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.

[brunumb]

It is not my intention here to argue a point by point case against evolution, I did say that the fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity) and I'm satisfied that this is the case.

Do you believe that the fossil record is consistent with the biblical account of creation by a deity? If so, what particularly fits with that origin of species?

Very hard to say, the Genesis account is very very terse and may even be paraphrased rather than literal, I just cannot say with confidence. But creation by an intellect - as I understand the term - does seem the more plausible of the two alternatives, the record of discontinuity (which is at its most start in the Cambrian) seems to be totally inconsistent with a naturalistic process of gradual, continuous morphological change.

You haven't really explained why the fossil record is actually consistent with creation by an intellect.

[brunumb]

The fossil record is the main evidence that life has passed through a discontinuous process of some sort, dramatically new morphologies just seem to appear with few if any credible precursors, these observations are precisely what one would expect if an intelligence were involved.

Fossils are extremely rare. It is obvious that the process requires special conditions or else we would be knee deep in fossils, plus there is no obligation on the part of the planet to provide them for future examination. When you consider the unimaginably huge number of organisms that have ever existed over billions of years we are lucky to have the few fossils that we have found. It is therefore a bit rash to dismiss a theory that is now well supported through other scientific means on the basis of perceived gaps in the record. Even more rash to simply plop an intelligent creator into the picture with nothing in the way of evidence to support any involvement on the part of this being.

[Sherlock Holmes]

It is not my intention here to argue a point by point case against evolution, I did say that the fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity) and I'm satisfied that this is the case.

Do you believe that the fossil record is consistent with the biblical account of creation by a deity? If so, what particularly fits with that origin of species?

Very hard to say, the Genesis account is very very terse and may even be paraphrased rather than literal, I just cannot say with confidence. But creation by an intellect - as I understand the term - does seem the more plausible of the two alternatives, the record of discontinuity (which is at its most start in the Cambrian) seems to be totally inconsistent with a naturalistic process of gradual, continuous morphological change.

You haven't really explained why the fossil record is actually consistent with creation by an intellect.

I likely can't explain that either, not in a few pages of back and forth anyway. It took me several years to reach a state of open mindedness where I was willing to seriously consider the possibility that the fossil record flies in the face of evolution.

All I can do here I think is raise the subject, mention some of the core pointers and problems, the rest is up to you if you actually care.

As I said a debate as such here, is likely a waste of time in that I won't change an evolution believer's mind, perhaps a truly open minded person but if you've already embraced evolution (i.e. regard it as a fact) then that's never going to change, not by me anyway.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The fossil record is the main evidence that life has passed through a discontinuous process of some sort, dramatically new morphologies just seem to appear with few if any credible precursors, these observations are precisely what one would expect if an intelligence were involved.

Fossils are extremely rare. It is obvious that the process requires special conditions or else we would be knee deep in fossils, plus there is no obligation on the part of the planet to provide them for future examination.

Are they rare because the process occurs rarely or are they rare because there was nothing to fossilize in the first place?

When fossils are found it is called "evidence" for evolution, when they are not found it is called evidence of "rarity" for fossilization, very poor reasoning IMHO, whatever is or isn't found evolution is safe, never questioned.

When you consider the unimaginably huge number of organisms that have ever existed over billions of years we are lucky to have the few fossils that we have found. It is therefore a bit rash to dismiss a theory that is now well supported through other scientific means on the basis of perceived gaps in the record. Even more rash to simply plop an intelligent creator into the picture with nothing in the way of evidence to support any involvement on the part of this being.

Here we go, referring to "well supported through other scientific means". That is not how falsification works, we don't give a theory that fails a test a free pass because it seems to fit other kinds of evidence.

Newtonian mechanics is falsified (it is absolutely wrong to describe time as universal, gravitation as instantaneous etc) despite the fact that it "works" for a multitude of practical cases. Newtonian mechanics does not and cannot explain nature.

Your argument is typical, I've encountered it hundreds of times, when evidence runs counter just push the problem to one side and try to divert the discussion to areas where there's less contention, defending the theory is all that matters, it must be preserved at all cost.

Once evolution is falsified, once we begin to accept that it is at odds with observation, inexplicably at odds, then we are free to speculate about alternative causes for what we observe, nothing "rash" there at all.

