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.

[brunumb]

As I said a debate as such here, is likely a waste of time in that I won't change an evolution believer's mind, perhaps a truly open minded person but if you've already embraced evolution (i.e. regard it as a fact) then that's never going to change, not by me anyway.

It is a particular waste of time when all you are prepared to do is provide unsubstantiated claims along with a lot of hand waving. We are not all just uneducated numpties that have not studied the same subject with open minds you know.

[Sherlock Holmes]

As I said a debate as such here, is likely a waste of time in that I won't change an evolution believer's mind, perhaps a truly open minded person but if you've already embraced evolution (i.e. regard it as a fact) then that's never going to change, not by me anyway.

It is a particular waste of time when all you are prepared to do is provide unsubstantiated claims along with a lot of hand waving. We are not all just uneducated numpties that have not studied the same subject with open minds you know.

I have not waved my hands nor described anyone as an "uneducated numpty".

If you disagree with some specific statement I have made then say so and say why.

[Difflugia]

Is there some textbook that doesn't that you'd like us to consider as support for your claims?

Yes there are, this is one that has a lot to say about this.

I guess I didn't qualify "textbook" and the author does at least have a PhD, so "textbook" it is. As luck would have it, I collect Christian apologetic "textbooks" and have a copy.

There is no genomic data from the Cambrian animals.

I thought your claim of fossil discontinuity applied to all of evolution and not just the Cambrian radiation. Your argument was that since the fossil record is discontinuous (however you mean that), then a possible inference is that biological variation itself is discontinuous in a way that's incompatible with (more probable than? at least as probable as?) common descent. Since molecular data support common descent much more strongly and, as you've noted, common descent is also a valid inference from the fossil data, then it doesn't matter that we don't have DNA from the Cambrian to sequence.

Darwin's Doubt does specifically apply to the Cambrian, so a number of your claims now make sense. Meyer's argument, though, doesn't actually claim that evolution is falsified by any of the data he presents, but merely that the Cambrian data are noisy enough to allow for his brand of Intelligent Design to have taken place. He'd like us to infer that Intelligent Design is a better solution, but if you read his arguments carefully, he only ever claims that it's possible to read Intelligent Design out of the data, at least until he gets to the chapter that suggests redefining science.

If you're willing to dial your claim back to a bout of Intelligent Design during the Cambrian after which evolution took over, it might be narrow enough that you'd be willing to start supporting those claims.

Furthermore genetic data when it is available only supports evolution if it is first assumed that evolution is the only explanation for the data.

You've got this completely backwards. The data only support any sort of creation if we assume that the creator intended to exactly mimic evolution, even in cases that otherwise make no sense for a creator to do so. That's my claim, anyway, which for those keeping score, is only half my job. Now I'll support it.

The claim that the pattern generated from the data is somehow derived from "evolutionary assumptions" is only true in the most trivial sense. To generate a phylogenetic tree, we look at a a set of genes in a number of organisms that is homologous or orthologous. Each pair is assigned a "distance" according to mathematical rules. These distances are arranged by some algorithm (usually maximum parsimony, but there are variations) into a tree. The only "evolutionary assumptions" are the mathematical rules defining "distance" based on the statistical likelihood of different mutations, the idea that the data can be represented as a tree, and that maximum parsimony is the best way to order the relationships.

We can show that the pattern isn't somehow created by the rules themselves by trying it using a random gene from each organism rather than a collection of homologous genes, the result won't be anything expected by evolution. If effectively random data don't produce a recognizable pattern, then the only other "evolutionary assumption" would be that the inference of homology itself leads to a sort of cherry picking, but we can actually eliminate that by using orthologous genes, which have exactly the same function in the various organisms. Mitochondrial genes work well for this because mitochondria work via the same chemical pathways in all eukaryotes. If what we identify as cytochrome C has the same function in the mitochondrial electron transport chain in two different eukaryotes, then the similar gene sequence can be considered coincidental. While genuine researchers rarely waste their time identifying orthologous genes through biochemical analysis for simple phylogenetic trees, there are times that they do.

