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.

[The Barbarian]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

In fact, Isaac Newton thought Jesus is not God, arguing that the verses that support such a thing were later inserted into scripture. Roger Bacon, a devout Franciscan, argued for a strict empiricism in science. Galileo said that the Bible was to learn how to go to heaven, not to learn how the heavens go. Johannes Kepler was excluded from full participation in Lutheran services because of his heterodox opinions.

Hardly the sort of people who would be YE creationists today. The reason almost all scientists accepted evolutionary theory is simple; it works. Empiricism.

Ha, they were probably all young earth creationists, even back to before Saint Bede's time the age was estimated at a few thousand years.

Young Earth creationism was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century. Scientists had no means to test the age of the Earth until the 1800s, when they quickly revised their beliefs to fit the evidence. By then, even most evangelicals had come to terms with the evidence. The great Baptist evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, taught that the Earth was millions of years old. Billy Graham was also an Old Earth Christian who accepted evolution. Even at the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan advocated an Earth millions of years old.

The evidence made it clear to them that their assumption of a young Earth was incorrect. And since the Bible does not indicate a young Earth, they had no reason to continue in that belief.

But until we had a means to determine the age of the Earth, that mistaken doctrine could not be refuted. YEC is a very modern revision of scripture.

I'm more concerned with the things that seem to scupper the theory,

Well, that's your problem, isn't it? Whenever we ask you to support your claim about such things, you try to change the subject. For instance, you claim that the theory is falsified. I asked you to provide evidence, and you tried to dance away from it. That leads us to believe you don't have any evidence to support your belief.

show that's its not adequate to really explain what we see,

As you learned, all four of Darwin's points have been confirmed by direct observation. No point in denial.

And even honest YE creationists admit that the evidence for common descent is "very good." Would you like me to show you that, again?

It's not just the large number of transtitional fossils. Anatomy and embryology clearly indicate common descent. The first person to systematically document that fact, Linneaus, didn't know about evolution. He was puzzled as to why it looked like a family tree, and was more puzzled when other things like minerals, did not form such a phylogeny. Darwin explained why in a simple and it turns out, accurate, manner.

But it's also molecular biology and genetics. We can, for example, get the same phylogenies with conserved molecules like cytochrome C. The variations in the molecule very accurately gives us the same phylogeny as the fossil record, anatomy, embryology, and genetics. To creationists, this is an insoluble riddle. To scientists, it's very easy to understand.

[The Barbarian]

You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

In fact, the Grants, in their work with finches on Daphne Minor, demonstrated that unless the environment does not change at all, there will be constant evolutionary changes to follow the changing environment. Darwin predicted this, BTW, saying that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would change very little.

This is one reason why speciation appears to be mostly allopatric; it happens mostly to small isolated populations in new environments. Would you like to learn how that works out in terms of population genetics?

[Sherlock Holmes]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

In fact, Isaac Newton thought Jesus is not God, arguing that the verses that support such a thing were later inserted into scripture. Roger Bacon, a devout Franciscan, argued for a strict empiricism in science. Galileo said that the Bible was to learn how to go to heaven, not to learn how the heavens go. Johannes Kepler was excluded from full participation in Lutheran services because of his heterodox opinions.

Hardly the sort of people who would be YE creationists today. The reason almost all scientists accepted evolutionary theory is simple; it works. Empiricism.

Ha, they were probably all young earth creationists, even back to before Saint Bede's time the age was estimated at a few thousand years.

Young Earth creationism was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century.

That can't be true though can it, if the core belief among them today is the very same core belief held by the majority of Christians and Jews since antiquity, since centuries before the 20th century.

Scientists had no means to test the age of the Earth until the 1800s, when they quickly revised their beliefs to fit the evidence. By then, even most evangelicals had come to terms with the evidence. The great Baptist evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, taught that the Earth was millions of years old. Billy Graham was also an Old Earth Christian who accepted evolution. Even at the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan advocated an Earth millions of years old.

Sure but that doesn't mean todays YECs and most scientists from the past did not share the belief that the earth, universe is just a few thousand years old.

The evidence made it clear to them that their assumption of a young Earth was incorrect. And since the Bible does not indicate a young Earth, they had no reason to continue in that belief.

Well that's the province of hermeneutics, clearly opinions vary as to what the Bible "says" hence this active, vibrant forum existing.

But until we had a means to determine the age of the Earth, that mistaken doctrine could not be refuted. YEC is a very modern revision of scripture.

Hermeneutics is not a revising of scripture but a revising of interpretation of scripture.

I'm more concerned with the things that seem to scupper the theory,

Well, that's your problem, isn't it? Whenever we ask you to support your claim about such things, you try to change the subject. For instance, you claim that the theory is falsified.

The absence of evidence for the existence of Cambrian common ancestors coupled with no credible explanation for that absence, falsifies the theory, we've brought this up before too, several times now.

I asked you to provide evidence, and you tried to dance away from it. That leads us to believe you don't have any evidence to support your belief.

Well just to be sure you see it this time, here it is again in bold and red:

The absence of evidence for the existence of Cambrian common ancestors coupled with no credible explanation for that absence, falsifies the theory, we've brought this up before too, several times now.

Show that's its not adequate to really explain what we see, as to the actual explanation that's unrelated - testing, falsifying a hypothesis does not include providing an alternative hypothesis - that's basic science.

My own experience is that the majority of evolution adherents dwell far to much on those observations that are consistent with evolution, believing that any real or claimed discrepancies are only apparent, confident they'll be resolved in the future.

That approach to science actively protects the belief from falsification making it basically unfalsifiable and that's basic dogma not science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

In fact, the Grants, in their work with finches on Daphne Minor, demonstrated that unless the environment does not change at all, there will be constant evolutionary changes to follow the changing environment. Darwin predicted this, BTW, saying that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would change very little.

This is one reason why speciation appears to be mostly allopatric; it happens mostly to small isolated populations in new environments. Would you like to learn how that works out in terms of population genetics?

Why not try to convince Tour? if he buys it, I'll probably buy it.

[The Barbarian]

You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

In fact, the Grants, in their work with finches on Daphne Minor, demonstrated that unless the environment does not change at all, there will be constant evolutionary changes to follow the changing environment. Darwin predicted this, BTW, saying that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would change very little.

This is one reason why speciation appears to be mostly allopatric; it happens mostly to small isolated populations in new environments. Would you like to learn how that works out in terms of population genetics?

Why not try to convince Tour? if he buys it, I'll probably buy it.

First, he'd have to learn what evolution is. As you know, he says he doesn't understand evolution.

But he feels competent to tell us about it. So I'm guessing he's not open to evidence. His mind is made up to the point that even though he doesn't understand it, he denies it. Unless you're that locked in on the subject, you might be able to do better than he does. Are you?

[The Barbarian]

Young Earth creationism was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century. [quote="The Barbarian"

That can't be true though can it,

But it is...
In light of the embattled status of evolutionary theory, particularly as “intelligent design” makes headway against Darwinism in the schools and in the courts, this now classic account of the roots of creationism assumes new relevance. Expanded and updated to account for the appeal of intelligent design and the global spread of creationism, The Creationists offers a thorough, clear, and balanced overview of the arguments and figures at the heart of the debate.

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth’s antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah’s flood and its aftermath.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php ... 0674023390

if the core belief among them today is the very same core belief held by the majority of Christians and Jews since antiquity, since centuries before the 20th century.

But it's not. As you learned, even in the early 20th century, most creationist were old-earth creationists. And ancient Christians, although they were unaware of the evidence for a very old Earth, generally did not share the YE core belief of Genesis as a literal history. St. Augustine, for example knew that was absurd from the text itself.

