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]

Please!

Macadamia nuts!

We're just shouting words now, right?

Homologous structures are structures, or body features, that are similar in two different species. The structures are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor.

From here.

What do you think that means in this context? Both do share homologous structures and share a common ancestor. You're asserting, though, that paleontologists would be wrong about which common ancestor based on your inexpert comparison of skeletons. If you think that any paleontologist would share your methodology, show us one that does.

Look:



How can you prove that these are all examples of homology and not simply convergent evolution with morphological similarities being coincidental?

[Jose Fly]

I gotta say, it was pretty funny to see SH post his skeleton pics, apparently thinking he was about to have some sort of "gotcha" moment with those danged evolutionists. But then Barbarian absolutely nails it and Difflugia puts the final nail in the coffin with more info on systematics, reducing SH to merely responding "Please!"

It puts me in mind of something a fellow science defender posted about another creationist years ago, and I ended up saving it because it was so poignant. Below is a (slightly) modified version that I think applies here...

"I wouldn't say I know a LOT about you -- but, assuming that you are at least nominally honest, you have shown that you know very little about biology. Your posts confirm that, simply because of the kinds of questions you ask, and the kinds of objections you raise, most of which demonstrate an appalling lack of study of the subject. Yet, in spite of downright incompetence in the subject you're critiquing, you proceed to critique it anyway as if you know what you're talking about, which makes you look pretty darned foolish.

I don't think I'm speculating too much when I say that you think it's neither fair nor smart for someone to draw conclusions about a subject that he demonstrates he knows nothing about -- but you evidently think it's both fair and smart for you to do that. You seem utterly oblivious to this obvious contradiction, which is actually downright hypocrisy, and the way it makes you look. And that complete lack of awareness of your own contradictions does say a few things about how your mind works -- and how it doesn't. And that does, indeed, tell me more about you than you probably want me to know."

[The Barbarian]

are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.



State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.

I'm no expert in anatomy, but...

They both have a skeleton, so they are related to all chordates by a common ancestor. And thereby related to all deuterostomes by a common ancestor. And a backbone so they are related to all vertebrates by a common ancestor.

And the simplified shoulder joints, lack of cervical ribs, what are almost certainly single dentary bones in the lower jaws, differentiated teeth and some other features, indicate that they are both mammals. So do the little "levers" at the back of the feet (both of these animals are digitgrade, so the heel looks like a backwards knee to most people) So related by a common mammalian ancestor.

However, the dental formulae seem to be different in each animal. Too unclear to say for sure. The first has a rather juvenile look in teeth, occipital muscle attachments, and so on. The larger one looks like a canid. The smaller one looks more generalized. It's hard to tell, but it appears the carnassal teeth in the smaller one are "wrong." If these were both adults, that would suggest that they are in different families,orders, or even subclasses. And that (from my inexpert observations and the small images) shows where the last common ancestor would be.

(edit) Since DNA variation in eutherian mammals would show about 85% similarity among orders, I'm supposing that at least 80% similarity, assuming that the smaller skeleton is a marsupial.(edit)

One is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine, a marsupial.

Yep. A canid and a mammal of a different sub-order. As you see, there's a good reason why anatomy supports common descent. I showed you a list of things that show these two mammals to have common mammalian ancestor. And then I showed you a few things that show that they aren't very closely related within the mammalian clade.

Yet based on their skeletons alone that is not evident at all,

You're very wrong about that. For example, even in the relatively poor photos you showed us, the dental formulae of the two were different. And that's key thing in mammals, for which variations in teeth matter.

they have (presumably) very different evolutionary histories (supposedly from a common ancestor 160 MYA).

Yep. And as you see, the DNA differences as well as anatomical things like teeth show.

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

You were misled about that, too. By the time DNA phylogenies were being produced, all biologists knew that these two animals were only distantly related. But if you have some checkable sources for "experts" being surprised by that fact, now would be the time to show us. Oh, that's right you never support your claims.

Had we not had access to actual Thylacines (the last specimens dined i the 1930s) no doubt paleontologists would have declared these to be closely related as they do all the time when morphological similarity is found amongst fossils.

The teeth alone would have given it away. You've been really led down the path on this one.

Today these animals are known to share almost no protein building DNA whatsoever

You've been misled about that, too. Marsupials share over 80% of their coding DNA with eutherian mammals, depending on how you measure.

their obvious similarities are due to a contrivance called "convergent evolution"

Yes, you've discovered the difference between analogous organs and homologous organs. There are lots of such cases. There were very horse-like litopterns in South America, that resembled real horses as closely as thylacines resembled wolves. But the details of anatomy showed that they were not homologous, just as many, many anatomical details show that thylacines and canids are not closely related.

that is to avenues of evolution that just magically happen to lead to (very) similar morphologies.

To creationists, natural selection probably seems like magic. But it is natural, after all.

So evolution leads to growing diversity except in cases where it doesn't.

Kind of like an economy leads to more wealth, except where it doesnt. Or like air movement leads to rain, except where it doesn't. Or like

How do we know that the many presumed relationships between fossils is real? if fossils that look the same can in fact be unrelated then how do we know if any of the many presumed relationships in the "tree of life" are real of not?

As you just learned, there are ways to distinguish between homology and analogy. But creationists don't care about reality, they just make up stories as needed so they can presserve their new doctrines.

Now, find us an example that doesn't show analogous organs like the "carnassal teeth" in thylacines that aren't carnassals at all, and you have an argument. Oh, and I doubt if anyone here didn't recognize the analogous animals you showed us.

And don't forget to show us those "experts" who were puzzled that the DNA data supported the same conclusion as anatomy, that these two mammals were not very closely related. What do you have? (prediction; no such evidence will be presented, just excuses)

[Sherlock Holmes]

I gotta say, it was pretty funny to see SH post his skeleton pics, apparently thinking he was about to have some sort of "gotcha" moment with those danged evolutionists. But then Barbarian absolutely nails it and Difflugia puts the final nail in the coffin with more info on systematics, reducing SH to merely responding "Please!"

It puts me in mind of something a fellow science defender posted about another creationist years ago, and I ended up saving it because it was so poignant. Below is a (slightly) modified version that I think applies here...

"I wouldn't say I know a LOT about you -- but, assuming that you are at least nominally honest, you have shown that you know very little about biology. Your posts confirm that, simply because of the kinds of questions you ask, and the kinds of objections you raise, most of which demonstrate an appalling lack of study of the subject. Yet, in spite of downright incompetence in the subject you're critiquing, you proceed to critique it anyway as if you know what you're talking about, which makes you look pretty darned foolish.

I don't think I'm speculating too much when I say that you think it's neither fair nor smart for someone to draw conclusions about a subject that he demonstrates he knows nothing about -- but you evidently think it's both fair and smart for you to do that. You seem utterly oblivious to this obvious contradiction, which is actually downright hypocrisy, and the way it makes you look. And that complete lack of awareness of your own contradictions does say a few things about how your mind works -- and how it doesn't. And that does, indeed, tell me more about you than you probably want me to know."

How predictable!

If one disagrees with the evolution ideology then by definition one does not understand it and of course those who do "understand" it would never express doubts about it!

No other branch of science invests so much effort in defensive trickery like this.

[Jose Fly]

If one disagrees with the evolution ideology then by definition one does not understand it

LOL...no, your ignorance of the subject was made abundantly evident when you thought "but they're still bacteria" was a valid argument.

and of course those who do "understand" it would never express doubts about it!

No other branch of science invests so much effort in defensive trickery like this.

Utterly bizarre.....the denialism is strong with this one.

[The Barbarian]

Sherlock was going to support his claim:

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

I'm not the only one who asked you to do that. How about it? Show us, or more excuses. What will it be?

[Sherlock Holmes]

are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.



State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.

I'm no expert in anatomy, but...

They both have a skeleton, so they are related to all chordates by a common ancestor. And thereby related to all deuterostomes by a common ancestor. And a backbone so they are related to all vertebrates by a common ancestor.

And the simplified shoulder joints, lack of cervical ribs, what are almost certainly single dentary bones in the lower jaws, differentiated teeth and some other features, indicate that they are both mammals. So do the little "levers" at the back of the feet (both of these animals are digitgrade, so the heel looks like a backwards knee to most people) So related by a common mammalian ancestor.

However, the dental formulae seem to be different in each animal. Too unclear to say for sure. The first has a rather juvenile look in teeth, occipital muscle attachments, and so on. The larger one looks like a canid. The smaller one looks more generalized. It's hard to tell, but it appears the carnassal teeth in the smaller one are "wrong." If these were both adults, that would suggest that they are in different families,orders, or even subclasses. And that (from my inexpert observations and the small images) shows where the last common ancestor would be.

(edit) Since DNA variation in eutherian mammals would show about 85% similarity among orders, I'm supposing that at least 80% similarity, assuming that the smaller skeleton is a marsupial.(edit)

One is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine, a marsupial.

Yep. A canid and a mammal of a different sub-order. As you see, there's a good reason why anatomy supports common descent. I showed you a list of things that show these two mammals to have common mammalian ancestor. And then I showed you a few things that show that they aren't very closely related within the mammalian clade.

Yet based on their skeletons alone that is not evident at all,

You're very wrong about that. For example, even in the relatively poor photos you showed us, the dental formulae of the two were different. And that's key thing in mammals, for which variations in teeth matter.

they have (presumably) very different evolutionary histories (supposedly from a common ancestor 160 MYA).

Yep. And as you see, the DNA differences as well as anatomical things like teeth show.

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

You were misled about that, too. By the time DNA phylogenies were being produced, all biologists knew that these two animals were only distantly related. But if you have some checkable sources for "experts" being surprised by that fact, now would be the time to show us. Oh, that's right you never support you claims.

Had we not had access to actual Thylacines (the last specimens dined i the 1930s) no doubt paleontologists would have declared these to be closely related as they do all the time when morphological similarity is found amongst fossils.

The teeth alone would have given it away. You've been really led down the path on this one.

Today these animals are known to share almost no protein building DNA whatsoever

You've been misled about that, too. Marsupials share over 80% of their coding DNA with eutherian mammals, depending on how you measure.

their obvious similarities are due to a contrivance called "convergent evolution"

Yes, you've discovered the difference between analogous organs and homologous organs. There are lots of such cases. There were very horse-like litopterns in South America, that resembled real horses as closely as thylacines resembled wolves. But the details of anatomy showed that they were not homologous, just as many, many anatomical details show that thylacines and canids are not closely related.

that is to avenues of evolution that just magically happen to lead to (very) similar morphologies.

To creationists, natural selection probably seems like magic. But it is natural, after all.

So evolution leads to growing diversity except in cases where it doesn't.

Kind of like an economy leads to more wealth, except where it doesnt. Or like air movement leads to rain, except where it doesn't. Or like

How do we know that the many presumed relationships between fossils is real? if fossils that look the same can in fact be unrelated then how do we know if any of the many presumed relationships in the "tree of life" are real of not?

As you just learned, there are ways to distinguish between homology and analogy. But creationists don't care about reality, they just make up stories as needed so they can presserve their new doctrines.

Now, find us an example that doesn't show analogous organs like the "carnassal teeth" in thylacines that aren't carnassals at all, and you have an argument. Oh, and I doubt if anyone here didn't recognize the analogous animals you showed us.

And don't forget to show us those "experts" who were puzzled that the DNA data supported the same conclusion as anatomy, that these two mammals were not very closely related. What do you have? (prediction; no such evidence will be presented, just excuses)

Of course nothing will surprise you because no matter what we find you take refuge in evolution, it is your security blanket.

"Remarkably, the Tasmanian tiger pups were more similar to wolf pups than to other closely related marsupials," Professor Andrew Pask from the University of Melbourne said.

While scientists have worked out that different animals evolve to look the same because they occupy similar places in the ecosystem, they have yet to explain how animals evolve to become convergent, particularly the forces driving their early development.

For a theory purported to explain so much I see the phrase "yet to explain how" an awful lot in the literature.

it also provides one of the most striking examples of convergent evolution in mammals, showing remarkable eco-morphological similarities with members of the placental carnivore family Canidae (i.e., wolves and dogs).

and this:

"When we looked at the basis for this convergent evolution, we found it wasn't actually the genes that produced the same skull and body shape, but the control regions around them that turn genes 'on and off' at different stages of growth.