If the system weren't testable, then one could make the argument that we're putting the cart before the horse and just taking whatever tree the algorithm spits out and calling it common descent. We have independent data to test them with, though. Cladistic analysis, though technically referring to molecular techniques as well, traditionally involves measuring a bunch of characters in such a way that they can be represented as a binary (yes/no) pattern for each organism. That pattern is then used to generate the same kind of tree. If morphological similarity isn't actually based on common descent, then there's no conceivable reason that functionally identical proteins should nevertheless show a pattern of minor structural differences that matches that of the morphological data. They do, though. Whenever we have sufficient resolution of both morphological and molecular data (comparing extant organisms within a biological Order, for example), the trees match.

The question, then, is whence the pattern that we see. It's always possible that there was (or is) some intelligent designer responsible for the pattern in the data, but that pattern is not only historical, but ongoing. Things like bacteria and fruit fly lineages evolve under laboratory conditions in ways that can be measured both morphologically and genetically. If those are the result of "intelligent design," then it must necessarily be at a level of detail indistinguishable from evolution. That concept already has a different name, though: theistic evolution.

Very well our discussion must be at an end, by definition if you regard it as a fact (which is an unquestionable assertion) then you refuse to admit to even the possibility that it might be false and therefore no amount of evidence presented to you will or can alter your position.

I only regard it as "fact" in the same way that I consider a round Earth or a heliocentric model of the Solar System to be facts. As there's conceivably a set of evidence that a flat Earth or geocentrism proponent could present to change my mind, I'm sure you could, too. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy extending the conversation, at least until I get bored of addressing unsupported assertions. I guess that hasn't happened yet.

This is precisely the mindset of those who imprisoned Galileo, evidence supporting his arguments were irrelevant, the facts were established by the self-appointed authorities and questioning them was an exercise in futility.

Yes. The stubbornly religious denying (or attempting to redefine?) science that conflicts with their theological views. How apt.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I only regard it as "fact" in the same way that I consider a round Earth or a heliocentric model of the Solar System to be facts. As there's conceivably a set of evidence that a flat Earth or geocentrism proponent could present to change my mind, I'm sure you could, too. As far as I'm concerned, I'm happy extending the conversation, at least until I get bored of addressing unsupported assertions. I guess that hasn't happened yet.

I think it will achieve nothing of value, this is why I was reluctant to really debate it much here.

It becomes no different to a debate about some music one person loves and another hates or a movie one person loves but another hates.

No amount of discussion will lead anywhere - not in my experience anyway.

I stated my general reasons for regarding evolution as falsified, you are not in agreement and so we must leave it at that.

[Purple Knight]

Any alternate explanation must necessarily be operating with evolution rather than instead of it.

Well, we understand it that way, but if we didn't, I imagine there would be other explanations for the mechanism by which the mice are born knowing that some certain smell means danger. If we all accepted tanfentrolism, the idea that trolls convey information from the future to the past and vice-versa, then it would be explained in terms of how that information is obtained, from whence, and how the trolls carry it. Genes would be reduced to evidence rather than causation, strange epigenetic phenomena would seem far less strange, and we would presume that the future can affect the past rather than starting off incredulous to it.

One thing I've puzzled over is beliefs being alive on their own. They grow, they develop, and they reproduce, a bit like viruses, because they always need help. Sometimes I think in terms of no belief being true, but all beliefs having advantages and disadvantages, not just to their hosts, but to themselves. And I think of my thought process not so much as sorting truth from fiction, but attempting to tame beliefs so that I may domesticate them and harness their benefits. Beliefs that strongly advantage themselves first, even if they also help their hosts, such as religious fanaticism (the convert-or-die sort, or even the must-convert-everyone-and-breed-as-much-as-possible) would be the most unsuitable for domestication; like a monkey they are strong-willed and forever wild. But I also want beliefs that as close as possible to truth, which I'm not sure is a winnable scenario.

While that topic could certainly lead to an interesting conversation, I don't think it would end up being so in this forum. It would be like trying to have a serious discussion about the construction of the pyramids in a forum dedicated to alien visitation.

