How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 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
We_Are_VENOM
Guru
Posts: 1162
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2020 2:33 am
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 44 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #2

Post by We_Are_VENOM »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

People, people, people...

Dogs produce dogs.

And anything beyond that does seem crazy.
Venni Vetti Vecci!!

User avatar
Purple Knight
Guru
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 668 times
Been thanked: 407 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #3

Post by Purple Knight »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:21 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

People, people, people...

Dogs produce dogs.

And anything beyond that does seem crazy.
It does. I wouldn't believe a dog would give birth to a cat unless you showed it to me, and even then my first thought would go right to trickery.

Expecting people to believe that this actually happens, just with extra steps, actually is a pretty big ask, particularly since nobody lives long enough to see it happen, which is a huge natural overcomer of incredulity - usually the sole one - in the case of something that seems fantastical being true. This is my point with this thread. It goes against common sense, really.

Now, I will preface this with no, the DNA test apparently showed this to be untrue, but this chimp was suspected by many to have been half-human.

Image

User avatar
brunumb
Prodigy
Posts: 3931
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 3001 times
Been thanked: 1635 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #4

Post by brunumb »

We_Are_VENOM wrote: Sat Dec 11, 2021 5:21 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

People, people, people...

Dogs produce dogs.
Yep. In no way contrary to the theory of evolution.
Next......
Christianty: 2000 years of making it up as you go along.

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3353
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 257 times
Been thanked: 927 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #5

Post by Miles »

Tcg wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 2:06 am
Purple Knight wrote: Sun Dec 12, 2021 1:11 am
Now, I will preface this with no, the DNA test apparently showed this to be untrue, but this chimp was suspected by many to have been half-human.

Image

Half human? How about 99 percent?

What Does it Really Mean to Be 99 Percent Chimp?


.............................. 99% Chimp + 1% pansy

............... Image


.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #6

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Evolution is Crazy.

There are 3.5E9 nucleotide sites. So a 1 percent difference would mean 3.5E7 nucleotide changes would have to take place over 6 million years. That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.

Most mutations in humans today are harmful. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... ly-harmful

So for someone to believe in evolution they must have faith that in the past they were not mostly harmful.

Even if there were no harmful mutations all 70 new mutations per generation would have to spread throughout whatever populations someone is saying that is evolving. There is simply not enough time for evolution to occur.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1844 times
Been thanked: 1363 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #7

Post by Difflugia »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pmEvolution is Crazy.
Or else creationism is bad at logic and math. I'm going with that one.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pmThere are 3.5E9 nucleotide sites. So a 1 percent difference would mean 3.5E7 nucleotide changes would have to take place over 6 million years. That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.
That's borne out experimentally:
Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91–238).
So, you're now just making an argument from incredulity. You've calculated something that's essentially true (reality is actually 50% worse than you estimate), but then just threw your hands up and shouted "HOW CAN THIS BE?"
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pmMost mutations in humans today are harmful. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... ly-harmful
This is wrong. Most mutations are neutral. Considering the similarity of numbers quoted in the paper I linked, it's probably just a misunderstanding by the journalist of what the scientist was saying.

Most mutations are neutral because most mutations are synonymous and don't affect any of the chemically active sites of the protein for which the gene is responsible. A high rate of nonsynonymous mutations are deleterious, though:
Using this approach, Kimura estimated that 86% of nonsynonymous substitutions are deleterious. A more conservative estimate is obtained by assuming that silent substitutions are entirely neutral and thus reflect the total mutation rate.
Since 70% would be a "more conservative estimate" than 86%, but still in the same ballpark, I'm inclined to think that's what the quoted scientist was talking about. Feel free to track down the primary source and prove me wrong, though.
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pmSo for someone to believe in evolution they must have faith that in the past they were not mostly harmful.
If something's been experimentally shown to be true, is "faith" the best way to describe it?
EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pmEven if there were no harmful mutations all 70 new mutations per generation would have to spread throughout whatever populations someone is saying that is evolving. There is simply not enough time for evolution to occur.
Image
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1641
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #8

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #7]
Or else creationism is bad at logic and math. I'm going with that one.
This is not from any creationist.
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pm
There are 3.5E9 nucleotide sites. So a 1 percent difference would mean 3.5E7 nucleotide changes would have to take place over 6 million years. That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.
That's borne out experimentally:
Actually, the problem is not the mutation rate it is the rate at which all these different mutations in different organisms can be translated into one organism or even a group of organisms. If there were 116 mutations in 116 different organisms of the same species how many generations would it take for all organisms or even one organism to acquire all 116. But then the problem is that each generation there are 116 new mutations the need to be transmuted to organisms that have all of the 116 mutations of the previous generation.

