How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3935
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1250 times
Been thanked: 802 times

How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1

Post by 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.

Image

Image

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.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1051

Post by The Barbarian »

I'm just noting that at least four times when the posts were on the last or penultimate page, you dodged. So that excuse isn't going to fly. We'll just note yet another dodge on your part, and move on.

Since you apparently are now not sure that eukaryotes can't evolve from prokaryotes, that might explain it.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:26 am No,...
So you're sticking to your story? Now's your chance to show us that it's not possible. What difference between the two do you think is impossible to evolve?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1052

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:37 am I'm just noting that at least four times when the posts were on the last or penultimate page, you dodged. So that excuse isn't going to fly. We'll just note yet another dodge on your part, and move on.

Since you apparently are now not sure that eukaryotes can't evolve from prokaryotes, that might explain it.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:26 am No,...
So you're sticking to your story? Now's your chance to show us that it's not possible. What difference between the two do you think is impossible to evolve?
It's a fabrication, I never wrote "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is falsified", if I had you'd have produced the post, yet oddly you haven't, just like the Cambrian ancestors - it never existed.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1053

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:10 am
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:37 am I'm just noting that at least four times when the posts were on the last or penultimate page, you dodged. So that excuse isn't going to fly. We'll just note yet another dodge on your part, and move on.

Since you apparently are now not sure that eukaryotes can't evolve from prokaryotes, that might explain it.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:26 am No,...
So you're sticking to your story? Now's your chance to show us that it's not possible. What difference between the two do you think is impossible to evolve?
It's a fabrication, I never wrote "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is falsified", if I had you'd have produced the post, yet oddly you haven't, just like the Cambrian ancestors - it never existed.
So you're dodging the question a 6th? time? Or whatever. We'll just note that you won't answer it and move on. If I'm wrong, and you do think that it's possible for eukaryotes to evolve from prokaryotes, just say so, and I'll apologize for misunderstanding your position. So what is it?

And since I played your little game for you about the skeletons, isn't it time to now tell us what they actually are? Did you forget about it?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1054

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:53 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 11:10 am
The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:37 am I'm just noting that at least four times when the posts were on the last or penultimate page, you dodged. So that excuse isn't going to fly. We'll just note yet another dodge on your part, and move on.

Since you apparently are now not sure that eukaryotes can't evolve from prokaryotes, that might explain it.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:26 am No,...
So you're sticking to your story? Now's your chance to show us that it's not possible. What difference between the two do you think is impossible to evolve?
It's a fabrication, I never wrote "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is falsified", if I had you'd have produced the post, yet oddly you haven't, just like the Cambrian ancestors - it never existed.
So you're dodging the question a 6th? time? Or whatever. We'll just note that you won't answer it and move on. If I'm wrong, and you do think that it's possible for eukaryotes to evolve from prokaryotes, just say so, and I'll apologize for misunderstanding your position. So what is it?

And since I played your little game for you about the skeletons, isn't it time to now tell us what they actually are? Did you forget about it?
You're asking me to justify and defend a statement that I didn't make, such trickery might work with some but not me.

User avatar
The Barbarian
Guru
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 264 times
Been thanked: 757 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1055

Post by The Barbarian »

And since I played your little game for you about the skeletons, isn't it time to now tell us what they actually are? Did you forget about it?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:23 pm You're asking me to justify and defend a statement that I didn't make, such trickery might work with some but not me.
Well, let's take a look...
Sherlock Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 10, 2022 8:41 am
are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.
So I answered in detail. And now, it looks like you're dodging again. I'm just documenting the fact. No one really expected you to respond. Anyone who had any training in biology at all, would have been able to figure out that question. So now it's time for you to step up and tell us. C'mon, just tell us what those skeletons are, and how my answer fits.

Or is this going to be yet another of those dodges? Did you just pull up random skeletons, without knowing what they were at all? You don't even know what they are, do you?

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1056

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:12 pm
And since I played your little game for you about the skeletons, isn't it time to now tell us what they actually are? Did you forget about it?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 12:23 pm You're asking me to justify and defend a statement that I didn't make, such trickery might work with some but not me.
Well, let's take a look...
Yes? where did I say the red phrase?


It's a fabrication, I never wrote "the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is falsified", if I had you'd have produced the post, yet oddly you haven't, just like the Cambrian ancestors - it never existed.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1057

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 10:18 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 9:41 am are these two related? If you found these fossilized for example would you presume they shared some of their genome? all of it? half of it? none of it perhaps? come on all you evolution experts, lets get some answers please.

ImageImage

State "yes" or "no" and the reasoning behind your answer.
So while we are waiting for you to answer the questions you're dodging, your little game actually is pretty useful.

I'm no expert in anatomy, but...

They both have a skeleton, so they are related to all chordates by a common ancestor. And thereby related to all deuterostomes by a common ancestor. And a backbone so they are related to all vertebrates by a common ancestor.

And the simplified shoulder joints, lack of cervical ribs, what are almost certainly single dentary bones in the lower jaws, differentiated teeth and some other features, indicate that they are both mammals. So do the little "levers" at the back of the feet (both of these animals are digitgrade, so the heel looks like a backwards knee to most people) So related by a common mammalian ancestor.

However, the dental formulae seem to be different in each animal. Too unclear to say for sure. The first has a rather juvenile look in teeth, occipital muscle attachments, and so on. The larger one looks like a canid. The smaller one looks more generalized. It's hard to tell, but it appears the carnassal teeth in the smaller one are "wrong." If these were both adults, that would suggest that they are in different families,orders, or even subclasses. And that (from my inexpert observations and the small images) shows where the last common ancestor would be.

