How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 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.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #771

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

If we take a colony of bacteria, how long (given sufficient "food") typically, will it take for worms to appear? Does the eventual appearance of worms require some specific DNA starting characteristics? By which I mean is it unavoidable that given any bacteria, worms will definitely appear or only if the starting bacteria DNA possesses some particular characteristics?

If so, what are those characteristics? Is it possible to mathematically prove that some starting DNA sequence when iterated (repeated reproduction) will:

1. Degrade over time eventually leading to non viable offspring.
2. Bounding DNA that never deviates from some fixed set of variants.
3. Evolve, unbounded, increasing complexity and functionality.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Feb 20, 2022 11:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #772

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #773]
If we take a colony of bacteria, how long (given sufficient "food") typically, will it take for worms to appear? Does the eventual appearance of worms require some specific DNA starting characteristics? By which I mean is it unavoidable that given any bacteria, worms will definitely appear or only if the starting bacteria DNA possesses some particular characteristics?
Why would you think this is a predictable thing? Why have some animals hardly changed in tens of millions of years, while others come and go in small fractions of that time. Environmental changes, changes in predator/prey mix, disease, etc. all play a role in natural selection and these are not predictable. So it is puzzling why you keep bringing up this predictability thing as if it were in the least relevant.

People continue to work on trying to figure out all the steps in the single-cell to multicellular progression, and are making progress. For example:

https://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/
(lay article)

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013 ... 1218525110
(real paper)

But to expect predictability in evolution like in chemistry or physics is more evidence of a misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.
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 #773

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 11:32 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #773]
If we take a colony of bacteria, how long (given sufficient "food") typically, will it take for worms to appear? Does the eventual appearance of worms require some specific DNA starting characteristics? By which I mean is it unavoidable that given any bacteria, worms will definitely appear or only if the starting bacteria DNA possesses some particular characteristics?
Why would you think this is a predictable thing? Why have some animals hardly changed in tens of millions of years, while others come and go in small fractions of that time. Environmental changes, changes in predator/prey mix, disease, etc. all play a role in natural selection and these are not predictable. So it is puzzling why you keep bringing up this predictability thing as if it were in the least relevant.

People continue to work on trying to figure out all the steps in the single-cell to multicellular progression, and are making progress. For example:

https://www.wired.com/2014/08/where-animals-come-from/
(lay article)

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013 ... 1218525110
(real paper)

But to expect predictability in evolution like in chemistry or physics is more evidence of a misunderstanding of how evolution actually works.
How do you know its not predictable? or did you mean you don't know if its predictable or did you mean you don't know how to predict it?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #774

Post by Jose Fly »

I gotta say, this is both funny and disappointing. It's funny how SH cites Berlinski and claims he identifies serious problems in evolutionary biology but refuses to say what those problems are, and then when people point out that Berlinski seems to have a favorable view of astrology suddenly SH doesn't want to talk about Berlinski anymore and says doing so is a "diversion". I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I find that hilarious.

The disappointing part is how this has become no different than any other debate with any other random creationist who's memorized a handful of the same old talking points.....shaking boxes of parts doesn't make a watch (a variation on the "tornado in a junkyard"), bacteria don't turn into worms, and misunderstanding what "theory" means in science.

Thus we see the state of creationism today, reduced to regurgitating old talking points from decades ago. Apparently the thinking is that even though they had no impact 30 (or more) years ago, maybe repeating them this time will be different....or something.

Oh well....
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #775

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:19 pm I gotta say, this is both funny and disappointing. It's funny how SH cites Berlinski and claims he identifies serious problems in evolutionary biology but refuses to say what those problems are, and then when people point out that Berlinski seems to have a favorable view of astrology suddenly SH doesn't want to talk about Berlinski anymore and says doing so is a "diversion". I don't know about the rest of y'all, but I find that hilarious.

The disappointing part is how this has become no different than any other debate with any other random creationist who's memorized a handful of the same old talking points.....shaking boxes of parts doesn't make a watch (a variation on the "tornado in a junkyard"), bacteria don't turn into worms, and misunderstanding what "theory" means in science.