A higher mutation rate simply compounds the problem.
Our estimate of the neutral mutation rate is 175 mutations per genome per generation (range 91–238).
So, you're now just making an argument from incredulity. You've calculated something that's essentially true (reality is actually 50% worse than you estimate), but then just threw your hands up and shouted "HOW CAN THIS BE?"
No, I am saying it cannot happen. 175 mutations spread across how big of a region in how many different organisms. My new friend that is into cow breeding said that it took him 3 generations to have one "mutation" move through his entire herd. If that is the case it would take 2 billion years for apes to evolve into man.
Most mutations in humans today are harmful. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... ly-harmful
This is wrong. Most mutations are neutral. Considering the similarity of numbers quoted in the paper I linked, it's probably just a misunderstanding by the journalist of what the scientist was saying.
We are just supposed to trust your word on that. Citation.

Most mutations are neutral because most mutations are synonymous and don't affect any of the chemically active sites of the protein for which the gene is responsible. A high rate of nonsynonymous mutations are deleterious, though:
Using this approach, Kimura estimated that 86% of nonsynonymous substitutions are deleterious. A more conservative estimate is obtained by assuming that silent substitutions are entirely neutral and thus reflect the total mutation rate.
Since 70% would be a "more conservative estimate" than 86%, but still in the same ballpark, I'm inclined to think that's what the quoted scientist was talking about. Feel free to track down the primary source and prove me wrong, though.
Deleterious mutations are another issue within this scenario for sure.

Sheila D
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #9

Post by Sheila D »

At first glance the idea all flesh life on Earth is a result of abiogenesis and panspermia is a bit far-fetched - that is millions of species from probably a few living organism - (sense science can't tell you the exact number) came from space on a meteorite or rain and the condition of the Earth - the primordial soup mix - started life forms in the sea. As Neil Shubin, paleontologists says, we are all fish - seems a bit far-fetched and in order for this to happen the way science says it did it _ it had to take millions of years for the outcome of the results of their theories.
For decades they didn't know where the RNA came from, which is the building block of life, without it life wouldn't exist - now because they can't come up with a theory - they say it too came from space. Seems far-reaching, just giving a solution.
And some of the evolving of some animals like the birds from the T-Rex family, they now say had scales, and the whales who evolved into a land animal, then evolved back into a sea creature _ evolution in reverse.
And that good old fish or salamander whatever it was, who walked out of water, which it had lived it's entire life in onto land, survived and grew limbs, and such - had to be a group of them in order to evolve into male and female on land too. Far-fetched
Those organisms was smart - smart enough to develop brains to think, eyes to see, ears to hear, ways to except and devour food, pass out that which is not needed and so much more about all the physical bodies of all the creatures. And the need for male and female to reproduce without the same degree of evolution. Why not just keep evolving?
Evolution at first glance far fetched in my view.

User avatar
Difflugia
Guru
Posts: 2294
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 1844 times
Been thanked: 1363 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #10

Post by Difflugia »

Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmAt first glance the idea all flesh life on Earth is a result of abiogenesis and panspermia is a bit far-fetched - that is millions of species from probably a few living organism - (sense science can't tell you the exact number) came from space on a meteorite or rain and the condition of the Earth - the primordial soup mix - started life forms in the sea. As Neil Shubin, paleontologists says, we are all fish - seems a bit far-fetched and in order for this to happen the way science says it did it _ it had to take millions of years for the outcome of the results of their theories.
Is there more to this line of thought, or did you stop after your "first glance?"
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmFor decades they didn't know where the RNA came from, which is the building block of life, without it life wouldn't exist - now because they can't come up with a theory - they say it too came from space.
This is apparently an oversimplification of something, but I'm not exactly sure what. There's some "RNA world" in there, but "they" aren't particularly confused about how it would work.

"RNA world" and panspermia are independent concepts. I'm sure that someone somewhere has hypothesized that some RNA polymers hitchhiked on a meteorite or something and then replicated on Earth, but that's hardly a "they" in the sense of some sort of scientific consensus.
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmSeems far-reaching, just giving a solution.
Is that the extent of your argument? That it seems "far-reaching?" Checkmate, science person!
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmAnd some of the evolving of some animals like the birds from the T-Rex family, they now say had scales,
Feathers.
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmand the whales who evolved into a land animal, then evolved back into a sea creature _ evolution in reverse.
An organism adapted to one environment slowly adapting to live in another environment? That's not evolution in reverse. That's just evolution.
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmAnd that good old fish or salamander whatever it was, who walked out of water, which it had lived it's entire life in onto land, survived and grew limbs, and such - had to be a group of them in order to evolve into male and female on land too.
The sequence you described happened over a long period of time within a population. There was no single fish that grew legs and walked out onto land, then stayed there to raise a family of land-dwelling salamanders.
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmFar-fetched
Checkmate, science person!
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmThose organisms was smart - smart enough to develop brains to think, eyes to see, ears to hear, ways to except and devour food, pass out that which is not needed and so much more about all the physical bodies of all the creatures. And the need for male and female to reproduce without the same degree of evolution.
Again, evolution occurs over a long period of time within an entire population, not to a particularly spunky and motivated individual.
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmWhy not just keep evolving?
Who said evolution has stopped?
Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 5:43 pmEvolution at first glance far fetched in my view.
Checkmate, science person!
My preferred pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply