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]

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

I never used the term "speciation". What you call observed "speciation events" do not fit the criteria I alluded to, that we can see hybrid speciation does not show that bacteria can assuredly become worms, flies, frogs. The latter is the claim made by evolutionists and the former does not represent evidence for it at all.

That a fly can split into two forms that cannot interbreed or butterflies or flowers is not contested, I do not contest facts and I know of these cases.

That is not what I am asking for evidence about.

How does a colony of flies that becomes two colonies of flies prove that something that's not a fly can eventually be expected to arise? All I can really infer from this is that after a time we might see three colonies, then five, then ten colonies of flies.

This is sheer absurdity, you cannot show, prove or calculate what might arise nor how long it might take yet are 100% confident that despite this minor detail we know, absolutely without any doubt whatsoever that bacteria can - given billions of years - become frogs, bats, lizards, slugs...

Evolution is just an interpretation of observations not the definitive explanation for them.

[JoeyKnothead]

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.

Okay, Miss Bo Peep.

[Jose Fly]

I never used the term "speciation".

Whether or not you used that specific term is irrelevant. The important part is the fact that "bacteria->worms" would require a series of speciation events and generation of functional genetic sequences.

What you call observed "speciation events" do not fit the criteria I alluded to

What criteria?

that we can see hybrid speciation does not show that bacteria can assuredly become worms, flies, frogs. The latter is the claim made by evolutionists and the former does not represent evidence for it at all.

First, the speciation events I linked to include ones that weren't due to hybridization. Plus, you trying to now say hybrid speciation somehow doesn't count is nothing more than arbitrary goalpost moving.

That a fly can split into two forms that cannot interbreed or butterflies or flowers is not contested, I do not contest facts and I know of these cases.

That is not what I am asking for evidence about.

So now you're saying that "bacteria->worms" would not involve a series of speciation events?

How does a colony of flies that becomes two colonies of flies prove that something that's not a fly can eventually be expected to arise? All I can really infer from this is that after a time we might see three colonies, then five, then ten colonies of flies.

As I explained, "bacteria->worms" would occur via a series of speciation events and the generation of functional genetic sequences. Have we seen speciation events? Yes, many times and in diverse taxa. Have we seen the generation of functional genetic sequences? Yes, all the time.

This is sheer absurdity, you cannot show, prove or calculate what might arise nor how long it might take yet are 100% confident that despite this minor detail we know, absolutely without any doubt whatsoever that bacteria can - given billions of years - become frogs, bats, lizards, slugs...

Stereotypical creationist denialism. FYI, you basically saying "Nuh uh" isn't a valid rebuttal.

Evolution is an interpretation of observations not the explanation for them.

??????? Seriously? You honestly don't think evolution explains anything? Wow.

And I will take your repeated ignoring of my previous questions as a concession of the points.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I never used the term "speciation".

Whether or not you used that specific term is irrelevant. The important part is the fact that "bacteria->worms" would require a series of speciation events and generation of functional genetic sequences.

What you call observed "speciation events" do not fit the criteria I alluded to

What criteria?

Perhaps "scope" would have been a better term than "criteria", anyway, bacteria becoming worms, jellyfish and so on, that was scope.

that we can see hybrid speciation does not show that bacteria can assuredly become worms, flies, frogs. The latter is the claim made by evolutionists and the former does not represent evidence for it at all.

First, the speciation events I linked to include ones that weren't due to hybridization. Plus, you trying to now say hybrid speciation somehow doesn't count is nothing more than arbitrary goalpost moving.

That's untrue, I do not accept that bacteria can ever develop into worms, jellyfish etc over any length of time because that claim seems to be untestable. It is the adequacy of the mechanism (iterated random mutations + natural selection) that I question.

That a fly can split into two forms that cannot interbreed or butterflies or flowers is not contested, I do not contest facts and I know of these cases.

That is not what I am asking for evidence about.

So now you're saying that "bacteria->worms" would not involve a series of speciation events?

Not at all, I'm saying that no number of "speciation events" can lead to such a dramatic increase in mechanical sophistication and specificity, I say that because its not demonstrable. You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs. Yes genetic changes occur, that is not and has never been disputed, what is disputed is the implication that that reality repeated over and over and over can ever lead to increasingly sophisticated offspring, it could just as easily lead to stasis or even extinction (through an accumulation of degenerate mutations).

How does a colony of flies that becomes two colonies of flies prove that something that's not a fly can eventually be expected to arise? All I can really infer from this is that after a time we might see three colonies, then five, then ten colonies of flies.

As I explained, "bacteria->worms" would occur via a series of speciation events and the generation of functional genetic sequences. Have we seen speciation events? Yes, many times and in diverse taxa. Have we seen the generation of functional genetic sequences? Yes, all the time.

You did no explain, you conjectured. Nor can you say "would occur" because the long term cumulative result could equally be stasis or extinction - how can you prove which of these three are possible outcomes?

This is sheer absurdity, you cannot show, prove or calculate what might arise nor how long it might take yet are 100% confident that despite this minor detail we know, absolutely without any doubt whatsoever that bacteria can - given billions of years - become frogs, bats, lizards, slugs...

