How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 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.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #721

Post by The Barbarian »

Re: denial that Sherlock ever dodged a question.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:59 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 2:47 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 11:57 am The bottom line here - and much of this thread serves as evidence for this - is that most if not all evolution advocates have completely discounted the possibility that evolution could be wrong.
That would be pretty much like the possibility that gravity is wrong. We see populations evolving every day. You've confused the phenomenon with the theory that describes it. Remember what evolution is. "Change in allele frequencies in a population over time."

[quoteBecause they've done that they must then claim (or at least believe) that there are no significant evidential or epistemological problems facing the theory.
I showed you a few problems in evolutionary theory that scientists are investigating now. You apparently don't know enough about the issue to discuss them. And from time to time, evolutionary theory is changed as new evidence requires. This probably looks like cheating to creationists whose methods are unreliable (i.e. our new revision of scripture is always right) that unreliability will itself preclude them from ever discovering that they are wrong!

This is the real evolution debate IMHO, it is the mindset, the way that creationists decide what to believe, it is deeply flawed when it comes to evolution.
If I asked a reasonably educated bunch of people to list the serious problems facing say general relativity, I'd get a list,
I gave you a list for evolutionary theory.
if I asked this about cosmology I'd get a list,
I gave you a list for evolutionary theory.
if I asked it about brain science I'd get a list, nobody would hesitate to share that information.
I gave you a list for evolutionary theory.
But when this is asked for evolution there is no such list and that's the problem with evolution.
I gave you a list for evolutionary theory. I see a problem here, but it's not with evolutionary theory...
I did not see your list, I apologize, can you repeat it or point me at the post that contains it?
[/quote]
Last edited by The Barbarian on Fri Feb 18, 2022 12:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #722

Post by The Barbarian »

Response:
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Jan 14, 2022 6:29 pm As requested, repeating some current problems in evolutionary theory;

1. relative importance of neutral mutations and very slightly harmful or useful mutations in evolution.
2. Relative importance of gradual and rapid evolutionary changes
3. How complex features evolve.
4. Trends in evolution; how do they happen, and what causes them.

You're on.

(crickets quietly chriping)

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #723

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Very well, this seems to have originated with these remarks I made, I've now added some emphasis:
If I asked a reasonably educated bunch of people to list the serious problems facing say general relativity, I'd get a list, if I asked this about cosmology I'd get a list, if I asked it about brain science I'd get a list, nobody would hesitate to share that information.

But when this is asked for evolution there is no such list and that's the problem with evolution.
By serious I mean existential problems that might falsify the theory, blatant disparities between claims and facts (prediction and observation) claims with no evidential support.

The things in your list:

1. relative importance of neutral mutations and very slightly harmful or useful mutations in evolution.
2. Relative importance of gradual and rapid evolutionary changes
3. How complex features evolve.
4. Trends in evolution; how do they happen, and what causes them.


Don't seem to fit that definition, they are simply unanswered questions about mechanism within the context of a hypothesis assumed to be sound, not problems with existential implications for the overall hypothesis.

I suppose the nature of the problems I was referring to was never clearly called out so I apologize for that.

Now do you have a list, given that I've (hopefully) clarified what I was originally asking for?

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #724

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 12:48 pm Very well, this seems to have originated with these remarks I made, I've now added some emphasis:
If I asked a reasonably educated bunch of people to list the serious problems facing say general relativity, I'd get a list, if I asked this about cosmology I'd get a list, if I asked it about brain science I'd get a list, nobody would hesitate to share that information.

But when this is asked for evolution there is no such list and that's the problem with evolution.
By serious I mean existential problems that might falsify the theory, blatant disparities between claims and facts (prediction and observation) claims with no evidential support.
So what do you think the "theory of brain science" says? You need to tighten that up a bit so that you're talking about an actual theory. There is a theory, for example, of the way neurons work in the brain by electrical current in the neurons, mediated by chemical changes at synapses. However, there are no "existential problems" with that theory. Because theories are ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence, it's pretty rare to see one refuted. You've mentioned that you believe evolutionary theory has been falsified. So, let's see what's existentially wrong with it...

Darwin's theory
1. more are born than can live
2. every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. some of these differences change the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce
4. the useful ones tend to increase and the harmful ones tend to disappear and this will lead to speciation in many cases.

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?
By serious I mean existential problems that might falsify the theory, blatant disparities between claims and facts (prediction and observation) claims with no evidential support.
You're on once again. Let's see what you've got.

The things in my list:

1. relative importance of neutral mutations and very slightly harmful or useful mutations in evolution.
2. Relative importance of gradual and rapid evolutionary changes
3. How complex features evolve.
4. Trends in evolution; how do they happen, and what causes them.


Are actual problems in evolutionary theory. As you might know, all of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified by observation. As has speciation. Reality is pretty hard to falsify, no?

Now do you have a list, given that I've (hopefully) clarified what I was originally asking for?
[/quote]

Well, if you could show a feature on one organism was formed for the exclusive benefit of a different organism, that would do it.

If you could show that there are no favorable mutations, that would do it.



Perhaps you're confusing the theory with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent, or evolution itself, which is constantly being observed. Is that possible?

As far as general relativity goes...

None of these alternatives to general relativity have gained wide acceptance. General relativity has withstood many tests,[2] remaining consistent with all observations so far. In contrast, many of the early alternatives have been definitively disproven. However, some of the alternative theories of gravity are supported by a minority of physicists, and the topic remains the subject of intense study in theoretical physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternati ... relativity

Keep in mind, evolution is more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works, but as you see above, we still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

There are (or were) other attempts to explain observed evolution. Lamarckism comes to mind. It's the idea of some kind of acquired characteristics being passed on. However, Darwin was open to that idea, even willing to accept some of it. Turns out it does happen in a very limited way for at least a few generations (epigenetics). But of course, it's not an existential problem for Darwinism, which in basic theory is about variation and descent under natural selection.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #725

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 11:39 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #719]

care to backup that claim with some evidence? or just keep blowing wind around?
I gave you one salient example. There are more. Would you like to see more?
By the way "excuse" implies I have some kind of duty or obligation toward you,
You have an obligation to the truth.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #726

Post by The Barbarian »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:32 pm But do show us those significant problems. Start with the one you think is most important, we'll work down. I see above that some have concluded you aren't willing to discuss them for various reasons, but maybe we just need to take a look at them, one at a time. What have you got?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:18 pm No, you pretty much prove my point, you vocally defend evolution yet know nothing of its foundational problems, know nothing about observations that undermine it.
In fact, given your lack evidence to support your beliefs, it's obvious that you don't even know if such observations even exist. In a debate, it's up to you to support your claim. Since you seem to be unable to do so, we can make only one conclusion.
What conclusion have you drawn exactly?
That you have no idea about it. You claim to have observations that undermine it, but you are unable or unwilling to tell us what they are. When challenged to support your assumption that evolutionary theory is falsified, you are asking us to look up "existential" problem with the theory that might support your belief. Which indicates that you have no such evidence.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #727

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:38 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 12:48 pm Very well, this seems to have originated with these remarks I made, I've now added some emphasis:
If I asked a reasonably educated bunch of people to list the serious problems facing say general relativity, I'd get a list, if I asked this about cosmology I'd get a list, if I asked it about brain science I'd get a list, nobody would hesitate to share that information.

But when this is asked for evolution there is no such list and that's the problem with evolution.
By serious I mean existential problems that might falsify the theory, blatant disparities between claims and facts (prediction and observation) claims with no evidential support.
So what do you think the "theory of brain science" says? You need to tighten that up a bit so that you're talking about an actual theory. There is a theory, for example, of the way neurons work in the brain by electrical current in the neurons, mediated by chemical changes at synapses. However, there are no "existential problems" with that theory. Because theories are ideas that have been repeatedly confirmed by evidence, it's pretty rare to see one refuted. You've mentioned that you believe evolutionary theory has been falsified. So, let's see what's existentially wrong with it...
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).
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:38 pm Darwin's theory
1. more are born than can live
2. every organism is slightly different than its parents
3. some of these differences change the likelihood of living long enough to reproduce
4. the useful ones tend to increase and the harmful ones tend to disappear and this will lead to speciation in many cases.
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?
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:38 pm 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?
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:38 pm
By serious I mean existential problems that might falsify the theory, blatant disparities between claims and facts (prediction and observation) claims with no evidential support.
You're on once again. Let's see what you've got.

