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.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #729]

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.

Do you really misunderstand evolution so much that you'd make a list like this? There is no predefined plan for what creatures may result from evolutionary processes, so there is no reason to expect you could make any of the predictions above. If you think this is how evolution works you need to go back to a basic primer on the subject.

[The Barbarian]

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.

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?

Suppose you find a pebble along the continental divide and tell me how long it will take to arrive in the valley below, how much material will be abraded off if it and where it will rest. Show me the calculations and the methodology that lets us make such predictions. Can we even make such predictions? If not then in what basis can you say that this can definitely happen? And if you can't tell us this, doesn't that falsify the theory of gravity?

You were going to show us those facts that would falsify evolutionary theory. What happened to those? In case you forgot, refer back to Darwin's four points and genetic addition to his theory. Tell us which of them are falsified. By now, do you think anyone here supposes you'll ever give us a straight answer to the question?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #729]

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

I'm more interested in your argument, not someone else's.

It'd help to know where you might have it right, or where ya don't.

[The Barbarian]

I'm wondering, if he can't even explain Berlinski's argument to us, how he knows it's worth anything at all.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Two important problems with that claim. First, if God just poofed the first animals into existence, evolution would still work exactly as Darwin's theory says it does. Second your assumption is faulty. Animals existed prior to the Cambrian. The Ediacaran fauna (we know they are animals, because traces of cholesterol remain in the rocks) include forms simpler but similar to those seen in the Cambrian. Others have already shown you this; did you forget? There are even mud impressions of animals with legs in Edicacaran deposits.

Spriggina:
Elongate-oval polychaete worms. Prostomium arcuate, narrower than the broadest part of the body, which is a short distance behind it. The tapering postero-lateral processes of the prostomium possibly bear setae. Segments up to 50 or more, very short and broad, with parapodia apparently supported by bundles of long acicular setae. An axial groove is bounded on each segment by a pair of small ridges which are broadest and highest adaxially. On unflattened specimens the ridges terminate in a pair of small bosses adjacent to the parapodia, at least on the larger segments. A pair of small elongate ridges (such as teeth could form) occupy a near-axial position just behind the prostomium.

On the best-preserved and on the flattened specimens, long setae are attached to the segments, between the axis and the parapodia. The setae are generally oriented in backward-curving groups and tend to obscure the segmentation.
http://www.ediacaran.org/spriggina.html

Palaeontological and Molecular Evidence Linking Arthropods, Onychophorans, and other Ecdysozoa
Evolution: Education and Outreach volume 2, pages 178–190 (2009)

And, as you've been told before, science is primarily inductive, and makes inferences from evidence. When a theory makes predictions that are repeatedly confirmed by evidence, it is accepted as a theory.

But you were going to tell us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. When do you think we'll be seeing that from you?

[Miles]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #729]

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

"David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American author who has written books about mathematics and the history of science as well as fiction. An opponent of evolution, he is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, an organization dedicated to promulgating the pseudoscience of intelligent design.

Berlinski has written works on systems analysis, the history of differential topology, analytic philosophy, and the philosophy of mathematics. The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky (2003), aimed to redeem astrology as "rationalistic"; Publishers Weekly described the book as offering "self-consciously literary vignettes ... ostentatious erudition and metaphysical pseudo-profundities". In Black Mischief (1988), Berlinski wrote "Our paper became a monograph. When we had completed the details, we rewrote everything so that no one could tell how we came upon our ideas or why. This is the standard in mathematics."

Berlinski's books have received mixed reviews. Newton's Gift, The King of Infinite Space and The Advent of the Algorithm were criticized on MathSciNet for containing historical and mathematical inaccuracies.
While the Mathematical Association of America review of A Tour of the Calculus by Fernando Q. Gouvêa recommended that professors have students read the book to appreciate the overarching historical and philosophical picture of calculus, a review in The Mathematical Gazette criticized it for inaccuracy and lack of clarity, declaring, "I haven't learned anything from [Berlinski's] book except that the novel of mathematics is best written in another style."
Source: Wikipedia"

"a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture" and "Aimed to redeem astrology as "rationalistic" No thank you, I already went through silly in grade school.


.

[The Barbarian]

The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction

The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction
by David Berlinski
3.35 ·
Rating details · 31 ratings · 5 reviews
David Berlinski explains the power of humanity's oldest predictive system in this stunning and original new book. Astrology began at the dawn of time and over the centuries became a complex system with gifted seers often achieving results of eerie accuracy. For most of recorded history, astrologers have been found at the elbows of the rich and the powerful. However, Newton's system of the world put an end to one aspect of the astrological tradition. As a result, a method once widely used has become widely discredited, especially by scientific critics with little knowledge of astrology itself.
With a genius for storytelling and penetrating analysis, Berlinski explains how astrology works and how astrological ideas, although disguised, have reappeared in modern scientific theories.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/234 ... aulted_Sky



Interestingly, IDer Michael Behe, testifying in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, explaining why Astrology is a science in the same sense that ID is a science:
Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?
A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.
Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

[The Barbarian]

But you were going to tell us which of Darwin's four points have been falsified. When do you think we'll be seeing that from you?

I'm beginning to suspect that we aren't going to get an answer.

[The Barbarian]

BTW, Johannes Kepler (of Kepler's Laws fame) actually did horoscopes for people. He was one of the few Renaissance scientists who were not independently wealthy, and because he could use extremely accurate information on the position of stars and planets, he made a pretty good living from it.

After I retired from my first career, I became a teacher for a few years. Once, in a science class, several students expressed confidence in Astrology. I suggested a test to see how it worked. Each student gave me their birthday, I made up horoscopes for the class. The next day, I handed them out. Each had a place to rate how accurate it was. All but one student found them to be extremely accurate. After this, I had them hand theirs to another student to see if they agreed as to how accurate it was.

Then they discovered that I had given identical horoscopes to every one of them. I had written about things true of most people, along with a few things all people like to believe about themselves. And then I asked them if they could hypothesize why so many people believe in astrology.

The student who did not find the horoscope accurate was a devout Christian who believed astrology was an affront to God, and possibly demonic.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #729]

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.

Do you really misunderstand evolution so much that you'd make a list like this? There is no predefined plan for what creatures may result from evolutionary processes, so there is no reason to expect you could make any of the predictions above. If you think this is how evolution works you need to go back to a basic primer on the subject.

I know that's "not how it works" for evolution, only real theories have this capability.