[Difflugia]

...if you actually care.

...perhaps a truly open minded person...

Your argument is typical...

...defending the theory is all that matters, it must be preserved at all cost.

I guess the polite lack of ad hominem comments was short-lived.

I don't see how reading a book serves as evidence that fossilization was rare.

And "I've studied evolution for years" isn't evidence for any of your unsupported claims, particularly when the things you keep getting wrong are explained in basic textbooks.

Said rarity is an interpretation of what we find, another interpretation is that it was not as rare as claimed and the lack of ancestral fossils ia a real absence of things to fossilze.

The latter interpretation isn't supported by any science, though. That's like claiming that "the moon is made of cheese" is "another interpretation" of how it looks in the night sky. It's not a good interpretation and it's not backed by anything beyond shallowest connection to a single observation, but it's certainly an interpretation.

The claim is that ancestral forms existed (for example the ancestry of Anoamlocaris) why should I believe these ancestors did exist when there's absolutely no fossile evidence for them?

This is another of those unsupported claims you keep making. You do understand that such claims aren't evidence in themselves, right?

Why is my suggestion that the absence of ancestor fossils might be due to an absence of ancestors any more needy of evidence than the claim fossilization was rare?

It isn't. Nor is it less needy, however.

You've still offered no support for any of your claims. For easy reference, here they are:

• [T]he evidence from the Cambrian explosion [is] sufficient to falsify the theory [of evolution].
• [T]he entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example.
• [T]he fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity).
• The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity and so has every reason to be regarded as in actual fact, evidence of discontinuity and that is evidence against evolution.
• [T]he fossil record does not support claims of continuous morphological change through natural selection, the fossil record shows the opposite.
• [T]he record of discontinuity (which is at its most start in the Cambrian) seems to be totally inconsistent with a naturalistic process of gradual, continuous morphological change.
• [T]he fossil record falsifies evolution, it is not what a reasonable person would expect to find if evolution were true.
• Whereever we have found Cambrian fossils we also find the same absence of ancestors, the pattern is that ancestors are never found anywhere that's evidence of absence I think.

You've supported none of this. When given the benefit of the doubt on your claim of discontinuity in the fossil record, you initially claimed that you're merely justified in having a personal interpretation of discontinuity in biological forms. When informed that cladistic and phylogenetic analysis falsifies that interpretation, you just asserted that those kinds of evidence are irrelevant. Finally, you drifted to the claim that not only is your interpretation valid, but it falsifies evolution. When pushed for support of any of this, your main response has been to challenge the rest of us to prove evolution to you.

The only truly consistent argument that you've made is that your debate opponents aren't open-minded enough to accept your obvious creationist truth. How does that differ from what any more fundamentalist or less learned creationist peddles?

[Sherlock Holmes]

...if you actually care.

...perhaps a truly open minded person...

Your argument is typical...

...defending the theory is all that matters, it must be preserved at all cost.

I guess the polite lack of ad hominem comments was short-lived.

I don't see how reading a book serves as evidence that fossilization was rare.

And "I've studied evolution for years" isn't evidence for any of your unsupported claims, particularly when the things you keep getting wrong are explained in basic textbooks.

Some textbooks, specifically those that advocate evolution.

Said rarity is an interpretation of what we find, another interpretation is that it was not as rare as claimed and the lack of ancestral fossils ia a real absence of things to fossilze.

The latter interpretation isn't supported by any science, though.

It is supported by evidence, science is supported (or should be) by evidence.

If we seek X and repeatedly do not find X then that could be because of either 1. It never existed or 2. It did exist but no trace was left.

That's like claiming that "the moon is made of cheese" is "another interpretation" of how it looks in the night sky. It's not a good interpretation and it's not backed by anything beyond shallowest connection to a single observation, but it's certainly an interpretation.

I said no such thing, that is a strawman argument, an attack on something I never said.

The claim is that ancestral forms existed (for example the ancestry of Anoamlocaris) why should I believe these ancestors did exist when there's absolutely no fossil evidence for them?

This is another of those unsupported claims you keep making. You do understand that such claims aren't evidence in themselves, right?

No, it is a scientific fact, there's no fossil evidence that Anomalocaris evolved none.

Why is my suggestion that the absence of ancestor fossils might be due to an absence of ancestors any more needy of evidence than the claim fossilization was rare?