(edit) Since DNA variation in eutherian mammals would show about 85% similarity among orders, I'm supposing that at least 80% similarity, assuming that the smaller skeleton is a marsupial.(edit)
One is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine, a marsupial. Yet based on their skeletons alone that is not evident at all, they have (presumably) very different evolutionary histories (supposedly from a common ancestor 160 MYA).

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

Had we not had access to actual Thylacines (the last specimens dined i the 1930s) no doubt paleontologists would have declared these to be closely related as they do all the time when morphological similarity is found amongst fossils.

Today these animals are known to share almost no protein building DNA whatsoever, their obvious similarities are due to a contrivance called "convergent evolution" that is to avenues of evolution that just magically happen to lead to (very) similar morphologies.

So evolution leads to growing diversity except in cases where it doesn't.

How do we know that the many presumed relationships between fossils is real? if fossils that look the same can in fact be unrelated then how do we know if any of the many presumed relationships in the "tree of life" are real of not?

Once again the theory just doesn't care about reality, lets just make up ideas as needed so we can preserve the theory, ideas like "convergent evolution".

Evolution is great at turning a failed prediction into a success, its had a lot of experience:
The fact these groups have not shared a common ancestor since the Jurassic makes this an astounding example of convergence between distantly related species.
See? a problematic example of two things looking very closely related when they are actually not becomes "astounding example of convergence between distantly related species" and so evolution survives once again, as it always does, every time problem data comes up they just make up some new contrivance and off we go, hop back onto the merry go round.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3803
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4094 times
Been thanked: 2437 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1058

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:57 pmOne is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine, a marsupial. Yet based on their skeletons alone that is not evident at all, they have (presumably) very different evolutionary histories (supposedly from a common ancestor 160 MYA).

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

Had we not had access to actual Thylacines (the last specimens dined i the 1930s) no doubt paleontologists would have declared these to be closely related as they do all the time when morphological similarity is found amongst fossils.
You've obviously never read any sort of systematics literature. You're claiming that paleontologists would "no doubt" have considered them closely related based on, what, your overall impression? What experts were surprised? When?

For context, here is a list of characters used in a real study to determine evolutionary relationships between related taxa:
  1. basilar length, prosthion to basion
  2. post canine diastema length, disregarding possible P1-2s
  3. palate length, prosthion to staphylion
  4. canine length, at enamel-dentine boundary
  5. canine width, at enamel-dentine boundary
  6. angle of lambdoid crest, measured as intersection of palate and prominent trajectory of crest
  7. mandible length, from articular process to anterior-dorsal most position of mandibular symphysis
  8. genial flange height, measured from directly behind c1 to the extremal tip of the flange
  9. trigonid length of m1
  10. m1 length
  11. P4 height, measured from base of cingulum to apex of tooth
  12. P3 height, measured from base of cingulum to apex of tooth
  13. serration density, measured over an average of 5 mm
  14. humerus length, measured to extremal points of articulatio
  15. femur length, measured to extremal points of articulation
  16. tibia length, measured to extremal points of articulation
Notice how none of them are subjective measures like "looks like a wolf."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1059

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Difflugia wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:23 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 1:57 pmOne is a Wolf and the other is a Thylacine, a marsupial. Yet based on their skeletons alone that is not evident at all, they have (presumably) very different evolutionary histories (supposedly from a common ancestor 160 MYA).

The experts were in fact surprised at how different their DNA was, it was very much not what they expected.

Had we not had access to actual Thylacines (the last specimens dined i the 1930s) no doubt paleontologists would have declared these to be closely related as they do all the time when morphological similarity is found amongst fossils.
You've obviously never read any sort of systematics literature. You're claiming that paleontologists would "no doubt" have considered them closely related based on, what, your overall impression? What experts were surprised? When?

For context, here is a list of characters used in a real study to determine evolutionary relationships between related taxa:
  1. basilar length, prosthion to basion
  2. post canine diastema length, disregarding possible P1-2s
  3. palate length, prosthion to staphylion
  4. canine length, at enamel-dentine boundary
  5. canine width, at enamel-dentine boundary
  6. angle of lambdoid crest, measured as intersection of palate and prominent trajectory of crest
  7. mandible length, from articular process to anterior-dorsal most position of mandibular symphysis
  8. genial flange height, measured from directly behind c1 to the extremal tip of the flange
  9. trigonid length of m1
  10. m1 length
  11. P4 height, measured from base of cingulum to apex of tooth
  12. P3 height, measured from base of cingulum to apex of tooth
  13. serration density, measured over an average of 5 mm
  14. humerus length, measured to extremal points of articulatio
  15. femur length, measured to extremal points of articulation
  16. tibia length, measured to extremal points of articulation
Notice how none of them are subjective measures like "looks like a wolf."
Please!
Homologous structures are structures, or body features, that are similar in two different species. The structures are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor.
From here.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3803
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4094 times
Been thanked: 2437 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #1060

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:31 pmPlease!
Macadamia nuts!

We're just shouting words now, right?
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Mar 10, 2022 2:31 pm
Homologous structures are structures, or body features, that are similar in two different species. The structures are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor.
From here.
What do you think that means in this context? Both do share homologous structures and share a common ancestor. You're asserting, though, that paleontologists would be wrong about which common ancestor based on your inexpert comparison of skeletons. If you think that any paleontologist would share your methodology, show us one that does.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply