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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #866]

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.

I like Newton so I could not let this one slide by.

Newton may have been an anti-trinitarian but he still believed that there was a God in heaven that created everything.

"And from true lordship, it follows that the true God is living, intelligent, and powerful; from the other perfections, that he is supreme, or supremely perfect. He is eternal and infinite, omnipotent and omniscient; that is, he endures from eternity to eternity; and he is present from infinity to infinity; he rules all things, and he knows all things that happen or can happen."

"Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance."

Johannes Kepler

"Geometry, which before the origin of things was coeternal with the divine mind and is God himself (for what could there be in God which would not be God himself?), supplied God with patterns for the creation of the world, and passed over to Man along with the image of God; and was not in fact taken in through the eyes."

"It is a right, yes a duty, to search in cautious manner for the numbers, sizes, and weights, the norms for everything [God] has created. For He himself has let man take part in the knowledge of these things ... For these secrets are not of the kind whose research should be forbidden; rather they are set before our eyes like a mirror so that by examining them we observe to some extent the goodness and wisdom of the Creator."

This is the reason why Newton, Bacon, Galileo, and Kepler studied science. They studied science to see his invisible attributes, His eternal nature, and His goodness.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #876]

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:

biologos supports evolution and billions of years. So it would have no merit in this conversation because they would believe the same as what you believe.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #879]

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?

Oh, my let's put the nonsense to rest

YOUNG-EARTH CREATIONISTS IN EARLY
NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN? TOWARDS A
REASSESSMENT OF ‘SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGY’
https://www.abdn.ac.uk/staffpages/uploa ... onists.pdf

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #876]

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:

biologos supports evolution and billions of years.

They are scientists familiar with the evidence and they are also Christians. So, given the evidence and their faith, there really isn't any other way, is there?

So it would have no merit in this conversation

The evidence they cite is the winner. The major developments for the bilateran animals (like us) occurred in the Ediacaran. Some other changes occurred in the Cambrian. But by the Cambrian, there were already representatives of our phylum present. As they say, the Cambrian Explosion had a very long fuse.

because they would believe the same as what you believe.

Well, I'm a biologist, familiar with the evidence, and a Christian myself. So I suppose that would account for it.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #866]

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.

I like Newton so I could not let this one slide by.

Newton may have been an anti-trinitarian but he still believed that there was a God in heaven that created everything.

So did Muhammad. He didn't think Jesus was God, either. Neither of those guys, whatever other talents they may have had, are the sort I'd look to for religious truth.

As Galileo said, two different things.

[The Barbarian]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #879]
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?[/quote]

Oh, my let's put the nonsense to rest

No Problem. I can do that for you:

"But if you will look in the first chapter of Genesis, you will see there more particularly set forth that peculiar operation of power upon the universe which was put forth by the Holy Spirit; you will then discover what was his special work. In Ge 1:2, we read, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” We do not know how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be—certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam. Our planet has passed through various stages of existence, and different kinds of creatures have lived on its surface, all of which have been fashioned by God.
C.H. Spurgeon, The Power of the Holy Ghost June 17, 1855

As you might know, Spurgeon was the most prominent Baptist minister in Great Britain at the time. Other prominent 19th century OE Christians included Charles Hodge, Charles Hodge (A.D.1797-1878), A.A. Hodge (A.D.1823-1886), John Gresham Machen (A.D.1881-1937), William G.T. Shedd (A.D. 1820-1894), Benjamin B. Warfield (A.D. 1851-1921)

This continued into the 20th century:
I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God.
Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man

Clarence Darrow [D]: ‘Mr Bryan, could you tell me how old the Earth is?’

William Jennings Bryan : ‘No, sir, I couldn’t.’

[D]: ‘Could you come anywhere near it?’

: ‘I wouldn’t attempt to. I could possibly come as near as the scientists do, but I had rather be more accurate before I give a guess.’

[D]: ‘Does the statement, “The morning and the evening were the first day,” and “The morning and the evening were the second day,” mean anything to you?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily means a twenty-four-hour day.’

[D]: ‘You do not?’

: ‘No.’

[D]: ‘Then, when the Bible said, for instance, “and God called the firmament heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day,” that does not necessarily mean twenty-four-hours?’

: ‘I do not think it necessarily does.’ ‘I think it would be just as easy for the kind of God we believe in to make the Earth in six days as in six years or in six million years or in 600 million years. I do not think it important whether we believe one or the other.’

[D]: ‘And they had the evening and the morning before that time for three days or three periods. All right, that settles it. Now, if you call those periods, they may have been a very long time.’

: ‘They might have been.’

[D]: ‘The creation might have been going on for a very long time?’

: ‘It might have continued for millions of years.’
William Jennings Bryan, testimony in the Scopes Trial.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

You've shown me enough times that you don't know what you're talking about, and as you didn't learn the belief among Christians in the 8th century for example was (emphasis added to help you learn)

In 708, some monks at Hexham accused Bede of having committed heresy in his work De Temporibus. The standard theological view of world history at the time was known as the Six Ages of the World; in his book, Bede calculated the age of the world for himself, rather than accepting the authority of Isidore of Seville, and came to the conclusion that Christ had been born 3,952 years after the creation of the world, rather than the figure of over 5,000 years that was commonly accepted by theologians.

Feel free to correct the Wikipedia article, I'm sure the misled historians will be eternally grateful for your erudition.

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

They didn't.

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.

Between the Ediacaran fossils and the appearance of the Cambrian fossils we see no fossil evidence that there were ancestral lines leading from each of 30+ diverse phyla back to even one credible common ancestor.

Each phylum (a phylum by the way is a much higher level of classification than species) differs considerably from the others (which is why they are classified as phyla), these are presumed to represent the ends of branches of a tree with intermediate junctures representing common ancestors.

Yet there's no trace of these presumed common ancestors nor is there any credible explanation for why there's no trace other than they did not actually exist. Many of the phyla had hard shells too, so we'd expect to see ancestors with hard shells but we do not.

THINK about this, if we find fossils of already well differentiated hard shelled animals (so differentiated that they are classified as distinct phyla) then there must have been earlier hard shelled ancestors too so where's the evidence? where is the evidence that the hard shells evolved? There isn't any ! The evidence we have is that these already differentiated shelly animals just appeared. To have several phyla (very differentiated morphologies) means that there must have been a significant evolutionary history if they evolved.

The most sensible explanation that's consistent with observation therefore is that these presumed ancestors never actually did exist, that's why we find no evidence of them, despite searching for two centuries and despite finding Cambrian fossils all over the earth. Why do you expect people to believe such ancestors existed when there's no evidence? isn't belief without evidence frowned upon in science?

Why do you think paleontologists refer to this as the Cambrian "explosion"? did you really never ask yourself that?

Now, you've learned rather a lot just now, let it sink in, make a few notes and just reach out if you'd like more help with any of this, there are several books and other resources I think you'd find helpful.

[The Barbarian]

The chief characteristic of young earth

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

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?

I showed you otherwise. As you now know, Christians were not aware of the evidence for the great age of the Earth until the late 1700s. And then, they accepted the evidence, since scripture makes no statement as to the age of the Earth. And because even early Christians knew that the creation story is not a literal history.

You've shown me enough times that you don't know what you're talking about,

I cited facts for you. If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't be denying the facts.

And as you didn't learn first time I showed you that Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries accepted the evidence scientists found for an old Earth, you're trying to change what I said. Sure, even guys like St. Augustine who were aware that the Genesis account is not a literal history, saw no evidence for a very ancient Earth. But later, when Christians did see the evidence, they accepted it. That's what you're having trouble accepting. But it is the fact.

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

They didn't.

There's really no point in you denying the fact.

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 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.

Between the Ediacaran fossils and the appearance of the Cambrian fossils we see no fossil evidence that there were ancestral lines leading from each of 30+ diverse phyla back to even one credible common ancestor.

No, that's false, too. Biologos cites several examples of properties of animals that evolved in the Ediatcaran, later found in most of the phyla that evolved in the Cambrian. But there's more.

Spriggina shows body features found later in polychaete worms and arthropods, one group of which evolved from polychaete worms. Would you like me to show you that?

Body segments, modified in different parts, setae, and a pharynx, showing a feature inherited by almost all bilaterans. It's more than just the big ones of three tissue layers, bilateral symmetry and so on.

Each phylum (a phylum by the way is a much higher level of classification than species)

Bilaterans are polyphyletic. It's more complicated than you think. Everything seems simple when you don't understand it.

differs considerably from the others (which is why they are classified as phyla),

You've oversimplified there, too. For example, Spriggina clearly is a member of the protostomes, things like worms, arthropods, and so on. On the other hand, chordates (our own phylum) are deuterostomes, allied to echinoderms. It's not just paleontology that shows these relationships. It's also genetic, embryological and biochemical data that confirms this fact. Both protostomes and deuterostomes are polyphyletic, too. Again, you're missing a lot of things you should understand, if you want to intelligently discuss these issues.

these are presumed to represent the ends of branches of a tree with intermediate junctures representing common ancestors.

As Linnaeus discovered, long before Darwin. And he didn't even know about evolution. All he knew was that living things, based on anatomy, make a nice family tree. He didn't know why. Darwin explained it. Later on things like genetics, embryology, and biochemistry verified those relationships.