Scientists had no means to test the age of the Earth until the 1800s, when they quickly revised their beliefs to fit the evidence. By then, even most evangelicals had come to terms with the evidence. The great Baptist evangelist, Charles Spurgeon, taught that the Earth was millions of years old. Billy Graham was also an Old Earth Christian who accepted evolution. Even at the Scopes Trial, William Jennings Bryan advocated an Earth millions of years old.

Sure but that doesn't mean todays YECs and most scientists from the past did not share the belief that the earth, universe is just a few thousand years old.

Some of them, like some of todays YECs, shared the belief that the Sun goes around the Earth. But they were, like some YEC today, unaware of the evidence for heliocentrism. They had an excuse; the evidence for heliocentrism came later. Like the age of the Earth, modern YECs have no such excuse.

The evidence made it clear to them that their assumption of a young Earth was incorrect. And since the Bible does not indicate a young Earth, they had no reason to continue in that belief.

Well that's the province of hermeneutics, clearly opinions vary as to what the Bible "says" hence this active, vibrant forum existing.

As St. Augustine pointed out, mornings and evenings are logically absurd absent a sun. So the text itself tells us that the creation story is not a literal history.

Until we had a means to determine the age of the Earth, that mistaken doctrine could not be refuted. YEC is a very modern revision of scripture.

Hermeneutics is not a revising of scripture but a revising of interpretation of scripture.

A young Earth is an addition to scripture. Of course, anything at all could be an interpretation of scripture. But absent any indication at all of a young Earth in the text, such a belief is an insertion of man's ideas into God's word.

I asked you to provide evidence, and you tried to dance away from it. That leads us to believe you don't have any evidence to support your belief.

Well just to be sure you see it this time, here it is again in bold and red:

The absence of evidence for the existence of Cambrian common ancestors coupled with no credible explanation for that absence, falsifies the theory, we've brought this up before too, several times now.

As several people have pointed out to you, we find transitional forms in the Ediacaran. long before the Cambrian. Would you like me to show you again? From a Christian website:

The Ediacaran saw the appearance of organisms with the fundamental features that would characterize the later Cambrian organisms (such as three tissue layers, and bilaterally symmetric bodies with a mouth and anus), as well as the first representatives of modern phyla. The base of the Cambrian is not marked by a sharp dramatic appearance of living phyla without Precambrian roots. It is a subjectively defined point in a continuum. The Cambrian “explosion” appears to have had a “long fuse.”
https://biologos.org/articles/the-cambr ... ee-of-life

My own experience is that the majority of evolution adherents dwell far to much on those observations that are consistent with evolution, believing that any real or claimed discrepancies are only apparent, confident they'll be resolved in the future.

Your first task is to show some evidence for your assumption. As you learned, there are many problems in evolutionary science. It's just that there has never been any kind of evidence that would invalidate any of Darwin's points. Creationists generally try to cover up the massive evidence for evolution and focus on what is not yet known, hoping that somehow it might bring down the fact of observed evolution. That approach to science actively protects creationist belief from falsification making it basically unfalsifiable and that's basic dogma not science.

[Sherlock Holmes]

You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

In fact, the Grants, in their work with finches on Daphne Minor, demonstrated that unless the environment does not change at all, there will be constant evolutionary changes to follow the changing environment. Darwin predicted this, BTW, saying that a well-fitted population in a constant environment would change very little.

This is one reason why speciation appears to be mostly allopatric; it happens mostly to small isolated populations in new environments. Would you like to learn how that works out in terms of population genetics?

Why not try to convince Tour? if he buys it, I'll probably buy it.

First, he'd have to learn what evolution is. As you know, he says he doesn't understand evolution.

But he feels competent to tell us about it. So I'm guessing he's not open to evidence. His mind is made up to the point that even though he doesn't understand it, he denies it. Unless you're that locked in on the subject, you might be able to do better than he does. Are you?

To claim one "understands" some hypothesis implies the hypothesis meets certain standards of reasonableness, consistency with observed data and so on, if a hypothesis doesn't meet that standard in someone's view then yes, it is not understood because nonsense cannot be understood.

