How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3493
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1130 times
Been thanked: 732 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
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1231

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1226]
Yes, I think it can be conclusively shown that microevolution is not possible.
So now even microevolution isn't possible? I'm afraid your cherry picked math examples are not very convincing against the counter evidence. Do you really think the present populations of plants and animals on this planet have existed in their present form since they first appeared and are not the result of speciation events from earlier forms?
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1232

Post by Jose Fly »

The first article is a bit of a joke. It actually says "That is hardly any significant evidence of evolutionary change happening because the bacteria are still bacteria". Apparently AiG is completely unaware that "bacteria" are a taxonomic Domain! That doesn't bode well for what follows.

Then the article claims "It would’ve been interesting if Lenski had observed some new mutations in his populations, but there do not seem to be any".

That's just utterly bizarre, since Lenski specifically described all the mutations they documented. And not only is it a bizarre thing to say, it's an outright lie. For example, Lenski et al. identified an insertion in a regulatory operon that allowed for greater cell volume.

At that point I stopped reading. Your source is lying and is therefore unreliable.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 864 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1233

Post by Diogenes »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:35 am [Replying to Diogenes in post #1193]

Yes I know that the majority of scientists who accept evolution believe in evolution, that's not a surprise.
Instead of quoting what I wrote, you misstated it in a silly way that no advocate would have written... unless attempting a lame joke. I suppose you felt the need to do so because the evidence of scientific acceptance of evolution is so overwhelming. The efforts of religious organizations to teach religious myth instead of biology are many and well documented.
A typical case involved a Christian schools group, Association of Christian Schools International v. Roman Stearns.

The judge's ruling was instructive when he entered summary judgment against plaintiff ACSI, upholding the University of California's standards. The university found the goofy books from Bob Jones U. "didn't encourage critical thinking skills and failed to cover 'major topics, themes and components' of U.S. history" and were thus ill-suited to prepare students for college.
Rani, Gupta (August 8, 2008). "Judge throws out religious discrimination suit". The Californian. Escondido, CA: North County Times.

In the landmark case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (2005), the court ruled:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID [intelligent design] Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)

The fact that a debater promoting his particular religion does not accept science is of ZERO value in a debate.
'Creationism may present itself as a “scientific” theory, but in reality, it is a belief in the Christian, scriptural account of the origin of humanity and the Earth. In fact, the Archbishop of Canterbury has advocated against the acceptance of creationism as a secular subject that may be taught in schools, stating, “I think creationism is, in a sense, a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories.'

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1234

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Eloi in post #1230]
Interesting, right? (Bibliography in the original article).
Nothing I wouldn't expect from the WatchTower. But look at all the improvements to a wide variety of crops and food animals (beef and dairy cattle, hogs, corn, wheat, etc.) that are the direct result of selective breeding (artificial selection) as well as genetic engineering. Hitting something with radiation to cause mutations and hoping for good results isn't a good way to go about things!

Here is a nonscientific article on some examples of beneficial genetic engineering (not artificial selection, but tinkering with genetics directly):

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/exa ... ering.html

Mutations in nature are just one mechanism of evolutionary change. Genetic drift and gene flow are others:

https://open.maricopa.edu/environmental ... evolution/

It may be a mindless process, but natural selection can cause beneficial mutations to spread in the population while deleterious mutations are weeded out by lower rates of reproduction (or death). I can digest lactose as an adult, but about half the world's adult population cannot:

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=8439522

This is a relatively recent mutation in humans that has spread because it is beneficial. It is an example (of many) of natural selection acting on a beneficial mutation in a population. But genetically modified crops and feed animals does not always result in failure as the WatchTower article suggests ... not suprising they'd misrepresent the situation given the religious bias.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1235

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1231]
So now even microevolution isn't possible? I'm afraid your cherry picked math examples are not very convincing against the counter-evidence. Do you really think the present populations of plants and animals on this planet have existed in their present form since they first appeared and are not the result of speciation events from earlier forms?
What are you saying is "cherry-picked." Your evolutionary theory tries to make the case that single-celled organisms evolved into multicelled organisms. That simply does not seem to be possible.
And to your second point, that is one of the points of punctuated equilibrium is the stasis of species.

The math pretty much works that way for any so-called evolved change. Chimp to human, Human to chimp depending on what movie you watch. 1% difference 1% of 3.6E9 nucleotides is 3.6E7 nucleotides. Gives a result of 7.2E16 yrs. Houston we have a problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_ ... r=7b6ecff0

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1236

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 11:38 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 10:35 am [Replying to Diogenes in post #1193]
...
My position is that I am not satisfied with any of the arguments that claim the discontinuous fossil record is consistent with claims of a continuous, gradual process.
Fossilization is a process that's not conducive to recording each and every critter that ever trod the planet. So in examining fossils, we're left to reasonable and logical conclusions.

So, in explaining dis/similarities in fossils, we have us at least a couple explanations...

