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 #851

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 2:22 pm But that is just not the case at all. Prokaryotes appeared approx 3.5 BYA until eukaryotes appeared about 2.0 BYA - so for 1,500,000,000 years we had - to all intents and purposes - stasis - that's the evidence, no evolution.
The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:50 pm I spent my undergraduate years, learning about prokaryotes. You are hilariiously wrong. Most of the biochemistry by which you function, evolved during that period, in prokaryotes. And it was a long, long time. Paleogeochemistry has learned a great deal about how life worked early on. And it's a complex and fascinating story. A New History of Life, by Ward and Kirschvink, would help you get through some of the issues.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:24 pm Its beyond far fetched, a science fiction story, this gentleman may help you see the errors in your thinking,
Your little video is about the origin of life. Not remotely what we're talking about here. Maybe it's time you spent a little book time to learn what evolutionary theory is? When you answer a few of the questions you've been dodging, I'll see what else he has to say. But his belief that evolution of eukaryotes is about the origin of life, doesn't suggest it's going to be very good. However, you were going to show me how the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is impossible. Name something that would have to evolve to do that, and then show that such evolution is impossible.

For the fourth time. Tell me how endosymbiosis or any other process necessary for the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes is impossible. We're beginning to think you don't even know what any of those things might be. As you just learned, most of your own biochemistry evolved before there even were eukaryotes.

So let's see what you've got. And no, "watch this video" won't help you. If you can't understand it well enough to explain it, what makes you think it's right?

(sometimes I think the creationist handbook has a section that says "If you get in over your head, have a video ready and tell them they have to see it.")

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 #852

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:34 pm By the way Barbarian, you still have this outstanding, are you reticent to answer me?
You got an answer. You just didn't want to see the answer you got.

To save you time clicking mice, here's the outstanding question:

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

I pointed out that if one can't prove it false or true, we cannot regard it as logically true or logically false. But you edited that out, for the obvious reasons. So I gave you a chance to prove your claim that evolutionary theory is falsified. Just show us any process, necessary for the evolution of prokaryotes from eukaryotes, is impossible. Or are you back to claiming that if it can't be proven true, it is false?

Are you ever going to answer that question?

I suggest answers like "Yes" or "No" or "I have no idea" or variations thereof.

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 #853

Post by The Barbarian »

Regarding Tour:

A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life.

Aaaargh!! To begin with, the origin of life, although it’s certainly an interesting unsolved problem, is not part of the theory of evolution, which describes the behavior and development of life after it exists.
...
He had also said that he felt the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes.


[edit](an intelligent 8th grade student knows that Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Tour is either trying to be intentionally deceptive here, or he's remarkably unaware of biology) [/edit]
...

“Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... c-chemist/

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

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #854

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 8:10 pm Regarding Tour:

A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life.

Aaaargh!! To begin with, the origin of life, although it’s certainly an interesting unsolved problem, is not part of the theory of evolution, which describes the behavior and development of life after it exists.
...
He had also said that he felt the explanations offered by evolution are incomplete, and he found it hard to believe that nature can produce the machinery of cells through random processes.


[edit](an intelligent 8th grade student knows that Darwin's great discovery was that it isn't random. Tour is either trying to be intentionally deceptive here, or he's remarkably unaware of biology) [/edit]
...

“Is it okay for me to say, ‘I don’t understand this’? Is that all right? I know that there’s a lot of people out there that don’t understand anything about organic synthesis, but they understand evolution. I understand a lot about making molecules; I don’t understand evolution. And you would just say that, wow, I must be really unusual.”

https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... c-chemist/

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.
Of course he's a creationist, once one grasps that these contrived indemonstrable extrapolated claims are untenable, postulating a creator is entirely rational, fits the evidence superbly.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3799
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4092 times
Been thanked: 2435 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #855

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:57 amOf course he's a creationist, once one grasps that these contrived indemonstrable extrapolated claims are untenable, postulating a creator is entirely rational, fits the evidence superbly.
Even if your claim that "these contrived indemonstratable extrapolated claims are untenable," a creator still isn't rational. A made-up entity that is defined as being infinitely powerful and possessing infinite latitude is consistent with any conceivable pattern of evidence. That means that it's also meaningless as an explanation.

I'll also point out that "made-up" isn't just hyperbole. Since none of the Christian gods show the same level of capriciousness that your creator must possess in order to arrange creation such that its biodiversity exactly matches evolution, then your creator is certainly not one of the Christian gods.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #856

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Difflugia wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:03 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:57 amOf course he's a creationist, once one grasps that these contrived indemonstrable extrapolated claims are untenable, postulating a creator is entirely rational, fits the evidence superbly.
Even if your claim that "these contrived indemonstratable extrapolated claims are untenable," a creator still isn't rational. A made-up entity that is defined as being infinitely powerful and possessing infinite latitude is consistent with any conceivable pattern of evidence. That means that it's also meaningless as an explanation.
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.
Difflugia wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:03 pm I'll also point out that "made-up" isn't just hyperbole. Since none of the Christian gods show the same level of capriciousness that your creator must possess in order to arrange creation such that its biodiversity exactly matches evolution, then your creator is certainly not one of the Christian gods.
Not at all; that what has been created, has been willfully misinterpreted by many, as being due to some ridiculous scheme driven by purely natural laws of nature, is not really God's doing.

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 #857

Post by The Barbarian »

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.
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.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3799
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 4092 times
Been thanked: 2435 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #858

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:10 pmthey all regarded the universe as having been created.
If nothing else, they lacked the evidence for evolution that we now have. They had no way of knowing just how capricious their idea of god would necessarily be in light of later evidence. With the knowledge they had, perhaps their creator could be reconciled with Yahweh or Jesus.

I'm not conceding that their idea of god was rational as a matter of course, but even if their god was a rational construct, at least one gap in their knowledge has been filled in that renders it no longer so. That may be why so many more of the scientists were creationist then.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:10 pmNor can you honestly call something "made up" when it's rationally inferred.
I haven't narrowed down "made up" enough to know if that's true, but fortunately for me, I don't have to; your conditional ("when it's rationally inferrred") is false. If the question is "how did x get there," answering with "a magical maker of x" is both irrational and intellectually lazy.
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:10 pm
Difflugia wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:03 pm I'll also point out that "made-up" isn't just hyperbole. Since none of the Christian gods show the same level of capriciousness that your creator must possess in order to arrange creation such that its biodiversity exactly matches evolution, then your creator is certainly not one of the Christian gods.
Not at all; that what has been created, has been willfully misinterpreted by many, as being due to some ridiculous scheme driven by purely natural laws of nature, is not really God's doing.
That's quite an accusation that you haven't supported. In fact, I think it's an ad hominem attack! If you'll excuse me, I need to find my clutching pearls.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #859

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm 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.
He doesn't try to hide the fact, nor does it matter in a discussion about organic chemistry.
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm
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?
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm
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, it guarantees nothing, try to focus on the theories problems, I know its hard for you but that's where the rubber meets the road, try taking off the rose tinted spectacles for once.

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 #860

Post by The Barbarian »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:01 pm
The Barbarian wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm 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?

Post Reply