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 #1360]

Perhaps we can even take a stab at a new definition of design:

To conform matter into a structure that cannot arise naturally

thoughts?

The word cannot is the problem. How do you show that something absolutely, positively, cannot arise naturally? As for origin of life, we don't have a proven mechanism and don't even know what the first life forms were. So I don't see how it is possible to conclude that any or all steps in a possible transition from collections of molecules not constituting a living thing, to a collection of molecules that do constitute a living thing, is impossible (ie. could not have arisen naturally).

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1362]

Only living things beget living things, this is one of the most tested hypotheses in the sciences and is very well established.

Once life began, this just describes reproduction which all living things can do. It doesn't address the issue (just as evolution doesn't) of how life began in the first place and leaves that question still wide open.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1360]

Perhaps we can even take a stab at a new definition of design:

To conform matter into a structure that cannot arise naturally

thoughts?

The word cannot is the problem. How do you show that something absolutely, positively, cannot arise naturally?

Because we've never observed it, as scientists we've never observed it.

Consider the statement every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

That uses the term "every" and my use of "cannot" is equivalent to that. How do you show that every particle attracts every other particle? We can't, we accept the law as a law until there is verifiable, peer tested, experimental evidence to the contrary, that's what a law is in science.

Empirically established laws are just that, empirically established, we never see (uncharged) particles that do not attract and we never see aircraft or biological cells forming from raw materials.

As for origin of life, we don't have a proven mechanism and don't even know what the first life forms were. So I don't see how it is possible to conclude that any or all steps in a possible transition from collections of molecules not constituting a living thing, to a collection of molecules that do constitute a living thing, is impossible (ie. could not have arisen naturally).

Empirically the origin of life is other life - that's an empirically established law, like the law of gravity, both laws might be wrong but we regard them as true until there's verifiable evidence to the contrary.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1359]

Do you dispute the claim: Only living things beget living things, this is one of the most tested hypotheses in the sciences and is very well established?

Do you dispute the fact that living thing's made of atoms, which you later below fess to not being living?

Every time I drop a brick it falls, every time I find life it had a parent - empirically established testable law AKA science.

Having parents is a prerequisite for evolution. That's not a surprise at all.

But let's say it again for them hard of learning...

Let's drop everything we know about how life came to be.

That doesn't affect the fact that evolution occurs.

Yes or no please, do you agree or disagree?

Let's say it again, in case some folks're new to the English language...

We can disregard anything and everything we think we know about how life came to be...

And it still doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurs

Notice here, dear reader, we don't hafta know what caused life to occur. We can attribute its occurrence to anything we want. Anything.

That doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

[https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Biogenesis]Omne vivum ex vivo[/url].[/i] AKA the Law of Biogenesis.

Et'slay away is that orfay other okay easily igpatinlay...

Eway ancay ismissday rythingevay eway owknay boutay owhay ifeay amecay otay ebay, nday Ethan actfey emainsray...

Olutionvay isay actfay.

(And no, it is not my contention that atoms are alive).

So we see that even you agree that life can and does come from the nonliving...

And that still doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1359]

Do you dispute the claim: Only living things beget living things, this is one of the most tested hypotheses in the sciences and is very well established?

Do you dispute the fact that living thing's made of atoms, which you later below fess to not being living?

Every time I drop a brick it falls, every time I find life it had a parent - empirically established testable law AKA science.

Having parents is a prerequisite for evolution. That's not a surprise at all.

But let's say it again for them hard of learning...

Let's drop everything we know about how life came to be.

That doesn't affect the fact that evolution occurs.

Yes or no please, do you agree or disagree?

Let's say it again, in case some folks're new to the English language...

We can disregard anything and everything we think we know about how life came to be...

And it still doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurs

Notice here, dear reader, we don't hafta know what caused life to occur. We can attribute its occurrence to anything we want. Anything.

That doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

[https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Biogenesis]Omne vivum ex vivo[/url].[/i] AKA the Law of Biogenesis.

Et'slay away is that orfay other okay easily igpatinlay...

Eway ancay ismissday rythingevay eway owknay boutay owhay ifeay amecay otay ebay, nday Ethan actfey emainsray...

Olutionvay isay actfay.

(And no, it is not my contention that atoms are alive).

So we see that even you agree that life can and does come from the nonliving...

And that still doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

Was that a "yes" you agree or a "no" you don't?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1356]

How do you square that with the results of this 2013 study which shows relatively rapid speciation:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej20133

This paper actually supports my point.

This paper attempts to make the case that because there are so many different types of bacteria speciation would be too rapid for anagenesis and so "evolution" in bacteria had to occur by cladogenesis.

Nevertheless, we attempted to rule out the simple model of anagenesis without cladogenesis,

But this study does not observe rapid speciation. It hypothesizes that there would be because of morphological changes.