From here.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock was going to support his claim:

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

I'm not the only one who asked you to do that. How about it? Show us, or more excuses. What will it be?

Of course, see directly above too, here's what I was referring to:

"When we looked at the basis for this convergent evolution, we found it wasn't actually the genes that produced the same skull and body shape, but the control regions around them that turn genes 'on and off' at different stages of growth.

We both know that "isn't actually" and "wasn't actually" and "didn't actually" are used to convey that an expectation was not met.

and

However, analysis of genes revealed little evidence of molecular similarities or similar pressures imposed by natural selection. This presented a conundrum, as protein-coding genes have critically important biological functions.

From here.

and

We next examined if convergence of body form is reflected by convergence in the genome. To do this we compared the protein-coding genes from the thylacine with those of the canids.

Therefore, we concluded that protein-coding evolution is not the main driver of convergence between these species.

From here.

and

Professor Pask’s team at the University of Melbourne originally investigated links between the Tasmanian tiger and the wolf in a 2018 paper, where they sequenced the DNA of thylacine from a joey in order to probe their genes for DNA that contain the instructions for building proteins. However, their analysis of protein-coding genes revealed little evidence of molecular similarities.

From here.

Of course I won't be surprised to find you lot aren't surprised because few things can surprise the dyed-in-the-wool evolution devotee because no matter what we find you always take solace in "evolution is a fact" and just make up new "facts" like "convergent evolution".

[The Barbarian]

Sherlock was going to support his claim:

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

I'm not the only one who asked you to do that. How about it? Show us, or more excuses. What will it be?

Of course, see directly above too, here's what I was referring to:

"When we looked at the basis for this convergent evolution, we found it wasn't actually the genes that produced the same skull and body shape, but the control regions around them that turn genes 'on and off' at different stages of growth.

That's actually not what you said. Perhaps you don't understand how genes work. No one was surprised that marsupials are not as closely related to eutherians as they eutherians are to each other. Anatomy and the homologies we mentioned already showed that. Genes that control the expression of other genes are quite commonly the cause of such homologies. For example they can be found affecting the genes that produce flippers instead of legs in whales.

We both know that "isn't actually" and "wasn't actually" and "didn't actually" are used to convey that an expectation was not met.

Yep. So instead of your guesses of "are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps?", it turns out to be more like 80%. And as you learned, that confirms the finding that thylacines analogous to eutherian canids. And no one was surprised, as you now seem to realize.

However, analysis of genes revealed little evidence of molecular similarities or similar pressures imposed by natural selection.

Yeah, that would be expected for animals that are analogous to other animals. If they were genetically close, one would conclude they were closely related and the common structures homologous.


This presented a conundrum, as protein-coding genes have critically important biological functions.

From here.

and

We next examined if convergence of body form is reflected by convergence in the genome. To do this we compared the protein-coding genes from the thylacine with those of the canids.

Therefore, we concluded that protein-coding evolution is not the main driver of convergence between these species.

Yeah, that would produce homologous results. Instead, different mutations to different parts produced an analogous appearance, which is as you now might realize, driven by natural selection.

Professor Pask’s team at the University of Melbourne originally investigated links between the Tasmanian tiger and the wolf in a 2018 paper, where they sequenced the DNA of thylacine from a joey in order to probe their genes for DNA that contain the instructions for building proteins. However, their analysis of protein-coding genes revealed little evidence of molecular similarities.

Yep. If they were identical at the genetic or molecular level, one would conclude homology, not analogy. Analogy is about looking the same, not being the same genetically. And that's been known for a very long time.

Of course I won't be surprised if you make more excuses about this, because few things can surprise the dyed-in-the-wool creationist devotee; no matter what the evidence shows, you always take solace in "evolution can't be true" and just make up new "facts."

So now, failing to show that any biologist was surprised to find that thylacines are not genetically close to wolves, you quote-mined something that sounded promising to you, but actually further refutes your assertion.

Not knowing what you are talking about is a huge disadvantage, as you have just seen.

[Clownboat]

Duplicate post