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.

[The Barbarian]

Can we get back to evolution please? 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.

I've suggested a way for you to prove that. The key difference between bacteria and worms is that worms are eukaryotic. That is, their cells contain endosymbiotic organisms that have their own bacterial DNA, reproduce apart from the cell itself, but are obligate endosymbionts, as are the cells that contain them.

All you have to do is show that such an endosymbiosis could not evolve. What do you have?

Remember, there is a great deal of evidence showing that endosymbiosis did evolve. But if you can show that it is impossible, all that evidence becomes moot. Let's talk about that, since you've identified it as a key issue.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've mentioned before that bad grammar ('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 can't refute your references, so what I'll do instead is complain about your lack of a formal education, as if by doing so those who pass em this way might be proud for me."

I do understand how just making stuff up is important to some evolutionists, but still, there are basic standards of English, not the lexical relationship between "intelligent" and "intelligible".

Ooh, internet tough guy gonna call folks liars from the safety of his chair.

You resort to ad hominem attacks cause you ain't got you no argument, or what argument you do have is the intellectual equivalent of a sodden paper bag.

I've made no reference to your education or lack thereof, the grammar is poor sometimes and some words are just made up, if you want to make excuses for that go ahead but I do speak the truth.

Bull butter. In your style of slander and smear to avoid any real counter to the argument, ya tried to pick on me cause I ain't got me no good grammar.

And how come folks ain't got em no good grammar? For folks such as myself, it's cause I prided myself on having food to eat. I didn't get to go to school and have some teacher spoon feed me an education. I got my education at the end of a pick and spade. I ain't shamed of it, but I'll not be picked on about it.

Your use of avoiding one's arguments by way of ad hom attacks is well documented throughout these threads. When you either don't understand an argument, or can't refute it, ya go with the smears.

From calling my arguments "juvenility ", to now "poor grammar" all you can do, all you ever do is complain about how something gets told cause you obviously can't refute none of what got it told.

I've met your type before - thinking only you know the right way to tell something, only you ain't got you no more to tell than a mute when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Then you have the nerve to claim you're as innocent as Little Bo Peep when you get called out for your using insults to draw attention away from the steaming pile of ignorance you suffer in this matter.

Finally I did not call you a liar, that accusation is uncalled for and unsupported by any evidence.

LIAR!

I do understand how just making stuff up is important to some evolutionists...

Resuming...

I happen to disagree with many of the claims made in the name of evolution in this and other threads, this is not the end of civilization as we know its just a hypothesis of little overall significance in the grand scheme of things.

You also have a habit of insulting folks cause you're too danged ignorant to refute their arguments.

You come in here insulting folks, then have the temerity to say these arguments ain't the end of civilization?

What in all Hell is a civilization, but made of folks trying to be civil to one another?

[Sherlock Holmes]

I've mentioned before that bad grammar ('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 can't refute your references, so what I'll do instead is complain about your lack of a formal education, as if by doing so those who pass em this way might be proud for me."

I do understand how just making stuff up is important to some evolutionists, but still, there are basic standards of English, not the lexical relationship between "intelligent" and "intelligible".

Ooh, internet tough guy gonna call folks liars from the safety of his chair.

You resort to ad hominem attacks cause you ain't got you no argument, or what argument you do have is the intellectual equivalent of a sodden paper bag.

I've made no reference to your education or lack thereof, the grammar is poor sometimes and some words are just made up, if you want to make excuses for that go ahead but I do speak the truth.

Bull butter. In your style of slander and smear to avoid any real counter to the argument, ya tried to pick on me cause I ain't got me no good grammar.

And how come folks ain't got em no good grammar? For folks such as myself, it's cause I prided myself on having food to eat. I didn't get to go to school and have some teacher spoon feed me an education. I got my education at the end of a pick and spade. I ain't shamed of it, but I'll not be picked on about it.

Your use of avoiding one's arguments by way of ad hom attacks is well documented throughout these threads. When you either don't understand an argument, or can't refute it, ya go with the smears.

From calling my arguments "juvenility ", to now "poor grammar" all you can do, all you ever do is complain about how something gets told cause you obviously can't refute none of what got it told.

I've met your type before - thinking only you know the right way to tell something, only you ain't got you no more to tell than a mute when it comes to evolutionary theory.

Then you have the nerve to claim you're as innocent as Little Bo Peep when you get called out for your using insults to draw attention away from the steaming pile of ignorance you suffer in this matter.

Finally I did not call you a liar, that accusation is uncalled for and unsupported by any evidence.

LIAR!

I do understand how just making stuff up is important to some evolutionists...

Resuming...

