How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 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
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 #1351

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:38 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:29 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:24 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:21 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun May 22, 2022 12:11 pm Consider the question "How did the universe come to exist?".

Show me how you decide whether that is or is not "answerable by science", that it is a "scientifically solvable question".
I don't. I'm not a cosmologist, I have no education or experience in that area, so again....I'm content to let the people who specialize in that decide for themselves what they can and can't do.

Are you?
So you don't have a process to decide if the question is scientifically solvable, very well, this make things much clearer to me now.
Yes I do, I already explained. Pay attention.
Forgive me but it seems you have made two contradictory statements.

I asked you to show me how you decide and you replied:
I don't. I'm not a cosmologist, I have no education or experience in that area, so again....I'm content to let the people who specialize in that decide for themselves what they can and can't do.
then I understood that you don't have a process to decide if the question is scientifically solvable and then you replied:
Yes I do, I already explained. Pay attention.
This is a contradiction.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I explained how I decide if a question is within the realm of science (is it testable), but when it comes to cosmology I can't say because I'm not at all qualified to do so. I've never taken a course in cosmology, I've never read a book on cosmology, nor is it a subject I've ever really looked into.

Maybe it's the self-awareness and humility that's tripping you up. You should give 'em a try some time.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

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 #1352

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1336]
I'm saying that what is known about the natural world shows that structures as complex as cells cannot spontaneously form over time.
This doesn't stop people from trying to find anwsers. This is an 11 year old layman article discussing work on RNA and early repicator ideas:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... eplicator/

I'm sure more advances have been made since then, but we still don't know what the first life forms even were. To say the earliest examples of cells "cannot" form spontaneously over time is premature ... it has not been proven that they cannot. Here is a more recent article:

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01303-z

Never say never. Happy (creator's) Birthday by the way.
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
William
Savant
Posts: 14003
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1629 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1353

Post by William »

brunumb wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:45 pm
William wrote: Sat May 21, 2022 7:42 pm [Replying to brunumb in post #1327]
Are you suggesting that the trillions of chemical reactions that occur in all living things every day require the constant personal intervention of God and could not happen through natural biochemistry?
The glue that bonds the two seemingly unreconcilable positions could be that the experiential reality is mostly set on automatic, thereby it does not require intervention of GOD but can still be subtly yet mindfully tweaked - as and when necessary.
Like when it is necessary to cause a cancer to form?
No. That would be part of the 'set on automatic' function, unless you are suggesting that cancer has not always been part of the nature of the experiential reality?

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 #1354

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #0]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #1284]
You're completely dodging the point. ERV's are viral insertions that increase the size of genomes. Do you deny that?
I don't deny that. But Alexei A Sharov Laboratory of Genetics, National Institute on Aging (NIA/NIH) does place parameters around the extent that the size can change.
Although the global increase of genome sizes from bacteria to mammals is a well-known fact, no attempt has been made to model this process. The total genome size appeared highly variable among organisms with the same level of morphological complexity, a phenomenon known as a C-value paradox. These variations in genome size are caused mostly by gene duplication, polyploidy, and accumulation/deletion of intergenic DNA https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526419/
Couple of points to make here.

1. He says that there "has been no attempt to model the increase in size from bacteria to mammals.' This means that evolution has no theory for the change in the size of the genome from bacteria to complex organisms. So any reason why this would happen is simply your imagination running away with you.
2. Alexei also says that the "genome is only variable among organisms with the same level of morphological complexity."

In other words, the e-coli in Lenski's experiment after 70K generations is still e-coli. Meaning that the size of the genome is still relatively the same.

Do you deny that ERVs increase genome size? Do you deny that nucleotide insertions occur? Do you deny that they increase genome size?
As cited above observational science indicates that the size of the genome can only change within specific parameters. You keep wanting to jump to theoretical arguments when evolutionary theory does not have any theoretical arguments according to Sharov. Observational science that the Lenski's experiments provide indicates that after 70k generations there have been no new species and the genome size has not increased.

But even if you assume that there is a theory that could model the increase in the size of the genome, you would still have a problem because that is what Sharov does in his paper. He uses the exponential hypothesis as a substitute for any type of theoretical model to arrive at a date for the beginning of life at 10 billion years ago.

At this point, it must be reiterated that observational science indicates that there has been no change in the size of the genome in 70K generations. Nor has there been any specialization in a species that is highly adaptable in its acceptance of changes in its genome.

Since there has not been any change in the size of the genome in the Lenski experiment, that would indicate that according to observational science the actual time frame of change is infinite.

