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.

[Jose Fly]

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.

And don't forget the deliberate and repeated avoidance of scientific papers. I trust you're familiar with Morton's Demon? The more I interact with SH, the more that metaphor comes to mind.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

No. Nor do I regard it as true, as being a fact, until proven or disproven it is a conjecture.

Now, your turn I think, do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

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?

It is evolution that is falsified, one basis for this view is the Cambrian explosion (aka "evidence").

[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?

No.

So you now realize that evolutionary theory has not been falsified?

Nor do I regard it as true, as being a fact, until proven or disproven it is a conjecture.

Perhaps you don't know what a "conjecture" is. A scientific their is an idea that has been repeatedly verified by evidence. This is why it is a theory, not a hypothesis. Learn about it here:
http://www.krysstal.com/itsonlyatheory.html

Notice that conjectures do not have to be testable. But hypotheses must be testable. Darwin's hypothesis, having been repeatedly tested and confirmed by a wide variety of evidence is an established theory, much as gravity is. However, it's more solid than gravity. We know why evolution works, but we still aren't exactly sure why gravity works.

Now, your turn I think, do you regard a proposition as true if we have no proof it is false?

More to the point, I believe a theory is established only after its predictions are repeatedly verified by evidence. As you might know, science is mostly inductive, and does not depend on "proof" but only on sufficient evidence to make it foolish to deny the theory. If you can't show that an idea is false, then you cannot logically assert that it's been falsified.

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?

It is evolution that is falsified,

Perhaps you've forgotten again what biological evolution is. It's a change in allele frequencies in a population over time. Which is constantly observed. So the actual phenomenon of evolution cannot be falsified. If it observably happens, it is impossible to deny it is true. You were denying common descent, which is not evolution, but a consequence of evolution. I gave you a means to test your conjecture, but you repeatedly refused to do it.

one basis for this view is the Cambrian explosion (aka "evidence").

As you learned earlier, there are extensive Precambrian fossils of animals, some of which are very like the earliest known Cambrian fossils. So that belief is demonstrably false.

I assume you're now conceding that worms can indeed evolve from prokaryotes. If not, it's incumbent on you to show that there is some reason that they could not. What do you have?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #818]

... now, where are the Navier-Stokes equations for evolution?

Talk about bad analogies. Evolution isn't driven by a neat set of equations that can model fluid flow or similar phenomena. It is many populations of living things with widely varying genetic makeups all reacting to the multitude of factors that influence how the genetics of their offspring develop and change over time. These include the things already mentioned like environment, predator/prey mix, food sources and how they change over time, etc. etc. It is far too complicated to be governed by a compact set of differential equations that can predict all of these various factors and how changes in them will influence natural selection, genetic drift, etc. to predict a given outcome.

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!

Wait a minute! You substituted "provable" for "predicatable." These aren't synonyms and that swap completely changes the whole discussion. You've argued that evolution should be predictable and we should be able to predict how long it would take for bacteria to evolve into worms, and exactly what path that would take. There is no Navier-Stokes equation for evolution ... its outcomes are not amenable to such a simple mathematical description.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #823]

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...

It is not sheer absurdity, it is sheer observation. For something like 3 billion years all life that we are aware of consisted of single-celled organisms (prokatyotes archaea and bacteria, then eukaryotes). Multicellular organisms then appeared and eventually diversified into things like frogs, bats lizard, slugs, humans etc. If all of these gazillion multicellular life forms did not ultimately evolve from prior single-celled organisms, then how did they arise? What was their origin?

If a god being poofed multicellular organisms into existence and decided (for some reason) to start with sponges or whatever the first example was, why do these (and all multicellular life) share the same basic DNA/RNA mechanisms as the single-celled prokaryotes and eukaryotes? Did the god being examine the situation and decide that this was a good scheme and steal it for multicellular and more complex organisms? Or is it more likely that the DNA/RNA mechanisms led (as we observe they do constantly) to new structures and features, speciation, etc. and eventually to the wide variety of multicellular plants and animals that we have today, all starting from the single-celled organisms which had the core DNA/RNA mechanisms in place and working?

If evolution isn't the explanation, why would a god being create single-celled organisms on our little planet, let them rule the living world for some 3 billion years or more, then decide to create more complicated organisms after all that time? Was he bored? Out on a 3 billion year vacation? Tending to the other 99.9999999999999% of the universe that doesn't know our tiny solar system even exists? Which is the more rational explanation?

[The Barbarian]

... now, where are the Navier-Stokes equations for evolution?

Let's see...

Harvey-Weinberg equation tests for selective pressure in a population. It predicts the assortment of alleles in the n+1 generation, given the assortment in generation n, assuming some specific conditions and no selective pressure for that gene.

Shannon equation for information measures information content of specific gene loci. It explains how mutation produces new information in a population.

Those are pretty simple examples. You would have little trouble with them, I think. Would you like to learn about them?

If you have some understanding of Calculus, you might want to read Population and Evolutionary Genetics by Francisco J. Ayala. It's a nice introductory level text on mathematics in evolutionary science. A slightly more rigorous treatment can be found in Alan Hastings' Population Biology; Concepts and Models. Starting on p. 45, there's pretty good treatment of Hardy-Weinberg, and how it works.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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?

I draw your attention to this post where I answered that question (with a "No"), are you unwilling now to answer mine?