I happen to disagree with many of the claims made in the name of evolution in this and other threads, this is not the end of civilization as we know its just a hypothesis of little overall significance in the grand scheme of things.

You also have a habit of insulting folks cause you're too danged ignorant to refute their arguments.

You come in here insulting folks, then have the temerity to say these arguments ain't the end of civilization?

What in all Hell is a civilization, but made of folks trying to be civil to one another?

I never attacked you or your education or anything of a personal nature, I complained about the way you were using English which is relevant in any communication between us. I have not called you a liar.

[brunumb]

If we take a colony of bacteria, how long (given sufficient "food") typically, will it take for worms to appear?

Please explain why you would expect worms to appear?

In 4.5 billion years of evolution, no loomingfrums have yet appeared. Why is that?

It would be nice if a creationist would occasionally turn up to argue their case against evolution and actually understand what it entails. Instead we seem to mainly get people adept at building strawmen and attacking them instead. When that doesn't go well the accusations and distractions start flying, but no actual substance relating to the issue at hand.

[The Barbarian]

It would be nice if a creationist would occasionally turn up to argue their case against evolution and actually understand what it entails. Instead we seem to mainly get people adept at building strawmen and attacking them instead. When that doesn't go well the accusations and distractions start flying, but no actual substance relating to the issue at hand.

Well, it's a testable assertion. His claim seems to be that it is impossible for endosymbiosis (which is required for prokaryotes to become eukaryotes), to evolve. I'm assuming that he's not being devious by insisting that it has to be worms that evolve. My guess is that he's just using them as an example of relatively simple eukaryotes.

So let's give him a bit of time to show us how the evolution of endosymbiosis (or something else needed for evolution of eukaryotes) is impossible.

Should be at least good for discussion.

[brunumb]

It would be nice if a creationist would occasionally turn up to argue their case against evolution and actually understand what it entails. Instead we seem to mainly get people adept at building strawmen and attacking them instead. When that doesn't go well the accusations and distractions start flying, but no actual substance relating to the issue at hand.

Well, it's a testable assertion. His claim seems to be that it is impossible for endosymbiosis (which is required for prokaryotes to become eukaryotes), to evolve. I'm assuming that he's not being devious by insisting that it has to be worms that evolve. My guess is that he's just using them as an example of relatively simple eukaryotes.

So let's give him a bit of time to show us how the evolution of endosymbiosis (or something else needed for evolution of eukaryotes) is impossible.

Should be at least good for discussion.

From what I have seen so far I think you are giving him more credit than he is due. I seriously doubt that prokaryotes becoming eukaryotes was being considered at all. Creationists invariably rely on "dogs produce dogs and cats produce cats" or "there is no way a bacterium will evolve into a chicken" in their arguments. Actual biology is too complicated for those that rely on God magically poofing everything into existence in a few days. But that's just the cynic in me shining through.

[JoeyKnothead]

I never attacked you or your education or anything of a personal nature, I complained about the way you were using English which is relevant in any communication between us. I have not called you a liar.

As with your notions on evolution, you're wrong as a Georgia pine is tall.

I stand by my comments.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #775]

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?

What? We (humans) can barely predict the weather for next week with much accuracy, so how could we expect to predict all of the parameters that impact evolution and natural selection (environmental, geological, predator/prey mix, mutations, genetic drift, etc.) over many thousands of generations of a living thing to know what they may lead to?

The point was that these things are NOT predictable, and I know that for the same reason anyone else does ... we can't predict the distant future when so many uncontrollable parameters are involved that all interact with each other. Do you really think evolution should be predictable as far as what should appear in 1000 years, a million years, 100 million years? If so, then you simply don't understand how it works. The very mechanisms involved at the molecular/genetics level, and their dependence on environment and other things that drive natural selection, preclude any such prediction.

[alexxcJRO]

[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?

You said: “For the millionth time, you cannot prove common ancestry!”

For the millionth time 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, specifically for common ancestry.

One of such evidence is gleaned from this paper from here: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/036327v1.full which 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".

Let's hope crickets don't show themselves again.

[JoeyKnothead]

If we take a colony of bacteria, how long (given sufficient "food") typically, will it take for worms to appear?

Please explain why you would expect worms to appear?

In 4.5 billion years of evolution, no loomingfrums have yet appeared. Why is that?

It would be nice if a creationist would occasionally turn up to argue their case against evolution and actually understand what it entails. Instead we seem to mainly get people adept at building strawmen and attacking them instead. When that doesn't go well the accusations and distractions start flying, but no actual substance relating to the issue at hand.

Very much.

We've gone through fossils, astrology, bacteria, and now worms.

It's a neverending string of incredulity based on the belief there's some magic man in the sky with his thumb on the scale.