won't talk, since I am not an "expert" ... but since I am a Jehovah's Witness and we have abundant, true, impartial, brief, and clear information at our fingertips for reference, about everything we need to know to help others, I will refer you to some very interesting information here https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200272045/92/0
That information partially says:

In the late 1930’s, scientists enthusiastically embraced a new idea. They already thought that natural selection​—the process in which the organism best suited to its environment is most likely to survive and breed—​could produce new species of plants from random mutations. Therefore, they now assumed that artificial, or human-guided, selection of mutations should be able to do the same thing but more efficiently. “Euphoria spread among biologists in general and geneticists and breeders in particular,” said Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany.* Why the euphoria? Lönnig, who has spent some 30 years studying mutation genetics in plants, said: “These researchers thought that the time had come to revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.”20 In fact, some hoped to produce entirely new species.

Scientists in the United States, Asia, and Europe launched well-funded research programs using methods that promised to speed up evolution. After more than 40 years of intensive research, what were the results? “In spite of an enormous financial expenditure,” says researcher Peter von Sengbusch, “the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation [to cause mutations], widely proved to be a failure.”21 And Lönnig said: “By the 1980’s, the hopes and euphoria among scientists had ended in worldwide failure. Mutation breeding as a separate branch of research was abandoned in Western countries. Almost all the mutants . . . died or were weaker than wild varieties.”


Interesting, right? (Bibliography in the original article).


User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1230

Post by Jose Fly »

Eloi wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:44 pm Personal slurs don't show evolution... They just show that some human beings aren't educated.
Correct. What shows evolution is.....evolution taking place.

I gotta say, it's not very often that I come across someone who actually argues that evolution never happens. Most creationists will at least acknowledge some sort of evolution, with many admitting that speciation occurs (it's required under some Noah's flood scenarios).

So do you really think no population has ever evolved, ever?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Post Reply