Stereotypical creationist denialism. FYI, you basically saying "Nuh uh" isn't a valid rebuttal.

Really? so critical evaluation of conjectured processes is fine in science except when the conjecture is evolution? The best way you can find of responding to what I said is to drop into stereotyping and labels "stereotypical creationist denialism"?

Evolution is an interpretation of observations not the explanation for them.

??????? Seriously? You honestly don't think evolution explains anything? Wow.

And I will take your repeated ignoring of my previous questions as a concession of the points.

Take it as you wish.

[The Barbarian]

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.

Some lessons in logic, as we already explained to you. In logic you must show that an event cannot happen in order to show that it's not possible. As you just learned, the evidence for common descent is extensive, and from numerous independent sources . In logic these are called inferences from evidence. The lack of absolute proof for them is not proof that they are false, as you have asserted. There are many many historic example of such inferences being confirmed despite the initial possibility of them being false. In short, your argument that evolution (by which you seem to mean common descent) is false because it cannot be proven true, is based on a logical fallacy. If you insist that common descent is false, then you are required to prove it. Merely showing that it is not yet confirmed, will not suffice.

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.

You now realize that inferences from evidence are not conjectures. What is your evidence that endosymbiosis (or whatever else you think is essential for the evolution of eukaryotes) is impossible?

What do you have?

Do you regard a proposition as false if we have no absolute proof it is true?

[Sherlock Holmes]

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.

Some lessons in logic, as we already explained to you, in logic you must show that a proposition is false in order to show that it's not possible. As you just learned, the evidence is extensive, and from numerous independent sources for common descent. In logic these are called inferences from evidence. The lack of absolute proof for them is not proof, that they are false, as you have asserted. Tshere are many many historic example of such inferences being confirmed despite the initial possiblility of them being false. In short, your argument that evolution (by which you seem to mean common descent) is false because it cannot be proven true, is based on a logical fallacy. If you insist that common descent is false, then you are required to prove it. Merely showing that it is not yet confirmed, will not suffice.

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.

So you now realize that inferences from evidence are not conjectures. What is your evidence that endosymbiosis (or whatever else you think is essential for the evolution of eukaryotes) is impossible?

What do you have?

Do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

[The Barbarian]

Do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

Do you regard a proposition as false if we have extensive evidence that it is true?

You were going to show us how endosymbiosis (or whatever process you think is necessary for the evolution of prokaryotes) is falsified. What do you have?

[brunumb]

Stereotypical creationist denialism. FYI, you basically saying "Nuh uh" isn't a valid rebuttal.

That is the sum total of Sherlock's argument. No, NO, it can't happen, it's all too haaaaard! Just an argument from incredulity and nothing else.

[The Barbarian]

Really? so critical evaluation of conjectured processes is fine in science except when the conjecture is evolution?

As you learned, evolution is a directly observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is a well-tested idea repeatedly supported by evidence. Remember, evolution is the reality we observe. Evolutionary theory is the scientific explanation for that. Common descent is a consequence of evolution. Try to remember the distinctions.

[Jose Fly]

Perhaps "scope" would have been a better term than "criteria", anyway, bacteria becoming worms, jellyfish and so on, that was scope.

Wait.....are you actually expecting "bacteria->worms" to be directly observable?

I do not accept that bacteria can ever develop into worms, jellyfish etc over any length of time because that claim seems to be untestable.

Of course it's testable.

It is the adequacy of the mechanism (iterated random mutations + natural selection) that I question.

Why? Evolutionary mechanisms have been shown to be capable of generating new species and new functional genetic sequences. So what stage in the "bacteria->worms" process do you think requires more than the generation of a new species or functional genetic sequences?

I'm saying that no number of "speciation events" can lead to such a dramatic increase in mechanical sophistication and specificity, I say that because its not demonstrable. You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

Well, before we can evaluate any of that you'll have to define "dramatic increase", "mechanical sophistication", "specificity", and "relative stasis" in ways that will allow us to check them against the data.

Funny too how all those concepts...whatever they are....are only just now making an appearance. Again, pretty stereotypical creationist argumentation style.

Yes genetic changes occur, that is not and has never been disputed, what is disputed is the implication that that reality repeated over and over and over can ever lead to increasingly sophisticated offspring, it could just as easily lead to stasis or even extinction (through an accumulation of degenerate mutations).

Now you need to define "sophisticated" in a way that allows us to quantify it.

You did no explain, you conjectured. Nor can you say "would occur" because the long term cumulative result could equally be stasis or extinction - how can you prove which of these three are possible outcomes?

Wait....are you expecting folks here to "prove" universal common ancestry?

Really? so critical evaluation of conjectured processes is fine in science except when the conjecture is evolution?

FYI, speciation and the generation of functional genetic sequences are not "conjectured processes". They're reality.

The best way you can find of responding to what I said is to drop into stereotyping and labels "stereotypical creationist denialism"?

If you don't like your style being referred to as "stereotypical creationist denialism", then I suggest you stop engaging in it.

Take it as you wish.

FYI, in formal debates deliberately and repeatedly ignoring things like that is scored as concessions.