This critter looks it a bit like that'n, but not like that'n over yonder. This means the one's more closely related, and that other'n over there ain't invited to the family reunion. Such conclusions're of course bound to data from other fields of study.

To this explanation we get, "Goddidit". No means to ascertain which of the many godsdidit, just a bald faced, empty assertion devoid of any mechanism beyond magic. Might as well say the Easter bunny put them fossils there, only that got expensive, so he started just hiding eggs. At least with that last bit, we know eggs exist.

We get folks who think any gap - any gap at all - in the fossil record discounts the trilliobytes of other data, from other disciplines, that lies in accord with evolutionary theory. All in the name of a god they can't show ever existed to ever lift him a finger to do anything.
That's it, there are other scientists too who share this skepticism, it is ultimately a subjective interpretation of the data, some interpret it one way and some another.
There's also millions of folks who think Trump won the last presidential election.

This argument, this, "some interpret it another way" is weak. It seeks to conflate "goddidit" as somehow equal to reasonable and logical conclusions.

We notice such confusion in the debate over evolutionary theory is nigh exclusive to folks who think religious belief is on a par with rigorous scientific study.

When "goddidit" is the answer, no questions need be asked.
None of these arguments convince me, I've read all of them over many years, what more can I say? I don't think the data is consistent with the claims, as I said earlier, the interpretation of the fossil record is just that, an interpretation and different people interpret things differently sometimes.

Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Fri May 20, 2022 2:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1237

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1232]
That's just utterly bizarre, since Lenski specifically described all the mutations they documented. And not only is it a bizarre thing to say, it's an outright lie. For example, Lenski et al. identified an insertion in a regulatory operon that allowed for greater cell volume.
1st of all none of what you said has anything to do with my mathematical proof.
2nd What does this insertion do? Did it increase the number of nucleotides? That is the issue. How often does the number of nucleotides increase? How is it possible for the number of nucleotides to increase? That is the issue that is being discussed.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1238

Post by Jose Fly »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 2:05 pm 1st of all none of what you said has anything to do with my mathematical proof.
Mathematical proof of what?
2nd What does this insertion do?
I told you...it increased cell volume.
Did it increase the number of nucleotides? That is the issue. How often does the number of nucleotides increase? How is it possible for the number of nucleotides to increase? That is the issue that is being discussed.
Um....yes, that's what insertions do. You didn't know that?

https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/Insertion

"An insertion, as related to genomics, is a type of mutation that involves the addition of one or more nucleotides into a segment of DNA. An insertion can involve the addition of any number of nucleotides, from a single nucleotide to an entire piece of a chromosome."
Last edited by Jose Fly on Fri May 20, 2022 2:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1239

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 1:54 pm None of these arguments convince me, I've read all of them over many years, what more can I say?
We'll get to that here directly.
I don't think the data is consistent with the claims, as I said earlier, the interpretation of the fossil record is just that, an interpretation and different people interpret things differently sometimes.
Yet those who study such things, who have advanced degrees in the relevant fields, found the data compelling for evolution.
You do know that example perfectly represents biblical tales, dontcha?
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Diogenes
Guru
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: Washington
Has thanked: 864 times
Been thanked: 1266 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1240

Post by Diogenes »

Eloi wrote: Fri May 20, 2022 12:47 pmI am not an "expert" ... but since I am a Jehovah's Witness and we have abundant, true, impartial... information... [from The Watchtower].
Image

"The Watchtower has released a number of books and articles regarding the origins of the universe and life, all of a consistently poor standard. Theories of abiogenesis and evolution are misrepresented and sources misquoted. Whilst much of the information presented is taken from Creationist books, Creationists are themselves criticised."
https://jwfacts.com/watchtower/blog/cre ... lution.php
Watchtower org is famous for misrepresenting science despite their claim to respect science.
Watch Tower Society publications attempt to refute the theory of evolution, in favor of divine creation. The Watch Tower Society's views of evolution have met with criticism typical of objections to evolution. Gary Botting described his own difficulty as a Jehovah's Witness to reconcile creation with simple observations of species diversification, especially after discussions with J.B.S. Haldane in India.

The Society's 1985 publication, Life—How Did it Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? is criticized for its dependency on the book The Neck of the Giraffe authored by Francis Hitching, which is quoted five times. The book presents Hitching—a TV writer and paranormalist with no scientific credentials—as an evolutionist and scientist.
Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution Or By Creation?, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1985
Was Life Created?, Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 2010
Gary Botting, "Preface" to The Orwellian World of Jehovah's Witnesses, pp. xiv–xvi
Hitching is first introduced as an "evolutionist" (p. 15). A Hitching quote on page 71 is repeated on page 73, in the latter case presented as the statement of "a scientist". The 1986 Watchtower book The Bible—God's Word or Man's? likewise refers to Hitching as a scientist (p. 106).

Post Reply