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]

No, it's not unusual for a chemist to be ignorant of evolutionary theory. I've forgotten precisely how to synthesize acetylsalicylic acid, for example. But then, I don't go about, telling organic chemists why there's no such thing as resonance. Tour, although he admits to have no idea what evolution is, feels free to tell biologists about it.

Which pretty well establishes his credentials as a creationist.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Wed Feb 23, 2022 8:57 am
Of course he's a creationist,

He admits he doesn't understand it, but he feels entitled to tell people who do understand it, that they are wrong. Yep. Creationist.

To what are you referring? his personal beliefs or something he actually said?

“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... c-chemist/

once one grasps that these contrived indemonstrable extrapolated claims are untenable, postulating a creator is entirely rational

You've wandered off the track again. This isn't about "is there a God." Most biologists think there is, last time they were polled. It's about evolution and how it works. And as you have see, Darwin's theory fit the evidence superbly.

Almost all falsified theories in the natural sciences once fitted the evidence superbly,

Sounds unlikely. Show us the theories and then show us how they were "falsified."

try to focus on the theories problems,

I showed you several of them, and you only wanted to talk about your imaginary ones, which you refused to support with evidence.

For example, you were going to show us how endosymbiosis (or any other function you supposed was necessary for evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes) was impossible. Now would be a good time to do that, seeing as you're interested in problems in evolutionary theory and all. What do you have?

Rather sloppy, so it's not something he said during the video of the lecture? its something you found one page you cited? that page itself contains various cobbled together quotes from another article here.

Very well, here's what he says from that page:

“Let me tell you what goes on in the back rooms of science—with National Academy members, with Nobel Prize winners,” Tour stated. “I have sat with them, and when I get them alone, not in public—because it’s a scary thing, if you say what I just said—I say, ‘Do you understand all of this, where all of this came from, and how this happens?’”

The answer he inevitably receives, Tour explained, is: “no.”

“Every time that I have sat with people who are synthetic chemists, who understand this, they go, ‘Uh-uh. Nope.’” Tour said. “And if they’re afraid to say ‘yes,’ they say nothing. They just stare at me, because they can’t sincerely do it.”

You interpret the phrase "I don't understand evolution" to mean "I'm not educated sufficiently to grasp how evolution works and that's because I'm a creationist and creationists make terrible scientists" whereas it actually mean "I don't understand evolution because it makes claims that are unsupported by evidence".

If I said to you 12 + 8 = 237 would you understand that? can one ever be said to actually understand an argument based on false premises?

When Tour says he does not understand evolution he's speaking about the shortcomings of the hypotheses not his intellect.

[brunumb]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

[Sherlock Holmes]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

Exactly what they believed, what I believe and what you believe is irrelevant, science is best done without fretting over what people believe, I'm pleased that we've finally established this at long last.

[brunumb]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

Exactly what they believed, what I believe and what you believe is irrelevant, science is best done without fretting over what people believe, I'm pleased that we've finally established this at long last.

So why do keep on harping about scientists who were creationists concluding that the universe was created as if that was somehow a significant argument? No one is arguing that creationists cannot be scientists. If those those creationist scientists can't demonstrate that the universe was actually created then their beliefs are not relevant.

[The Barbarian]

So Tour admits he doesn't understand evolution, but presumes to tell biologists about it. Your revision is nothing at all like his statement.

“I don’t understand evolution, and I will confess that to you,” he says in the video.
https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... c-chemist/

You interpret the phrase "I don't understand evolution" to mean...

... he doesn't understand evolution. That's what he said. He says he doesn't understand evolution. And he provided us with evidence to back that up; he presumed evolutionary theory is about the origin of life. A rookie error to be sure. He's right about this; he doesn't understand evolution.

Now that we have that clarified, let's go back to the question. You claimed that evolutionary theory is "falsified", but you repeatedly declined to show us any evidence for your assumption. Specifically, you were going to show us that the transition from prokaryotes to eukaryotic cells with endosymbionts, is impossible. For the fifth time, what is your evidence for this assumption?

[The Barbarian]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

In fact, Isaac Newton thought Jesus is not God, arguing that the verses that support such a thing were later inserted into scripture. Roger Bacon, a devout Franciscan, argued for a strict empiricism in science. Galileo said that the Bible was to learn how to go to heaven, not to learn how the heavens go. Johannes Kepler was excluded from full participation in Lutheran services because of his heterodox opinions.

Hardly the sort of people who would be YE creationists today. The reason almost all scientists accepted evolutionary theory is simple; it works. Empiricism.

[Clownboat]

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").

I see what's going on now!
When he claims that evolution is falsified, he is just expressing his view (see bold above).

Sherlock, your views on the matter mean little here in the science subforum and would be better received in Holy Huddle. I am curious though, do you have a view that you feel better explains the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? If yes, would you please share it with the class? If not, I hear your view on evolution being falsified and see it to be wanting.

I am very open to being shown that the ToE is false by the way. Matters not to me as long as I can replace it with a better theory as to how populations change over time.

Person A: That car is the fastest car on the market.
Person B: You think so! Haha, well it's not and I don't like it.
Person A:

[Sherlock Holmes]

In your opinion, take most of the scientists who were seminal during the several centuries that comprise the scientific revolution, they'd not agree with you on this, they were all creationists, they all regarded the universe as having been created. Nor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.

How many of those creationist scientists demonstrated that the universe was actually created? What they believed is irrelevant.

In fact, Isaac Newton thought Jesus is not God, arguing that the verses that support such a thing were later inserted into scripture. Roger Bacon, a devout Franciscan, argued for a strict empiricism in science. Galileo said that the Bible was to learn how to go to heaven, not to learn how the heavens go. Johannes Kepler was excluded from full participation in Lutheran services because of his heterodox opinions.

Hardly the sort of people who would be YE creationists today. The reason almost all scientists accepted evolutionary theory is simple; it works. Empiricism.

Ha, they were probably all young earth creationists, even back to before Saint Bede's time the age was estimated at a few thousand years.

[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").

I see what's going on now!
When he claims that evolution is falsified, he is just expressing his view (see bold above).

Sherlock, your views on the matter mean little here in the science subforum and would be better received in Holy Huddle. I am curious though, do you have a view that you feel better explains the animals we see not just now, but also in the fossil record? If yes, would you please share it with the class? If not, I hear your view on evolution being falsified and see it to be wanting.

I am very open to being shown that the ToE is false by the way. Matters not to me as long as I can replace it with a better theory as to how populations change over time.

Person A: That car is the fastest car on the market.
Person B: You think so! Haha, well it's not and I don't like it.
Person A:

Well as to who of us "means" a lot or a little that's something you can speculate on, but your view is noted.

I've never argued that I can explain the presence of life, I can speculate but so can we all.

I'm more concerned with the things that seem to scupper the theory, show that's its not adequate to really explain what we see, as to the actual explanation that's unrelated - testing, falsifying a hypothesis does not include providing an alternative hypothesis - that's basic science.

[JoeyKnothead]

Snipping to what I wanna fuss...

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.

No number?

Your problem here is in producing the math that says it can't happen.

You cannot prove to me that relative stasis is not the ultimate state of affairs.

"Relative".

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).

More subjective language.

Can a redneck coupling produce sophisticated offspring?

Where "sophisticated" is a subjective term.