It isn't. Nor is it less needy, however.

You've still offered no support for any of your claims. For easy reference, here they are:

• [T]he evidence from the Cambrian explosion [is] sufficient to falsify the theory [of evolution].
• [T]he entire fossil record so far as I can see, exhibits dramatic discontinuity, it is everywhere discontinuous and the Cambrian is perhaps the most dramatic example.
• [T]he fossil evidence (discontinuity everywhere we've found fossils) is inexplicably inconsistent with the claimed process (continuity).
• The fossil record nowhere exhibits examples of continuity and so has every reason to be regarded as in actual fact, evidence of discontinuity and that is evidence against evolution.
• [T]he fossil record does not support claims of continuous morphological change through natural selection, the fossil record shows the opposite.
• [T]he record of discontinuity (which is at its most start in the Cambrian) seems to be totally inconsistent with a naturalistic process of gradual, continuous morphological change.
• [T]he fossil record falsifies evolution, it is not what a reasonable person would expect to find if evolution were true.
• Whereever we have found Cambrian fossils we also find the same absence of ancestors, the pattern is that ancestors are never found anywhere that's evidence of absence I think.

You've supported none of this. When given the benefit of the doubt on your claim of discontinuity in the fossil record, you initially claimed that you're merely justified in having a personal interpretation of discontinuity in biological forms. When informed that cladistic and phylogenetic analysis falsifies that interpretation, you just asserted that those kinds of evidence are irrelevant. Finally, you drifted to the claim that not only is your interpretation valid, but it falsifies evolution. When pushed for support of any of this, your main response has been to challenge the rest of us to prove evolution to you.

1. The fossil record is touted by many as evidence for evolution therefore if the evidence is inconsistent with evolution it does serve to falsify it, one cannot treat evidence selectively, embracing it when it matches and disregarding it when it doesn't.
2. This is a fact, the fossil record is characterized by discontinuity.
3. This to is a fact, continuity is found nowhere in the fossil record.
4. True, it shows the opposite, that is if the opposite were the case we'd expect to see what we see.
5. True, if continuous gradualistic change had taken place we'd expect to see some evidence for that but we do not.
6. Ditto.
7. Yes.
8. Indeed.

Denying the above is a choice, just as believing these is a choice, it all comes down to how we interpret observations.

The vast majority of those I've argued with and debated over the years regard evolution is a fact, unquestionable, a truth that cannot rationally be doubted, even those who should know better state that it is a "fact" - a fact is something that cannot be questioned, and that is the intent, to stifle honest criticism.

That though is not good science, because it leads to selective interpretation of evidence, preservation of existing beliefs is the goal, not finding the truth.

The only truly consistent argument that you've made is that your debate opponents aren't open-minded enough to accept your obvious creationist truth. How does that differ from what any more fundamentalist or less learned creationist peddles?

I stand by that, I'm not accusing you personally of not being open minded, but if you were to say evolution is a "fact" as does Richard Dawkins then I think the implications of that are clear to all.

[Difflugia]

And "I've studied evolution for years" isn't evidence for any of your unsupported claims, particularly when the things you keep getting wrong are explained in basic textbooks.

Some textbooks, specifically those that advocate evolution.

Is there some textbook that doesn't that you'd like us to consider as support for your claims?

Said rarity is an interpretation of what we find, another interpretation is that it was not as rare as claimed and the lack of ancestral fossils ia a real absence of things to fossilze.

The latter interpretation isn't supported by any science, though.

It is supported by evidence

Only if the evidence is limited to an artificially narrow set of data. The fossil data in conjunction with genomic data, for example, support evolution. I'm pretty sure you recognized that when you tried to dismiss molecular data as having "no place here."

If we seek X and repeatedly do not find X then that could be because of either 1. It never existed or 2. It did exist but no trace was left.

And if we find a "trace" of X amongst other data, it's disingenuous to continue claiming that it "never existed."

That's like claiming that "the moon is made of cheese" is "another interpretation" of how it looks in the night sky. It's not a good interpretation and it's not backed by anything beyond shallowest connection to a single observation, but it's certainly an interpretation.

I said no such thing, that is a strawman argument, an attack on something I never said.

I didn't claim you did, but made an analogy. Amusingly, that makes your statement the straw man.