I must press you on this, I think an answer is called for.

[Sherlock Holmes]

... now, where are the Navier-Stokes equations for evolution?

Let's see...

Harvey-Weinberg equation tests for selective pressure in a population. It predicts the assortment of alleles in the n+1 generation, given the assortment in generation n, assuming some specific conditions and no selective pressure for that gene.

Shannon equation for information measures information content of specific gene loci. It explains how mutation produces new information in a population.

Those are pretty simple examples. You would have little trouble with them, I think. Would you like to learn about them?

How does that help me predict how long it will take for bacteria to become - say - worms? how does that help me establish whether or not some initial state will - over time - lead to a) extinction, b) stasis or c) ever increasing complexity?

If you have some understanding of Calculus, you might want to read Population and Evolutionary Genetics by Francisco J. Ayala. It's a nice introductory level text on mathematics in evolutionary science. A slightly more rigorous treatment can be found in Alan Hastings' Population Biology; Concepts and Models. Starting on p. 45, there's pretty good treatment of Hardy-Weinberg, and how it works.

This is a digression, I've specifically asked if the "theory" offers any means of predicting if, when and how some initial state will change over time.

The perception seems to be that ever increasing complexity, sophistication is almost inevitable and that all life we see can be attributed to that.

But there's no method I know of - mathematical or otherwise - that can prove this so it must be just a belief.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #823]

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...

It is not sheer absurdity, it is sheer observation. For something like 3 billion years all life that we are aware of consisted of single-celled organisms (prokatyotes archaea and bacteria, then eukaryotes). Multicellular organisms then appeared and eventually diversified into things like frogs, bats lizard, slugs, humans etc. If all of these gazillion multicellular life forms did not ultimately evolve from prior single-celled organisms, then how did they arise? What was their origin?

I don't know their origin that's why I began to explore this subject decades ago. There is no evidence I'm aware of that can show that some end state is reachable from some start state purely under the influence of random mutations and natural selection. That we have evidence of many states in the past does not prove that these natural influences alone produced one from another. It is inference, effectively connecting the dots when there might actually be no connection or at least no connection based on mutation+natural selection.

If a god being poofed multicellular organisms into existence and decided (for some reason) to start with sponges or whatever the first example was, why do these (and all multicellular life) share the same basic DNA/RNA mechanisms as the single-celled prokaryotes and eukaryotes?

Well I'm happy to speculate. That similar mechanisms are built from common sub components could be because the latter evolved from the former or it could be that the latter has been designed to leverage some already designed sub-component. Look at a radio and a TV set, they share common sub-components because designers reused and established and tried solution. This is basic engineering, but I stress this is a speculative answer which is all I can give you.

Animals are built from proteins, if I want nails, feathers or horns I will grab keratin because that's already been designed to provide what it provides; If I want to make bookcase or a house I might grab wood.

Did the god being examine the situation and decide that this was a good scheme and steal it for multicellular and more complex organisms? Or is it more likely that the DNA/RNA mechanisms led (as we observe they do constantly) to new structures and features, speciation, etc. and eventually to the wide variety of multicellular plants and animals that we have today, all starting from the single-celled organisms which had the core DNA/RNA mechanisms in place and working?

Well the question you ask "is it more likely" is exactly what were discussing - how can we prove mathematically that some (claimed) end state is actually reachable from some prior (claimed) start state? it seems guessing is all you have, the belief that this is just inevitable - yet strangely never ever demonstrated.

If evolution isn't the explanation, why would a god being create single-celled organisms on our little planet, let them rule the living world for some 3 billion years or more, then decide to create more complicated organisms after all that time? Was he bored? Out on a 3 billion year vacation? Tending to the other 99.9999999999999% of the universe that doesn't know our tiny solar system even exists? Which is the more rational explanation?

Fine questions indeed, but absolutely nothing to do with my reasonable scientific questions about how an unpredictable process can be claimed to achieve anything other than stasis.

I must ask do you actually disapprove of this question? is it unreasonable to ask it? do you think only a fool would ask it?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #841]

Fine questions indeed, but absolutely nothing to do with my reasonable scientific questions about how an unpredictable process can be claimed to achieve anything other than stasis.

Stasis by definition is a stable or equilibrium state, but there are external events that can disturb this and the system deviates from stasis until it can settle into another stable state. Great white sharks will likely continue to be great white sharks until some predator comes along that can threaten their position in the ecosystem. If that happens, great white sharks will have to adapt or die off. How they might adapt is not predictable, but it will have to happen for them to survive (maybe they get smaller but faster, or larger to take on the new threat, or develop venom that is effective against the threat, etc. ... we can't predict the path that would be taken mathematically).

As far as life on Earth, stasis is certainly not a common condition as some 99.9% of all species are postulated to have become extinct (supported by the fossil record). Change is the norm, not stasis, despite the inability to predict mathematically what evolution may "create." Some of the base processes may be amenable to mathematical analysis as outlined by The Barbarian in post 838, but external factors that influence natural selection like geological events, loss of food sources, disease/parasites, etc. are not predictable, so the exact path evolution may take, and the time frame, also cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. Maybe bacterial experiments have some chance at that in controlled experiments, but it is anyone's guess what humans (or any other existing animals) may evolve into in 100 million years or if our descendents will be around at all.