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 #1355

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #1352]
I'm sure more advances have been made since then, but we still don't know what the first life forms even were. To say the earliest examples of cells "cannot" form spontaneously over time is premature ... it has not been proven that they cannot. Here is a more recent article:
Or even if life started on this earth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1526419/

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with the experiment, it is wrong." Richard Feynman

Now life has to start in a place that is beyond experimentation. How convenient.

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 #1356

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1356]
Observational science that the Lenski's experiments provide indicates that after 70k generations there have been no new species and the genome size has not increased.
How do you square that with the results of this 2013 study which shows relatively rapid speciation:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej20133
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
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 #1357

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1357]
Now life has to start in a place that is beyond experimentation. How convenient.
Looks like the author of the paper you linked mentioned panspermia because of his derived date of 10 billion years, and that is a little more than twice the age of the Earth. But all he did was suggest that panspermia is a possibility which everyone already knew. 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.

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).
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1358

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Abiogenesis is based on extrapolation, it's quite reasonable (which is why so few really question it) but not rigorous and faces huge problems as Tour (and there are others) explains.

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

The cell is a factory, it is able to assemble protein molecules and adjust their conformation, such complex molecules do not form in nature, they require the "factory" and the "instructions" in order to manufacture the protein molecules.

Neither proteins nor DNA (nor the other stuff like ribosomes, RNA etc) spontaneously form in nature - only life can generate life, without the factories in an already living machine, new living machines cannot be brought into existence.

But, the abiogensis faithful care not, they have faith that in some way, somehow the equivalent of shaking a box of Lego and a fully formed house emerging really can happen - AKA magic !

Perhaps we can call this "extrapolation of the gaps" that whatever is needed to bridge two disparate states can undoubtedly be assumed to always be possible no matter how complex.

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

To conform matter into a structure that cannot arise naturally

thoughts?

This definition seems to fit well for aircraft, computers, transistors, radios, telephones, cars, encyclopedias and seems logical that it applies to things of even greater complexity like proteins, cells, animals.

For all I know God did this specifically for a reason, a nature that has laws that can allow life to just emerge, might in fact be hostile to life, such flexibility might be detrimental.

It might be by design that nature has limits and intelligence then has to be applied to that, externally...just speculating...

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 #1359

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon May 23, 2022 1:27 pm Abiogenesis is based on extrapolation, it's quite reasonable (which is why so few really question it) but not rigorous and faces huge problems as Tour (and there are others) explains.
So we disregard abiogenesis.

How does this impact the fact of evolution?
Only living things beget living things, this is one of the most tested hypotheses in the sciences and is very well established.
Is it your contention atoms are living?
The cell is a factory, it is able to assemble protein molecules and adjust their conformation, such complex molecules do not form in nature, they require the "factory" and the "instructions" in order to manufacture the protein molecules.
So then, show us a better explanation, or be thought just another science denier.
Neither proteins nor DNA (nor the other stuff like ribosomes, RNA etc) spontaneously form in nature - only life can generate life, without the factories in an already living machine, new living machines cannot be brought into existence.
Let's tell this'n again...

All that which happens within nature is, by definition, a product of nature.

Unless, of course, you can show otherwise.
But, the abiogensis faithful care not, they have faith that in some way, somehow the equivalent of shaking a box of Lego and a fully formed house emerging really can happen - AKA magic !
So, as I keep saying and asking...

We rid ourselves of notions regarding how life came to be.

How does this impact the fact of evolution?
Perhaps we can call this "extrapolation of the gaps" that whatever is needed to bridge two disparate states can undoubtedly be assumed to always be possible no matter how complex.
I call it " Someone who thinks they've got em a killer argument against evolution, by continuing to harp on about how we don't know how life came to be."
Perhaps we can even take a stab at a new definition of design:

To conform matter into a structure that cannot arise naturally

thoughts?
Define it it however what way finds you comfort...

Evolution is a fact.
This definition seems to fit well for aircraft, computers, transistors, radios, telephones, cars, encyclopedias and seems logical that it applies to things of even greater complexity like proteins, cells, animals.
And gods.
For all I know God did this specifically for a reason, a nature that has laws that can allow life to just emerge, might in fact be hostile to life, such flexibility might be detrimental.
"I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't."
- Punkinhead Martin
It might be by design that nature has limits and intelligence then has to be applied to that, externally...just speculating...
Speculation and wishful thinking look a lot alike Daddy.
With pologies to Little Enos Ber... Bur... Heck, I gotta go.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1360

Post by 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?

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

Yes or no please, do you agree or disagree?

Omne vivum ex vivo. AKA the Law of Biogenesis.

(And no, it is not my contention that atoms are alive).
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Mon May 23, 2022 2:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Post Reply