Since "the moon is made of cheese" is supported by some evidence (it looks kind of like a wheel of cheese) as long as we dismiss other evidence (all astronomical data ever collected), then I'd also say that the analogy is especially apt. Or isn't it polite to point that out?

No, it is a scientific fact, there's no fossil evidence that Anomalocaris evolved none.

Is expecting me to look it up an important part of your argument? I'm sure the similarity to a Gish gallop is just a coincidence.

Denying the above is a choice

So is refusing to support your assertions.

The vast majority of those I've argued with and debated over the years regard evolution is a fact, unquestionable, a truth that cannot rationally be doubted, even those who should know better state that it is a "fact" - a fact is something that cannot be questioned, and that is the intent, to stifle honest criticism.

Considering that you're being given the benefit of the doubt and repeatedly offered the opportunity to support your position, the claim that anyone is trying to "stifle" your "honest criticism" has a somewhat hollow (and perhaps desperate) ring to it.

That though is not good science, because it leads to selective interpretation of evidence, preservation of existing beliefs is the goal, not finding the truth.

QFT

I stand by that, I'm not accusing you personally of not being open minded, but if you were to say evolution is a "fact" as does Richard Dawkins then I think the implications of that are clear to all.

Evolution is a fact and neither Richard Dawkins nor I need the scare quotes. The data exist for you to prove that to yourself as well (tl;dr: I've studied evolution for years. Years.).

[Purple Knight]

Once evolution is falsified, once we begin to accept that it is at odds with observation, inexplicably at odds, then we are free to speculate about alternative causes for what we observe, nothing "rash" there at all.

I actually suggest a thread for this. Something along the lines of what could it be if it wasn't evolution or intelligent design.

My answer would be that organisms might be driving their own process of change, but not through evolution. These mice did not evolve to fear the smell of cherry blossoms; they were born that way epigenetically. My answer would be to explore this phenomenon as much as possible because it might be holding, at very least, a lot of missing pieces.

We have a dichotomy here that we oughtn't. There are people motivated to defend evolution and motivated to defend intelligent design.

I want a thread that takes away both of these beaten-to-death possibilities and explores other explanations. I expect it wouldn't get too much engagement because people are so invested in what they believe to be true. I even admit that some of my alternative explanations, the first ones I come up with, sort of spring from the idea of evolution so I may be unreasonably fixed upon this explanation.

How can one claim that the fossil record is evidence for evolution when it can more reasonably be claimed it is evidence of discontinuous change, dramatic morphological changes with no fossil trace, no evidence, of any transition?

Now, I have always readily accepted that the transitions don't last too long because organisms quickly specialise to their new niche and leave the vestiges of the old. But I am willing to look at what the fossil record shows without any backwards-from-answer reasoning.

I'm not sure what this would look like, frankly. It definitely doesn't look like intelligent design, at least, not the popular version. It would only look like intelligent design if the creator involved wasn't all-knowing. Someone might build a feather, build an archaeopteryx, and only then realise, hmm, this thing might work better without a heavy jaw and teeth, so let's remove them and provide a lightweight beak instead. If it's intelligent design it looks more like a pro gamer figuring out the metagame than someone who already knows everything designing the biome from the ground up.

So what, if anything, is a third explanation that explains the sudden changes we see in the fossil record if we don't engage in reasoning backwards from evolution?

[Sherlock Holmes]

And "I've studied evolution for years" isn't evidence for any of your unsupported claims, particularly when the things you keep getting wrong are explained in basic textbooks.

Some textbooks, specifically those that advocate evolution.

Is there some textbook that doesn't that you'd like us to consider as support for your claims?

Yes there are, this is one that has a lot to say about this.

Said rarity is an interpretation of what we find, another interpretation is that it was not as rare as claimed and the lack of ancestral fossils ia a real absence of things to fossilze.

The latter interpretation isn't supported by any science, though.

It is supported by evidence

Only if the evidence is limited to an artificially narrow set of data. The fossil data in conjunction with genomic data, for example, support evolution. I'm pretty sure you recognized that when you tried to dismiss molecular data as having "no place here."

There is no genomic data from the Cambrian animals. Furthermore genetic data when it is available only supports evolution if it is first assumed that evolution is the only explanation for the data.