I quite like doing things like that. The whole reason people are getting chided in this thread for ignoring evidence is that sometimes, we have preconceptions about what's noisy and we tend to disregard it.

[Difflugia]

One thing I've puzzled over is beliefs being alive on their own. They grow, they develop, and they reproduce, a bit like viruses, because they always need help. Sometimes I think in terms of no belief being true, but all beliefs having advantages and disadvantages, not just to their hosts, but to themselves. And I think of my thought process not so much as sorting truth from fiction, but attempting to tame beliefs so that I may domesticate them and harness their benefits. Beliefs that strongly advantage themselves first, even if they also help their hosts, such as religious fanaticism (the convert-or-die sort, or even the must-convert-everyone-and-breed-as-much-as-possible) would be the most unsuitable for domestication; like a monkey they are strong-willed and forever wild. But I also want beliefs that as close as possible to truth, which I'm not sure is a winnable scenario.

Richard Dawkins explored this idea a bit in The Selfish Gene and coined the term "meme" that we now use for captioned images of cats.

But do we have to go to distant worlds to find other kinds of replicator and other, consequent, kinds of evolution? I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind.

The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’.

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catchs on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain. As my colleague N. K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: ‘... memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn’t just a way of talking—the meme for, say, “belief in life after death” is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.’

[Sherlock Holmes]

One thing I've puzzled over is beliefs being alive on their own. They grow, they develop, and they reproduce, a bit like viruses, because they always need help. Sometimes I think in terms of no belief being true, but all beliefs having advantages and disadvantages, not just to their hosts, but to themselves. And I think of my thought process not so much as sorting truth from fiction, but attempting to tame beliefs so that I may domesticate them and harness their benefits. Beliefs that strongly advantage themselves first, even if they also help their hosts, such as religious fanaticism (the convert-or-die sort, or even the must-convert-everyone-and-breed-as-much-as-possible) would be the most unsuitable for domestication; like a monkey they are strong-willed and forever wild. But I also want beliefs that as close as possible to truth, which I'm not sure is a winnable scenario.

Richard Dawkins explored this idea a bit in The Selfish Gene and coined the term "meme" that we now use for captioned images of cats.

But do we have to go to distant worlds to find other kinds of replicator and other, consequent, kinds of evolution? I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind.

The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. ‘Mimeme’ comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like ‘gene’. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to ‘memory’, or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with ‘cream’.

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passes it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catchs on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain. As my colleague N. K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: ‘... memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically. When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme’s propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn’t just a way of talking—the meme for, say, “belief in life after death” is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.’

Dawkins need not have made up his own silly little word for this, the existing one "idea" works just fine.

[The Barbarian]

Some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

There's a way to test that assumption, using your link. There is "Project Steve" which lists scientists with a PhD in biology or a related field who accept evolutionary theory and are named "Steve" or some variant of that name. There are 1472 signed up currently. Going through your list with the same qualifications, we get an estimate of about 0.3% of scientists doubting Darwin. Note, that it's not 3%, it's 0.3%.

Which is a pretty good clue, no?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

There's a way to test that assumption, using your link. There is "Project Steve" which lists scientists with a PhD in biology or a related field who accept evolutionary theory and are named "Steve" or some variant of that name. There are 1472 signed up currently. Going through your list with the same qualifications, we get an estimate of about 0.3% of scientists doubting Darwin. Note, that it's not 3%, it's 0.3%.

Which is a pretty good clue, no?

The validity of claims made in the name of science is not based on democratic voting.

Most of the general public accept and defend evolution while at the same time knowing very little about it or about its major problem areas.

Some 30% of the US public think Trump won the election, that's not 0.3% nor 3% its 30%.

[Difflugia]

...knowing very little about it or about its major problem areas.

So far, the only "major problem area" that you've told us about is that the Cambrian fossil record is consistent with Intelligent Design as long as we ignore the rest of science.

Now that we know that one, are there any other "major problem areas" that we should keep in mind?