Yet there's no trace of these presumed common ancestors

Spriggina, for example. There are more. Would you like to learn about more?

Many of the phyla had hard shells too, so we'd expect to see ancestors with hard shells but we do not.

You're wrong about that, too...

The Precambrian-Cambrian transition (just prior to the Cambrian Explosion) is characterized by the appearance of small shelly fossils that are called the Tommotian fauna after the area of Siberia where they were first discovered. These small shelly animals were millimeters in size and represent the first appearance of diverse skeletal material in the fossil record, some 10 million years before the first trilobites appear in the fossil record. This fauna that existed some 530 million years ago is of essential evolutionary importance in that these are the oldest known metazoans (animals) that had mineralized (skeletal) hard parts, and thus are the probable ascendants to the many phyla of the Cambrian Explosion. They appear in the late Ediacaran Period, close to 550 million years ago, and some 20 million years before the soft tissue Ediacaran Biota. Their fossil remains are found throughout the world, so their radiation must have been extensive. They persisted into the early Cambrian, and have been discovered in trilobite fossil beds.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... _fauna.htm

There's a lot more you never learned about this time in Earth's history. Maybe it's time to go and find out?

THINK about this, if we find fossils of already well differentiated hard shelled animals (so differentiated that they are classified as distinct phyla) then there must have been earlier hard shelled ancestors too so where's the evidence?

See above.

To have several phyla (very differentiated morphologies) means that there must have been a significant evolutionary history if they evolved.

Yep. See above.

Why do you think paleontologists refer to this as the Cambrian "explosion"? did you really never ask yourself that?

Did. They simply didn't know about the Ediacaran fauna. But now they do. So there was some talk that the sudden diversification that happened when full-body shells evolved should not be considered an "explosion", but it was always an informal term anyway and still has some meaning, if not the meaning it once had. Now, you've learned rather a lot just now, let it sink in, make a few notes and just reach out if you'd like more help with any of this, there are several books and other resources I think you'd find helpful. You might try Stephen Gould's essay Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?

It would help you immensely in clearing up some of the misconceptions you've shown us here.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #888]

I can't make head or tail of that post, it says I replied to my own post, it's a mess.

[The Barbarian]

You wrote:

Many of the phyla had hard shells too, so we'd expect to see ancestors with hard shells but we do not.

I corrected that misconception:

"You're wrong about that, too...

The Precambrian-Cambrian transition (just prior to the Cambrian Explosion) is characterized by the appearance of small shelly fossils that are called the Tommotian fauna after the area of Siberia where they were first discovered. These small shelly animals were millimeters in size and represent the first appearance of diverse skeletal material in the fossil record, some 10 million years before the first trilobites appear in the fossil record. This fauna that existed some 530 million years ago is of essential evolutionary importance in that these are the oldest known metazoans (animals) that had mineralized (skeletal) hard parts, and thus are the probable ascendants to the many phyla of the Cambrian Explosion. They appear in the late Ediacaran Period, close to 550 million years ago, and some 20 million years before the soft tissue Ediacaran Biota. Their fossil remains are found throughout the world, so their radiation must have been extensive. They persisted into the early Cambrian, and have been discovered in trilobite fossil beds.
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/Paleobiolog ... _fauna.htm

There's a lot more you never learned about this time in Earth's history. Maybe it's time to go and find out?"

You continued:

THINK about this, if we find fossils of already well differentiated hard shelled animals (so differentiated that they are classified as distinct phyla) then there must have been earlier hard shelled ancestors too so where's the evidence? To have several phyla (very differentiated morphologies) means that there must have been a significant evolutionary history if they evolved.

See above. You just didn't check for yourself. I realize you're not a biologist or a paleontologist. But the evidence isn't hard to find.

You wrote:

Why do you think paleontologists refer to this as the Cambrian "explosion"? did you really never ask yourself that?

I showed you about that, too:

"They simply didn't know about the Ediacaran fauna. But now they do. So there was some talk that the sudden diversification that happened when full-body shells evolved should not be considered an "explosion", but it was always an informal term anyway and still has some meaning, if not the meaning it once had. Now, you've learned rather a lot just now, let it sink in, make a few notes and just reach out if you'd like more help with any of this, there are several books and other resources I think you'd find helpful. You might try Stephen Gould's essay Is the Cambrian Explosion a Sigmoid Fraud?"

By now, I think you're starting to realize it's really hard arguing with someone who actually knows the subject, when you're apparently getting your stuff second-hand from someone who doesn't know much more than you do.

And you're still unwilling to show us anything in Darwin's four points that is falsified by any evidence whatever. As you learned when I showed you about the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes, the evidence for that transition is well-documented from a number of sources. If you can come up with anything that shows the evolution of endosymbiosis is impossible, now would be a good time for you to show us what you have.