If we seek X and repeatedly do not find X then that could be because of either 1. It never existed or 2. It did exist but no trace was left.

And if we find a "trace" of X amongst other data, it's disingenuous to continue claiming that it "never existed."

What do you regard as a "trace" of an ancestral tree preceding Anomalocaris? Remember we're not speaking about a "trace" of some prior form but credible evidence that there were thousands upon thousands of generations between Anomalocaris and some rather different ancestor.

The fact is there is no trace of any such line of descent, it has never been found.

That's like claiming that "the moon is made of cheese" is "another interpretation" of how it looks in the night sky. It's not a good interpretation and it's not backed by anything beyond shallowest connection to a single observation, but it's certainly an interpretation.

I said no such thing, that is a strawman argument, an attack on something I never said.

I didn't claim you did, but made an analogy. Amusingly, that makes your statement the straw man.

A strawman is when your argument relies on attacking an argument that I never made:

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.[1] One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

No, it is a scientific fact, there's no fossil evidence that Anomalocaris evolved none.

Is expecting me to look it up an important part of your argument? I'm sure the similarity to a Gish gallop is just a coincidence.

There's nothing to lookup, there is no evidence that Anomalocaris evolved nor is there any evidence that it and its contemporaries ever shared a common ancestor, I'm giving you facts here, I'm not making this up, the true picture is worse than I've so far described, it is astonishing in fact.

Denying the above is a choice

So is refusing to support your assertions.

The vast majority of those I've argued with and debated over the years regard evolution is a fact, unquestionable, a truth that cannot rationally be doubted, even those who should know better state that it is a "fact" - a fact is something that cannot be questioned, and that is the intent, to stifle honest criticism.

Considering that you're being given the benefit of the doubt and repeatedly offered the opportunity to support your position, the claim that anyone is trying to "stifle" your "honest criticism" has a somewhat hollow (and perhaps desperate) ring to it.

That though is not good science, because it leads to selective interpretation of evidence, preservation of existing beliefs is the goal, not finding the truth.

I stand by that, I'm not accusing you personally of not being open minded, but if you were to say evolution is a "fact" as does Richard Dawkins then I think the implications of that are clear to all.

Evolution is a fact and neither Richard Dawkins nor I need the scare quotes. The data exist for you to prove that to yourself as well (tl;dr: I've studied evolution for years. Years.).

Very well our discussion must be at an end, by definition if you regard it as a fact (which is an unquestionable assertion) then you refuse to admit to even the possibility that it might be false and therefore no amount of evidence presented to you will or can alter your position.

This is precisely the mindset of those who imprisoned Galileo, evidence supporting his arguments were irrelevant, the facts were established by the self-appointed authorities and questioning them was an exercise in futility.

[Difflugia]

I actually suggest a thread for this. Something along the lines of what could it be if it wasn't evolution or intelligent design.

My answer would be that organisms might be driving their own process of change, but not through evolution. These mice did not evolve to fear the smell of cherry blossoms; they were born that way epigenetically. My answer would be to explore this phenomenon as much as possible because it might be holding, at very least, a lot of missing pieces.

We have a dichotomy here that we oughtn't. There are people motivated to defend evolution and motivated to defend intelligent design.

I want a thread that takes away both of these beaten-to-death possibilities and explores other explanations. I expect it wouldn't get too much engagement because people are so invested in what they believe to be true. I even admit that some of my alternative explanations, the first ones I come up with, sort of spring from the idea of evolution so I may be unreasonably fixed upon this explanation.

Any alternate explanation must necessarily be operating with evolution rather than instead of it. Epigenetics is definitely a thing, but at least most of the adaptations that are normally attributed to evolution are indeed mediated by genetics. The occurrence of random mutation and environmental selection that varies based on phenotype have both been shown to occur and to be sufficient to explain existing variation. In addition to epigenetic effects, there are also things like horizontal gene transfer that have been shown to have some effect, so it's certainly plausible that there are other mechanisms that don't fall within the strict mutation/natural selection paradigm of evolution.

While that topic could certainly lead to an interesting conversation, I don't think it would end up being so in this forum. It would be like trying to have a serious discussion about the construction of the pyramids in a forum dedicated to alien visitation. The problem wouldn't be the topic, per se, but the ratio of signal to noise.