The things in my list:


1. relative importance of neutral mutations and very slightly harmful or useful mutations in evolution.
2. Relative importance of gradual and rapid evolutionary changes
3. How complex features evolve.
4. Trends in evolution; how do they happen, and what causes them.


Are actual problems in evolutionary theory. As you might know, all of Darwin's points have been repeatedly verified by observation. As has speciation. Reality is pretty hard to falsify, no?
Yes, it is the supposed sufficiency that we must address, take some bacteria and tell me how long it will take for a worm to arise? tell me if a worm can arise? show me the calculations and methodology that lets us make such predictions? can we even make such predictions? if not then in what basis can you say this can definitely happen?
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 2:38 pm
Now do you have a list, given that I've (hopefully) clarified what I was originally asking for?

Well, if you could show a feature on one organism was formed for the exclusive benefit of a different organism, that would do it.

If you could show that there are no favorable mutations, that would do it.

Perhaps you're confusing the theory with agencies of evolution, like natural selection, or consequences of evolution, like common descent, or evolution itself, which is constantly being observed. Is that possible?

As far as general relativity goes...

None of these alternatives to general relativity have gained wide acceptance. General relativity has withstood many tests,[2] remaining consistent with all observations so far. In contrast, many of the early alternatives have been definitively disproven. However, some of the alternative theories of gravity are supported by a minority of physicists, and the topic remains the subject of intense study in theoretical physics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternati ... relativity

Keep in mind, evolution is more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works, but as you see above, we still aren't quite sure why gravity works.

There are (or were) other attempts to explain observed evolution. Lamarckism comes to mind. It's the idea of some kind of acquired characteristics being passed on. However, Darwin was open to that idea, even willing to accept some of it. Turns out it does happen in a very limited way for at least a few generations (epigenetics). But of course, it's not an existential problem for Darwinism, which in basic theory is about variation and descent under natural selection.


So in your view evolution does not explain the presence of complex life? are you saying that's outside the scope of evolution?

As for "gravity is solid" do you mean a specific theory of gravitation prevails because its not yet been falsified, is that what you mean by "solid"? If so all falsified theories were once solid, that solidity was temporary, "solid" is shorthand for "not yet falsified".

How can evolution be more solid than gravity when we can do calculations that accurately predict a future state from a current state with GR (or Newton) like predict the positions of planets and moons and land probes on Mars etc, yet we cannot do anything like that with evolution? you cannot predict:

a. If some future state is reachable (e.g. a worm or jellyfish) from some initial state (e.g. bacteria)
b. What future state is reachable.
c. What the probability is of that state being reached.
d. If it is reachable, how long that will take.

can you? no you cannot and therefore there's no basis for the grandiose claim that "evolution is more solid than gravity" particularly when evolution is a hypothesis whereas gravity is the name for an observable phenomenon.

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

Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:33 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #728

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 3:46 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Fri Jan 07, 2022 4:32 pm But do show us those significant problems. Start with the one you think is most important, we'll work down. I see above that some have concluded you aren't willing to discuss them for various reasons, but maybe we just need to take a look at them, one at a time. What have you got?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sat Jan 08, 2022 1:18 pm No, you pretty much prove my point, you vocally defend evolution yet know nothing of its foundational problems, know nothing about observations that undermine it.
In fact, given your lack evidence to support your beliefs, it's obvious that you don't even know if such observations even exist. In a debate, it's up to you to support your claim. Since you seem to be unable to do so, we can make only one conclusion.
What conclusion have you drawn exactly?
That you have no idea about it. You claim to have observations that undermine it, but you are unable or unwilling to tell us what they are. When challenged to support your assumption that evolutionary theory is falsified, you are asking us to look up "existential" problem with the theory that might support your belief. Which indicates that you have no such evidence.
There are many, lets take the lack of evidence that the diverse Cambrian phyla had common ancestry or the fact that the fossil record exhibits discontinuity and that "branches" on the "tree of life" are all inferences.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #729

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:16 pm 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).
...
Please present these "several serious problems" for analysis.

1st challenge.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #730

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #729]

Just listen to the Berlinski talk, its just four minutes long, he summarizes some of these well.

Post Reply