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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

This conversation can serve no purpose.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

I know. Another difference is genome length, the worm C. elegans has 100 million base pairs, whereas E. coli has about 4 million base pairs.

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?

I see, so its an assumption that E. coli (say) could eventually lead to C. elegans (say), which is what I said, there's no evidence that this can happen.

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.

If I argued for the resurrection of Christ on the basis that all you had to do was show that it is impossible, I think you'd be among the first to challenge that argument, I don't think you'd accept the claim, or would you?

In logic a proposition is not regarded as true on the basis that we have no proof it is false, you are aware of that aren't you?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

I used that for the sake of argument; are you saying though that worms would never appear? if so how do you know? and what do you think would eventually appear? and how long would that take?

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

That's because evolution cannot achieve what you believe it can achieve.

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.

I'm sorry, if asking for proof that random genetic mutations + natural selection can achieve long term increases in organism genome and biological sophistication is an unwelcome question, then you really are in trouble IMHO.

We do know that for some 4 billion years we saw pretty much stasis with life on earth, why is that? because the purported leaps in complexity are rare?

If that's the case then why after 4 billion years do we see evidence of a sudden, dramatic increase in complexity with almost all known phyla appearing rather rapidly? that is evidence that it is actually not rare surely?

So is evolution rare or not? or can it even happen at all?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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 made no such claim, I am simply asking for proof that this can happen, it is hypothetical. The colony's genome could remain relatively static (as was the case for the first few billion years on earth), could degrade to eventual extinction or could lead to leaps in sophistication but how can we prove if the latter is a possibility, that's my question.

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.

Indeed, nor do I imply bacteria give rise to worms over night, it is just used for the sake of argument - but after all worms did evolve from bacteria if bacteria was ancestral at any point.

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.

Or some lessons in logic, as I said already in logic we do not show that a proposition is true on the basis that we have no argument that it is false, in logic these are called conjectures not proofs, there are many many historic example of conjecture being false despite rational reasons for believing them true initially and sometimes for long periods of time.

Here's but one example Pólya conjecture, let me know if you'd like to see more.

The conjecture was made in 1919, and disproven by Haselgrove (1958) using a method due to Ingham (1942). Lehman (1960) found the first explicit counterexample, L(906180359)=1, and the smallest counterexample m=906150257 was found by Tanaka (1980). The first n for which L(n)=0 are n=2, 4, 6, 10, 16, 26, 40, 96, 586, 906150256, ... (Tanaka 1980, OEIS A028488). It is unknown if L(x) changes sign infinitely often (Tanaka 1980).

See? it was regarded as true (though clearly recognized as being no more than a conjecture) and there was no proof that it was false, no counterexample - until 1958.

So the rather grandiose claim (of it being a "fact" no less!) that bacteria can definitely eventually lead to worms, fleas, birds, frogs or anything like that is most accurately termed conjecture, that is if we're being honest and scientific about all this...

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

This can be difficult to discuss, recall I used to be a staunch evolution advocate and atheist, many of the arguments you see me post were in fact originally argued against myself, I was doing what you and Barbarian and others do, but to myself.

If we accept that in the distant past life was bacteria and all life we see today is rooted in that, then it is not wrong to claim (if evolution be truly feasible) that bacteria - left alone under appropriate conditions - can lead to worms, fish etc.

But if I say that some - perhaps you - reject it as a ridiculous over simplification, as showing I don't understand etc, that it misrepresents evolution.

You want to claim that all complex life did arise from bacteria yet when the claim is scrutinized you object that its misleading, I mean, really?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[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?

So it cannot be proven - that's fine lets just admit that then. But weather is not a good analogy, we don't ask "is weather possible" do we? weather is chaotic and if you want to claim that evolution is also chaotic just say that.

Weather is chaotic because solutions to the Navier-Stokes differential equations for fluid dynamics exhibit chaotic behavior, the equations are simple (as is the case for the Mandelbrot set for example) but highly sensitive to initial conditions, now, where are the Navier-Stokes equations for evolution?

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.

No, I do not, I argue simply that if it is not predictable then it could be impossible, the claims might be unachievable, the possibility that it cannot happen must be acknowledged if we're being scientific and honest.

You insist the process can absolutely, definitely achieve what's claimed yet at the same time berate me and tell me it cannot be expected to be provable! how dare I ask for that!

[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.

This conversation can serve no purpose.

Thus we see the problem in using insults, instead of addressing the arguments presented by others.

[JoeyKnothead]

No, I do not, I argue simply that if it is not predictable then it could be impossible, the claims might be unachievable, the possibility that it cannot happen must be acknowledged if we're being scientific and honest.

I can't predict what it is I'm gonna say or do next to get the pretty thing on the warpath, but I know it's gonna happen.

You insist the process can absolutely, definitely achieve what's claimed yet at the same time berate me and tell me it cannot be expected to be provable! how dare I ask for that!

I don't know about the berating there. For some, correction doesn't come without a negative emotional cost.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

This conversation can serve no purpose.

Thus we see the problem in using insults, instead of addressing the arguments presented by others.

You have insulted me openly in this thread, calling me a liar, I won't waste my time reporting you to the moderators for this obvious rule violation, perhaps they'll discover it themselves.

If you want to fight rather than politely discuss (and sometimes disagree shock horror!) then I'm not able to help you.

[Jose Fly]

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.

Yes there is. Such a process would involve a series of speciation events, and as I showed before speciation has been directly observed and documented, both in the wild and in the lab, multiple times. Further, it's also been demonstrated that evolutionary mechanisms generate new functional genetic sequences that weren't present in the parent population. So it stands to reason that billions of years of speciation events and generation of new functional genetic sequences should be sufficient to go from a population of ancient bacteria to ancient worms....

....unless you have a specific reason why they aren't.

Also, you seem to have missed the questions I asked in Post #798