How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 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.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1321

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1314]
Kindly note I was trying to discuss some of the things that catch my attention with all this. I did not even mention "creation" by a "God being" - if you persist in dragging this kind of thing in then we have no real prospect of discussing what are aspects of science.
Who said you did? I made a comment and included the god creator alternative and made no attribution specifically to you, although you've said plenty of times here that that is exactly how you believe "creation" happened. But I'm free to comment as I see fit within the forum rules.
So moving on, James Tour does point out that chemicals do not show any tendency to form the kinds of structures that are necessary for life to form. Evolution presupposes an already function pretty sophisticated nano-machine that has the ability to replicate and construct proteins from the amino acids that themselves are described by the DNA code, the data I was speaking of.
Of course evolution presupposes existing life as it only works once that has been established. It makes no assumptions on how that first living population came into existence.
DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:31 pm Chemistry is what ultimately makes all of the physical structures on this planet via bonds between atoms, and it is certainly capable of building all of the structures involved in living things (and nonliving things) regardless of what James Tour may say or think.
Well Tour - a highly respected chemist (here's a list of his peer reviewed publications) - disagrees that chemistry and physics have the capacity to form the structures we see in life and his reasons are highly credible, the belief that all these things can "just happen" is just a belief and we never see these things emerge in nature or even in a well equipped lab manned by teams of experts, they don't happen.

The laws of materials and mechanics is what enables a car to exist and operate but that does not mean that it could just arise all by itself.

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 #1322

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1321]
Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For example the flood account in Genesis or the resurrection of Christ (aka "miracles") - this shows that God's spirit - not an inherent natural capacity of nature - is necessary for certain events, if nature had been created with the capacity to do all that God desired then we'd have no need of God, even us, we, would have been built to do as God desired.
So now you are not opposed to bringing up references to a god being in this science debate (bolding mine)? Most people I've encountered who oppose evolution outright do so mainly because they see it as being in conflict with their religious beliefs, or their belief that humans are special creations different from all other animals. Are you not in that category? Or do you oppose evolution independent of any personal beliefs about gods and simply think it has not been proven? It is confusing that you complain about a god being reference in one post, then follow that in the same thread with comments about a god being.
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1323

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:52 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1321]
Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.

For example the flood account in Genesis or the resurrection of Christ (aka "miracles") - this shows that God's spirit - not an inherent natural capacity of nature - is necessary for certain events, if nature had been created with the capacity to do all that God desired then we'd have no need of God, even us, we, would have been built to do as God desired.
So now you are not opposed to bringing up references to a god being in this science debate (bolding mine)? Most people I've encountered who oppose evolution outright do so mainly because they see it as being in conflict with their religious beliefs, or their belief that humans are special creations different from all other animals. Are you not in that category? Or do you oppose evolution independent of any personal beliefs about gods and simply think it has not been proven? It is confusing that you complain about a god being reference in one post, then follow that in the same thread with comments about a god being.
Barbarian and I disagree on many things but we do agree that God created all and is the source of life. My remarks to you were that I did not want to go from chemistry, genetics into a debate about the existence of God that you clearly do not accept and that you consider to be a naïve fairy tale.

But Barbarian was not seeking to debate the existence or reality of God but the nature of God and the universe created by him.

That's the difference, sorry if it led to any ill feeling.

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 #1324

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1323]
Well Tour - a highly respected chemist (here's a list of his peer reviewed publications) - disagrees that chemistry and physics have the capacity to form the structures we see in life and his reasons are highly credible, the belief that all these things can "just happen" is just a belief and we never see these things emerge in nature or even in a well equipped lab manned by teams of experts, they don't happen.
His credentials don't matter if he's claiming that chemistry and physics cannot form literally any stable structures that exist on this planet. This is the only way physical structures exist at all. Everything is made of atoms that bond in various ways to form molecules, crystals and all physical structures.

If he's arguing that specific structures cannot form naturally because they are thermodynamically unstable, the reaction energies are too high, the ionic or covalent bonds are unstable, or the many other things that prevent natural combinations, then the very existence of a stable structure would negate those kinds of arguments.

But if he's arguing that certain structures can't form naturally to cross the transition from nonliving to living, he's making claims he can't back up because it is not been proven that some kind of abiogenesis mechanism is impossible. We don't know exactly what the intermediaries were in the transition or even what the first life forms were. So it is not possible to make a sweeping claim that abiogenesis is impossible from the chemistry/physics standpoint because we simply don't have enough pieces of the puzzle to draw that conclusion.
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1325

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:02 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1323]
Well Tour - a highly respected chemist (here's a list of his peer reviewed publications) - disagrees that chemistry and physics have the capacity to form the structures we see in life and his reasons are highly credible, the belief that all these things can "just happen" is just a belief and we never see these things emerge in nature or even in a well equipped lab manned by teams of experts, they don't happen.
His credentials don't matter if he's claiming that chemistry and physics cannot form literally any stable structures that exist on this planet.
Yes, if the man had no credentials they'd matter, if he already has them they don't matter, if he hasn't published peer reviewed papers it matters, if he has published peer reviewed papers they don't natter, I know the pattern well.
DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:02 pm This is the only way physical structures exist at all. Everything is made of atoms that bond in various ways to form molecules, crystals and all physical structures.
Lego structures are made from bricks that bond in various way, but those structures require human intelligence, they never, ever, ever, ever form unaided nor does any scientist ever think they could, do you? if not why not?
DrNoGods wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:02 pm If he's arguing that specific structures cannot form naturally because they are thermodynamically unstable, the reaction energies are too high, the ionic or covalent bonds are unstable, or the many other things that prevent natural combinations, then the very existence of a stable structure would negate those kinds of arguments.