Thus we see the state of creationism today, reduced to regurgitating old talking points from decades ago. Apparently the thinking is that even though they had no impact 30 (or more) years ago, maybe repeating them this time will be different....or something.

Oh well....
Actually you demonstrate the state of evolution today "Ask me anything you like about evolution" <insert any one of umpteen straightforward questions> "What! why do you ask such silly questions, clearly you don't understand evolution".

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #776

Post by Jose Fly »

alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:27 am Another fail of Intelligent Design.
A paper that debunks ID and provides support for Common Ancestry.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /evo.12934

Here a video of Gutsick Gibbon showing the ID Proponents(tied to Discovery Institute) failure of addressing the paper:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4AsKyKaB5k&lis ... A&index=21
Thanks for posting that paper. When it first came out I posted it to another forum that had some creationists, and guess what? They all ignored it, as I'm sure will happen here as well. It's a really good paper and analysis, and effectively confirms what we already know with a very high degree of certainty, namely that humans and primates share a common ancestry and did not arrive separately.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #777

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:28 pm Actually you demonstrate the state of evolution today "Ask me anything you like about evolution" <insert any one of umpteen straightforward questions> "What! why do you ask such silly questions, clearly you don't understand evolution".
LOL..."the state of evolution today" is that it remains the fundamental framework for all the life sciences, is supported by every science organization in the world that's said anything about it, is used in both public and private enterprises, is the foundation for fields of science like comparative genomics....

But don't you worry SH, I'm sure evolution will be overturned soon. After all, you creationists have been assuring us that that day is just around the corner for.....oh....about 200 years.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #778

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:30 pm
alexxcJRO wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:27 am Another fail of Intelligent Design.
A paper that debunks ID and provides support for Common Ancestry.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... /evo.12934

Here a video of Gutsick Gibbon showing the ID Proponents(tied to Discovery Institute) failure of addressing the paper:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4AsKyKaB5k&lis ... A&index=21
Thanks for posting that paper. When it first came out I posted it to another forum that had some creationists, and guess what? They all ignored it, as I'm sure will happen here as well. It's a really good paper and analysis, and effectively confirms what we already know with a very high degree of certainty, namely that humans and primates share a common ancestry and did not arrive separately.
For the millionth time, you cannot prove common ancestry!

You can only infer it, you can infer it genetically, but only if you insist there can be no other explanation for those genetic similarities.

Typical evolution pseudoscience lets assume the genetic similarities are evidence of evolution then we can prove evolution by pointing out those genetic similarities!

I've seen this illogical argument many times, it never ceases to amaze me how uncritical many people are.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 352 times
Been thanked: 1054 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #779

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:37 pm For the millionth time, you cannot prove common ancestry!
We do all the time in courts.
You can only infer it, you can infer it genetically, but only if you insist there can be no other explanation for those genetic similarities.

Typical evolution pseudoscience lets assume the genetic similarities are evidence of evolution then we can prove evolution by pointing out those genetic similarities!
You read that paper already? Can you quote where it says the researchers merely assumed that similarities = common ancestry?
I've seen this illogical argument many times, it never ceases to amaze me how uncritical many people are.
Now you just need to show where anyone has made that argument.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #780

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:36 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:28 pm Actually you demonstrate the state of evolution today "Ask me anything you like about evolution" <insert any one of umpteen straightforward questions> "What! why do you ask such silly questions, clearly you don't understand evolution".
LOL..."the state of evolution today" is that it remains the fundamental framework for all the life sciences, is supported by every science organization in the world that's said anything about it, is used in both public and private enterprises, is the foundation for fields of science like comparative genomics....

But don't you worry SH, I'm sure evolution will be overturned soon. After all, you creationists have been assuring us that that day is just around the corner for.....oh....about 200 years.
Ridiculous, explain please how "understanding" evolution is needed to do life sciences? If we proved humans or Cambrian animals did not evolve, how would that invalidate medicine, pharmacy, virology, bioinformatics, cancer research, biochemistry, etc?

It would have absolutely no impact, the grandiose ideology that is evolution is materially irrelevant to the practical pursuit of these disciplines.

The whole evolution sham is a superlative example of exaggerated self importance.

Post Reply