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.

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 #781

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:47 pm 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.
LOL....apparently you think "evolution", "evolutionary biology", and "evolutionary theory" are all just euphemisms for universal common ancestry. FYI, that populations evolve, and how they evolve is vital in medicine (antibiotic resistance). That some species are more closely related to each other is the foundation for comparative genomics (it's what helps geneticists understand where in genomes to look and what to look for) and is one of the main ways we discern genetic function. The understanding of the process of mutation is vital in cancer research.

But don't worry SH, I'm sure that's all just part of the conspiracy.....right?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #782

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:42 pm
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.
Ha! so because DNA similarities are known to propagate from parents to offspring THEREFORE all similarities PROVE an ancestral relationship?

Seriously? this is a scientific argument? You, a biologist know of no other way to manipulate genome structure? look up "GMO" when you get some time:
Genetic engineering is the modification of an organism's phenotypetext annotation indicator by manipulating its genetic material.
There you have it; examples of genetic similarities that are not due to ancestral reproduction.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #783

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:57 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:47 pm 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.
LOL....apparently you think "evolution", "evolutionary biology", and "evolutionary theory" are all just euphemisms for universal common ancestry. FYI, that populations evolve, and how they evolve is vital in medicine (antibiotic resistance). That some species are more closely related to each other is the foundation for comparative genomics (it's what helps geneticists understand where in genomes to look and what to look for) and is one of the main ways we discern genetic function. The understanding of the process of mutation is vital in cancer research.

But don't worry SH, I'm sure that's all just part of the conspiracy.....right?
As I said none of this real science would be invalidated if we proved that the Cambrian animals did not evolve. I don't dispute real biological science and practical developments just the pseudoscience that all life evolved from prior common ancestors. That bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics is undisputed, that the same mechanism can lead to that bacteria becoming chickens is.

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 #784

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:59 pm Ha! so because DNA similarities are known to propagate from parents to offspring THEREFORE all similarities PROVE an ancestral relationship?

Seriously? this is a scientific argument? You, a biologist know of no other way to manipulate genome structure? look up "GMO" when you get some time.
Where did anyone say that?

And did you read that paper? Where did they assume similarities = common ancestry?
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 #785

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:04 pm As I said none of this real science would be invalidated if we proved that the Cambrian animals did not evolve.
Actually it would, as it would introduce a new mechanism (or mechanisms) for the generation of genetic sequences, traits, and species, which would require a re-look at how those things arise today.
I don't dispute real biological science and practical developments just the pseudoscience that all life evolved from prior common ancestors. That bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics is undisputed, that the same mechanism can lead to that bacteria becoming chickens is.
Man you creationists need new arguments.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
alexxcJRO
Guru
Posts: 1624
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 4:54 am
Location: Cluj, Romania
Has thanked: 66 times
Been thanked: 215 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #786

Post by alexxcJRO »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 12:37 pm
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.
You are being corrected again and again and you still parrot the same nonsense.
A nonsensical, false thing if you keep repeating it ad nauseam will not turn into a correct, sensible thing. Will remain still a nonsensical, false thing. Fake it till you make it will not work in this case, although some apply this mechanism for religion: "faith".

Sir there is no such thing as a scientific proof. Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic.
Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true.
The standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence. We have plenty compelling evidence for the scientific theory of evolution.

Sir this paper from here:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... v1.full#F2 showed statistically evidence for common ancestry and not for separate ancestry.

"CONCLUSIONS
We have developed novel statistical approaches to test CA versus SA from aligned DNA sequences based on maximum likelihood estimation, BIC, and parametric bootstrapping of a parsimony difference test statistic. Our model treats nucleotide base probabilities separately at each site in order to account for biological constraints that limit nucleotide usage differently by site.

We find overwhelmingly strong evidence against SA in favor of CA in primates at both the subordinal and family levels. Additionally, we find common ancestry between primate orders and among primate families. We find very strong statistical evidence against a hypothesis of SA of humans from other primates, This supports the conventional view that humans are closely related to other primates rather than deriving from an independent origin event."


The key point: "overwhelmingly strong evidence against SA".
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"God is a insignificant nobody. He is so unimportant that no one would even know he exists if evolution had not made possible for animals capable of abstract thought to exist and invent him"
"Two hands working can do more than a thousand clasped in prayer."