But if he's arguing that certain structures can't form naturally to cross the transition from nonliving to living, he's making claims he can't back up because it is not been proven that some kind of abiogenesis mechanism is impossible. We don't know exactly what the intermediaries were in the transition or even what the first life forms were. So it is not possible to make a sweeping claim that abiogenesis is impossible from the chemistry/physics standpoint because we simply don't have enough pieces of the puzzle to draw that conclusion.
There's rather a lot more to what Tour says than that, a lot more, but dismiss him if you want.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 876
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 204 times
Been thanked: 586 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1326

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 1:30 pm Well this is drifting away from the science and into metaphysics, theology I'm fine with that however.
As another anti-Darwinian admits, the evidence shows that life and all other things on earth show natural causes. And the more we look at creation, the less support there is for special creation.
That the universe was created with everything already built in to develop into what we see is a reasonable hypothesis. But it implies that therefore abiogenesis (for example) is entirely possible and a consequence of the laws of nature that we see.
So God said. Why wouldn't it be, if He made it so?
Well that's the problem though, as Tour (and others) point out thermodynamics and other factors (which are laws of nature) seem to offer no prospect of being able to self assemble living cells
As you see, chemicals readily available in the early Earth spontaneously form enclosed cell membranes.
Furthermore, God has intervened in the status quo numerous times so clearly can and will take actions that would not occur unless he took said action.
Yep. But notice He doesn't have to do miracles. He does them to teach us something, not because He has to tinker with creation to make it work.
As you know resurrections do not just happen, so why should complex life be expected to just happen?
Since it was God's creation of nature that caused life to be brought forth by the Earth, I'd say that wasn't "just happened." You seem offended if God did creation in an instant, making nature so that it would bring all things forth as He intended. He could have done it otherwise, but we have His word that He did it this way.
For example the flood account in Genesis or the resurrection of Christ (aka "miracles")
As I said, miracles are the way He teaches us things. He doesn't have to do them to make it all work. Being an omnipotent Creator, elegance in his creation seems to be His inclination.
So that's why I do not just accept that God created the universe already capable of doing what He wanted it to do, it renders God pointless.
Not to a Christian who believes He is the omnipotent Creator. He's wiser and more powerful than many creationists would like.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1327

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 2:13 pm Lego structures are made from bricks that bond in various way, but those structures require human intelligence, they never, ever, ever, ever form unaided nor does any scientist ever think they could, do you? if not why not?
Are you suggesting that the trillions of chemical reactions that occur in all living things every day require the constant personal intervention of God and could not happen through natural biochemistry?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14000
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1328

Post by William »

[Replying to brunumb in post #1327]
Are you suggesting that the trillions of chemical reactions that occur in all living things every day require the constant personal intervention of God and could not happen through natural biochemistry?
The glue that bonds the two seemingly unreconcilable positions could be that the experiential reality is mostly set on automatic, thereby it does not require intervention of GOD but can still be subtly yet mindfully tweaked - as and when necessary.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1329

Post by brunumb »

William wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:42 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #1327]
Are you suggesting that the trillions of chemical reactions that occur in all living things every day require the constant personal intervention of God and could not happen through natural biochemistry?
The glue that bonds the two seemingly unreconcilable positions could be that the experiential reality is mostly set on automatic, thereby it does not require intervention of GOD but can still be subtly yet mindfully tweaked - as and when necessary.
Like when it is necessary to cause a cancer to form?
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

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 #1330

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1327]
Yes, if the man had no credentials they'd matter, if he already has them they don't matter, if he hasn't published peer reviewed papers it matters, if he has published peer reviewed papers they don't natter, I know the pattern well.
You missed the point, which was that if a claim is being made that is demonstrably wrong then it doesn't matter what the credentials are of the person making the claim. They can be ignored and the claim itself addressed. Saying that chemistry and physics could not form the structures necessary for life eliminates any natural process for life formation (since all physical structures are based on chemical bonds of one kind or another), and that process can't be eliminated as we don't yet know the mechanism.
Lego structures are made from bricks that bond in various way, but those structures require human intelligence, they never, ever, ever, ever form unaided nor does any scientist ever think they could, do you? if not why not?
Completely irrelevant to the process of the first living things arising from atoms, molecules and chemistry/physics in the environment of the early Earth. Lego pieces cannot bond to each other via the laws of chemistry ... they have mechanical features which allow them to be combined in various ways and that's it. There is not even the slightest analogy between lego bricks, and atoms combining to form molecules, and those combining to form physical structures.

Get a bunch of lego pieces and drop them into a bathtub full of water and they'll settle into some random piles or float (if lego bricks float) and stay that way until disturbed by some external input. They can't combine, as you say, without human input. Now drop a bunch of chemicals into the same tub of water and depending on what chemicals are used they will react (or not) and after some time you'll have something very different than what was dropped in the begin with (unlike legos). Atoms and molecules react/bond according to their outer electron configurations and it isn't random at all. You don't find Na2 naturally, but Cl2 is common, because of the nonrandom way atoms combine via chemical bonds.
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

Post Reply