We utilized changes in colony morphology as one of the several methods to detect the origin of new, ecologically distinct populations in a microcosm (Braun, 1965; Bukholm et al., 1997; Rainey and Travisano, 1998; Treves et al., 1998; Rozen and Lenski, 2000). We hypothesized that mutants with colony morphologies distinct from the ancestors might represent either novel populations or more-adaptive variants of the ancestral population. In other cases, we inferred ecological distinctness from microhabitat differences (Rainey and Travisano, 1998). Individual isolates from the A, B and H communities were assayed for mat formation and colony morphology (Supplementary Information).

But after further analysis, this neither shows rapid speciation nor observational evidence.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1357]

And if we do find microbial life on another planet in our solar system, or elsewhere, it would indeed put that squarely on the table as a possibility.

No, it would not. What is the difference between having faith in the material vs. having faith in the supernatural?

With this whole new idea of panspermia is simply an admission that there is no evidence on earth that life could have started here. So now the materialist is placing their faith in the universe just like those that believe in pantheism or panpsychism. In fact, many materialists speak of the universe in panpsychism terms.

We still don't know how life first began (on this planet or any other), which is the bottom line. All we can do is continue to study the problem to try and figure it out. A supernatural explanation certainly has no more supporting evidence than any other, especially since the supernatural has yet to be demonstrated to exist (events or beings).

I have already demonstrated in a different thread that the resurrection of Jesus proves that God does exist. The resurrection is a historical fact.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1279]

What is wrong with inferring God to fill some gap when there's nothing else left to choose?

Evidently what is wrong with that, is that the different religious ideas of GOD which attempt to fill the gap are themselves in need of gap-fill.

Not if we commit genocide against them. Then there would be no one left to invent ideas for their preferred gods to fill.
Except for their virgins I suppose.

NUMBERS 31:17-18
Now therefore, kill every male among the children, and kill every woman who is not a virgin.
But all the women children, who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #1359]

Do you dispute the claim: Only living things beget living things, this is one of the most tested hypotheses in the sciences and is very well established?

Do you dispute the fact that living thing's made of atoms, which you later below fess to not being living?

Every time I drop a brick it falls, every time I find life it had a parent - empirically established testable law AKA science.

Having parents is a prerequisite for evolution. That's not a surprise at all.

But let's say it again for them hard of learning...

Let's drop everything we know about how life came to be.

That doesn't affect the fact that evolution occurs.

Yes or no please, do you agree or disagree?

Let's say it again, in case some folks're new to the English language...

We can disregard anything and everything we think we know about how life came to be...

And it still doesn't negate the fact that evolution occurs

Notice here, dear reader, we don't hafta know what caused life to occur. We can attribute its occurrence to anything we want. Anything.

That doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

[https://www.wikidoc.org/index.php/Biogenesis]Omne vivum ex vivo[/url].[/i] AKA the Law of Biogenesis.

Et'slay away is that orfay other okay easily igpatinlay...

Eway ancay ismissday rythingevay eway owknay boutay owhay ifeay amecay otay ebay, nday Ethan actfey emainsray...

Olutionvay isay actfay.

(And no, it is not my contention that atoms are alive).

So we see that even you agree that life can and does come from the nonliving...

And that still doesn't change the fact that evolution occurs.

Was that a "yes" you agree or a "no" you don't?

All life comes from atoms, and the stuff from which atoms're made.

Do you agree?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1365]

Because we've never observed it, as scientists we've never observed it.

But that has no bearing on whether or not something is possible (ie. could happen). It just means we haven't observed it. We haven't observed gods either, or them taking any actions in the physical world. Does that mean that gods cannot exist?

Consider the statement every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers.

Wait ... that sounds awfully like Newton's law of universal gravitation, which you've claimed many times has been falsified.

That uses the term "every" and my use of "cannot" is equivalent to that. How do you show that every particle attracts every other particle? We can't, we accept the law as a law until there is verifiable, peer tested, experimental evidence to the contrary, that's what a law is in science.

OK, then we can say that gods do not exist because there is no verifiable, peer-tested, experimental evidence to the contrary. Right?

Empirically the origin of life is other life - that's an empirically established law, like the law of gravity, both laws might be wrong but we regard them as true until there's verifiable evidence to the contrary.

Empirically, all phenomena that have been observed have a natural explanation, and until there's verifiable evidence to the contrary we can assume that all phenomena do have a natural explanation until there's verifiable evidence to the contrary. Invoke nonnatural causes when such a thing can be shown to exist in the real world.

The argument that life could not have arose from nonliving molecules and natural processes is premature ... it cannot be ruled out just because we don't yet know the mechanism or can't yet reproduce the process in the lab.