Claiming to "understand" evolution is not something I'd be proud of (I once did "understand" it), when Tour says he doesn't understand he is not admitting some intellectual or epistemological deficiency, perhaps you missed that when watching his lecture.

He's certainly competent to talk about if it involves chemistry or organic chemistry or biochemistry and the last time I looked it did.

Here's a summary of this man's credentials of whom you speak so dismissively:

Tour was named among “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org in 2014;
listed in “The World’s Most Influential Scientific Minds” by Thomson Reuters ScienceWatch.com in 2014;
recipient of the Trotter Prize in “Information, Complexity and Inference” in 2014;
and was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2014.

Tour was named “Scientist of the Year” by R&D Magazine, 2013.
He was awarded the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching, 2012, Rice University;
won the ACS Nano Lectureship Award from the American Chemical Society, 2012;
was the Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Hebrew University, June, 2011;
and was elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2009.
Tour was ranked one of the Top 10 chemists in the world over the past decade, by a Thomson Reuters citations per publication index survey, 2009;
won the Distinguished Alumni Award, Purdue University, 2009; and the Houston Technology Center’s Nanotechnology Award in 2009.
He won the Feynman Prize in Experimental Nanotechnology in 2008, the NASA Space Act Award in 2008 for his development of carbon nanotube reinforced elastomers, and the Arthur C. Cope Scholar Award from the American Chemical Society for his achievements in organic chemistry in 2007.
Tour was the recipient of the George R. Brown Award for Superior Teaching in 2007.
He also won the Small Times magazine’s Innovator of the Year Award in 2006, the Nanotech Briefs Nano 50 Innovator Award in 2006, the Alan Berman Research Publication Award, Department of the Navy in 2006,
the Southern Chemist of the Year Award from the American Chemical Society in 2005, and
The Honda Innovation Award for Nanocars in 2005.
Tour’s paper on Nanocars was the most highly accessed journal article of all American Chemical Society articles in 2005, and it was listed by LiveScience as the second most influential paper in all of science in 2005.
Tour has won several other national awards including the National Science Foundation Presidential Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry and the Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award in Polymer Chemistry.

Do you really not grasp how ridiculous you appear when you dismiss someone like this all because they don't share your faith?

But it does not matter, as soon as any expert, even one as highly regarded in the scientific community as Tour is, even hints that evolution is untenable, the ever watchful evolution zealots spring to life.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Young Earth creationism was invented by Seventh-Day Adventists in the early 20th century. [quote="The Barbarian"

That can't be true though can it,

But it is...
In light of the embattled status of evolutionary theory, particularly as “intelligent design” makes headway against Darwinism in the schools and in the courts, this now classic account of the roots of creationism assumes new relevance. Expanded and updated to account for the appeal of intelligent design and the global spread of creationism, The Creationists offers a thorough, clear, and balanced overview of the arguments and figures at the heart of the debate.

No it isn't, The chief characteristic of young earth creationism is "a form of creationism which holds as a central tenet that the Earth and its lifeforms were created in their present forms by supernatural acts of the God of Abraham between approximately 6,000 and 10,000 years ago".

The belief that the earth is this age predates the 20th century, this isn't even slightly controversial either so I can't imagine why you want to dwell on this, so moving on...

Praised by both creationists and evolutionists for its comprehensiveness, the book meticulously traces the dramatic shift among Christian fundamentalists from acceptance of the earth’s antiquity to the insistence of present-day scientific creationists that most fossils date back to Noah’s flood and its aftermath.

https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php ... 0674023390

I'm not aware that that book contradicts what I say above, The belief that the earth is this age (6,000 - 10,000 years) predates the 20th century.

Do you really believe that it was not until the 20th century that the belief arose the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old? Do you really think people a thousand years ago believed the earth was billions of years old?

If so this might explain why you don't also understand much of what's been said to you about the Cambrian so there's little to be gained by me explaining this to you a second time.

[The Barbarian]

The chief characteristic of young earth

Is a belief that the creation story in Genesis is a literal history.

The belief that the earth is this age predates the 20th century,

Yes, by the 1800s, it became clear that the Earth was very old. This is why creationists, from then until early 20th century, accepted millions of years of age for the Earth. Only then, did the Seventh-Day Adventists invent YE creationism. As I've already shown you. Moving on...

Do you really believe that it was not until the 20th century that the belief arose the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old?

As you learned, Christians before the 20th century had learned that the Earth was very old and accepted it. Would you like me to show you again?

Since you seem to still not understand how the transitional forms in the Ediacaran led to the fauna of the Cambrian...

The Ediacaran saw the appearance of organisms with the fundamental features that would characterize the later Cambrian organisms (such as three tissue layers, and bilaterally symmetric bodies with a mouth and anus), as well as the first representatives of modern phyla. The base of the Cambrian is not marked by a sharp dramatic appearance of living phyla without Precambrian roots. It is a subjectively defined point in a continuum. The Cambrian “explosion” appears to have had a “long fuse.”
https://biologos.org/articles/the-cambr ... ee-of-life

All of that evolved in animals long before the Cambrian. The major element of the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of full body exoskeletons, which allowed many different ways of living for animals, a touch off a sudden diversification. Partial exoskeletons existed in the Ediacaran. Would you like me to show you that?

You see, the evolution of three tissue layers, bilateralism, and other basic organizational features were much bigger events than hard skeletons.

[Clownboat]

Do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

Do you regard a proposition as false if we have extensive evidence that it is true?

No. Nor do I regard it as true, as being a fact, until proven or disproven it is a conjecture.

Now, your turn I think, do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

You were going to show us how endosymbiosis (or whatever process you think is necessary for the evolution of prokaryotes) is falsified. What do you have?

It is evolution that is falsified, one basis for this view is the Cambrian explosion (aka "evidence").

I see what's going on now!
When he claims that evolution is falsified, he is just expressing his view (see bold above).

Sherlock, your views on the matter mean little here in the science subforum and would be better received in Holy Huddle. I am curious though, do you have a view that you feel better explains the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? If yes, would you please share it with the class? If not, I hear your view on evolution being falsified and see it to be wanting.

I am very open to being shown that the ToE is false by the way. Matters not to me as long as I can replace it with a better theory as to how populations change over time.

Person A: That car is the fastest car on the market.
Person B: You think so! Haha, well it's not and I don't like it.
Person A:

Well as to who of us "means" a lot or a little that's something you can speculate on, but your view is noted.

I've never argued that I can explain the presence of life, I can speculate but so can we all.

I'm more concerned with the things that seem to scupper the theory, show that's its not adequate to really explain what we see, as to the actual explanation that's unrelated - testing, falsifying a hypothesis does not include providing an alternative hypothesis - that's basic science.

Presence of life! What are you on about? I am asking for a mechanism that better explains the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record.

What you are doing here comes across as you complaining without having anything to offer.
Something that drives me nuts when my employees do it.

I wish you offered something to discuss. Like having something to offer besides your complaints about the best theory we have to date that explains the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record. FYI, until you do, the ToE will remain the best explination no matter the amount of complaining you do.

As it stands now:
Evolution is a fact as it is observable.
The Theory of Evolution is our best explination for the fact of evolution. I for one am open to hearing about a better one. Listening to you complain about the best we have is not very meaningful.

Side note, most of us here couldn't care less if the ToE was disproved. We just don't have a dog in the fight. Our eternal souls are not tied to the ToE in any way, shape or form. Provide a better mechanism, we are all ears. If not, you are just complaning about the best mechanism we have that explains evolution. You might as well be pointing at the fastest car while saying, "I don't like it". Doesn't change the fact it's the fastest car...

Imagine if you pointed to what seemed like it could be a faster car. You would have my interest! Let's talk!