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #787

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 11:02 am Can we get back to evolution please?
You're the one who introduced the astrologer, so maybe it's just you who needs to "get back to evolution".
if I recall I'd just explained the sufficiency problem, how there's zero experimental evidence for the belief that random genetic changes coupled with natural selection is sufficient for say bacteria to eventually develop into worms.
See here.
Berekely, 2012 wrote: A new study now suggests that bacteria may also have helped kick off one of the key events in evolution: the leap from one-celled organisms to many-celled organisms, a development that eventually led to all animals, including humans.
...
After years of dead ends, King and undergraduate researcher Richard Zuzow discovered accidentally that a previously unknown species of bacteria stimulates one choanoflagellate, Salpingoeca rosetta, to form colonies. Because bacteria were abundant in the oceans when animals first evolved, the finding that bacteria influence choano colony formation means it is plausible that bacteria also helped to stimulate multicellularity in the ancestors of animals.
...
Whatever the reasons, colonies of unicellular organisms may have led the way to more permanent multicellular conglomerations, and eventually organisms comprised of different cell types specialized for specific functions.
...
“This molecule may be betraying the presence of bacteria,” Alegado said. “Bacteria just sit around blebbing off little membrane bubbles, and if one of them has this molecule, the choanoflagellates all of a sudden say, ‘Aha, there are some bacteria around here.’”

The signal sets off a predetermined program in the choanoflagellate that leads to cell division and the development of rosettes, she said. The molecule RIF-1 is remarkably potent; choanos detect and respond to it at densities that are about one billionth that of the lowest concentration of sugar that humans can taste in water.
...
Genome of marine organism tells of animals' one-celled ancestors.

A bacterial sulfonolipid triggers multicellular development in the closest living relatives of animals.

If God did it, he's him a bacteria too!
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #788

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:12 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:04 pm As I said none of this real science would be invalidated if we proved that the Cambrian animals did not evolve.
Actually it would, as it would introduce a new mechanism (or mechanisms) for the generation of genetic sequences, traits, and species, which would require a re-look at how those things arise today.
So surgeons would need retraining? all our pharmacists would need retraining? ophthalmologists would be out of a job? virologists could no longer work? Dr Fauci and the WHO and CDC would need to be retrained?

The fact is the evolution doctrine is arguably irrelevant from a practical standpoint, its actual significance is negligible.

The only value evolution has is in enabling people to pass evolution exams and help people like Dawkins sell pop-science books.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #789

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

JoeyKnothead wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 1:59 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Sun Feb 20, 2022 11:02 am Can we get back to evolution please?
You're the one who introduced the astrologer, so maybe it's just you who needs to "get back to evolution".
if I recall I'd just explained the sufficiency problem, how there's zero experimental evidence for the belief that random genetic changes coupled with natural selection is sufficient for say bacteria to eventually develop into worms.
See here.
Berekely, 2012 wrote: A new study now suggests that bacteria may also have helped kick off one of the key events in evolution: the leap from one-celled organisms to many-celled organisms, a development that eventually led to all animals, including humans.
...
After years of dead ends, King and undergraduate researcher Richard Zuzow discovered accidentally that a previously unknown species of bacteria stimulates one choanoflagellate, Salpingoeca rosetta, to form colonies. Because bacteria were abundant in the oceans when animals first evolved, the finding that bacteria influence choano colony formation means it is plausible that bacteria also helped to stimulate multicellularity in the ancestors of animals.
...
Whatever the reasons, colonies of unicellular organisms may have led the way to more permanent multicellular conglomerations, and eventually organisms comprised of different cell types specialized for specific functions.
...
“This molecule may be betraying the presence of bacteria,” Alegado said. “Bacteria just sit around blebbing off little membrane bubbles, and if one of them has this molecule, the choanoflagellates all of a sudden say, ‘Aha, there are some bacteria around here.’”

The signal sets off a predetermined program in the choanoflagellate that leads to cell division and the development of rosettes, she said. The molecule RIF-1 is remarkably potent; choanos detect and respond to it at densities that are about one billionth that of the lowest concentration of sugar that humans can taste in water.
...
Genome of marine organism tells of animals' one-celled ancestors.

A bacterial sulfonolipid triggers multicellular development in the closest living relatives of animals.

If God did it, he's him a bacteria too!
I've mentioned before that bad grammar (e.g., 'a bacteria', it should be 'a bacterium') and a penchant for made up words ('dooficity' and so on) disincline me from replying much to your posts. I do understand how just making stuff up is valued strategy for some evolutionists, but still, there are basic standards of English, note the lexical relationship between "intelligent" and "intelligible" or "unintelligent" and "unintelligible".
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Sun Feb 20, 2022 2:47 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #790

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #786]

What specifically did I write that you disagree with? or is this just another of the incessant foot stamping, outraged, ad hominems?

Post Reply