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 #11

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Evolution is Crazy.
Natural phenomena are neither sane nor insane. They just are.
There are 3.5E9 nucleotide sites. So a 1 percent difference would mean 3.5E7 nucleotide changes would have to take place over 6 million years. That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.
Since the article you linked admitted that there are about 100 mutations per human that's not much of a challenge. There are billions of them per generation. Only a few are useful enough to spread into the general population. Aparently, about one in 2.5 million. Not too many needed out of all the raw mutations.
Most mutations in humans today are harmful.
Actually, most don't do much of anything good or bad. A few are harmful and damage a person and usually are eliminated by natural selection. A very few are useful and tend to increase in the population. Would you like to learn about some recent examples in humans?
So for someone to believe in evolution they must have faith that in the past they were not mostly harmful.
See above. Not required at all. You just didn't think about it very deeply.
Even if there were no harmful mutations all 70 new mutations per generation would have to spread throughout whatever populations someone is saying that is evolving. There is simply not enough time for evolution to occur.
You were misled about that. For example, wild varieties of wheat shatter. That is, the ripened grain just falls from the stalk. Then sometime a few thousand years ago, a mutation caused the grains to stay on the stalk, simplifying harvesting. In very little time, that mutation spread everywhere.

Dairying is a good way to convert grass and other (to humans) indigestible matter into food. But adult humans can't process lactose; the gene turns off when a person matures. Or used to. But perhaps 10,000 years ago, a mutation kept lactase genes functioning into adulthood, making milk a useful food. It spread rapidly over the world with dairying practices.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048992/

User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2226
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 44 times
Contact:

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #12

Post by EarthScienceguy »

[Replying to The Barbarian in post #11]
Since the article you linked admitted that there are about 100 mutations per human that's not much of a challenge. There are billions of them per generation. Only a few are useful enough to spread into the general population. Aparently, about one in 2.5 million. Not too many needed out of all the raw mutations.
Are you saying that these 100 mutations are happening in one organism? How big of a population are these billions of mutations happening?

If these mutations are happening in 100 different organisms then how you have to answer the question of how many generations would they need to converge into one organism or a group of organisms.



Most mutations in humans today are harmful.
Actually, most don't do much of anything good or bad.

That is what the cited article.
You were misled about that. For example, wild varieties of wheat shatter. That is, the ripened grain just falls from the stalk. Then sometime a few thousand years ago, a mutation caused the grains to stay on the stalk, simplifying harvesting. In very little time, that mutation spread everywhere.
So how many generations did it take for that to happen?

Dairying is a good way to convert grass and other (to humans) indigestible matter into food. But adult humans can't process lactose; the gene turns off when a person matures. Or used to. But perhaps 10,000 years ago, a mutation kept lactase genes functioning into adulthood, making milk a useful food. It spread rapidly over the world with dairying practices.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048992/
How many generations did that take to move through the population.

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 #13

Post by The Barbarian »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 11:51 am [Replying to The Barbarian in post #11]
Since the article you linked admitted that there are about 100 mutations per human that's not much of a challenge. There are billions of them per generation. Only a few are useful enough to spread into the general population. Aparently, about one in 2.5 million. Not too many needed out of all the raw mutations.
Are you saying that these 100 mutations are happening in one organism?
Every one of us has about 100 mutations that were present in neither of our parents. That's what your article said. It's true.
How big of a population are these billions of mutations happening?
If there are say, ten million people, then one billion mutations per generation. You said...
That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.
No problem. Even with just 10 million people, youi'd have a billion per generation. Easy.
Most mutations in humans today are harmful.
Actually, most don't do much of anything good or bad.
That is what the cited article.
It said "might be." You just assumed.
You were misled about that. For example, wild varieties of wheat shatter. That is, the ripened grain just falls from the stalk. Then sometime a few thousand years ago, a mutation caused the grains to stay on the stalk, simplifying harvesting. In very little time, that mutation spread everywhere.
So how many generations did it take for that to happen?
Looks like less than five mutations at most. So five maybe. From the archaeological evidence, it happened very quickly.

Dairying is a good way to convert grass and other (to humans) indigestible matter into food. But adult humans can't process lactose; the gene turns off when a person matures. Or used to. But perhaps 10,000 years ago, a mutation kept lactase genes functioning into adulthood, making milk a useful food. It spread rapidly over the world with dairying practices.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3048992/
How many generations did that take to move through the population.
According to geneticist Luigi Cvalli-Sforza, a short time in terms of human time on Earth. Would you like me to look it up for you?

Ahhh...

Am J Hum Genet. 2004 Jun;74
Genetic signatures of strong recent positive selection at the lactase gene
We estimate that strong selection occurred within the past 5,000-10,000 years, consistent with an advantage to lactase persistence in the setting of dairy farming; the signals of selection we observe are among the strongest yet seen for any gene in the genome.

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

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #14

Post by Purple Knight »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Dec 14, 2021 4:14 pm [Replying to Purple Knight in post #1]

Evolution is Crazy.

There are 3.5E9 nucleotide sites. So a 1 percent difference would mean 3.5E7 nucleotide changes would have to take place over 6 million years. That means that there would have to have been 116 new mutations every generation.

Most mutations in humans today are harmful. https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sc ... ly-harmful

So for someone to believe in evolution they must have faith that in the past they were not mostly harmful.
What I believe to be the case is that most mutations are harmful, but that two steps back (or three, or a dozen) can eventually complete the chain to something beneficial. So this solves two common objections with one stone: The many many more harmful than helpful mutations, and the puzzling map that seems to say there's no path from state A to state B because most of the mutations on the way would be harmful. My answer is that yes, they are harmful, and harmful traits remain in the population for a while unless it's under stress.

But I do think there's an element of faith, or something functionally identical to faith. I didn't see this happen, but because of my education and my career as an animal breeder, I believe it did.

Everything someone didn't see happen but believes anyway has some element of what might as well be faith. Macroevolution happens to be something nobody saw happen, and is difficult to believe. Usually if something is difficult to believe, proof that can be seen is needed to overcome incredulity, which I think is natural. This is a special case because we live such short lives on an evolutionary timescale.

I think admitting evolution requires a great deal of credulity or a great deal of evidence is a good first step.

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #15

Post by JoeyKnothead »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:10 pm ...
But I do think there's an element of faith, or something functionally identical to faith. I didn't see this happen, but because of my education and my career as an animal breeder, I believe it did.

Everything someone didn't see happen but believes anyway has some element of what might as well be faith. Macroevolution happens to be something nobody saw happen, and is difficult to believe. Usually if something is difficult to believe, proof that can be seen is needed to overcome incredulity, which I think is natural. This is a special case because we live such short lives on an evolutionary timescale.

I think admitting evolution requires a great deal of credulity or a great deal of evidence is a good first step.
Plenty fair. As an amateur proponent of evolutionary theory, I must respect that it comes down to reasonable and logical conclusions.

I can't prove humans are derived from earlier apeual forms. I just can't. What I can say though, is there's an irrefutable similarity, and work from there.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

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 #16

Post by The Barbarian »

Purple Knight wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 8:10 pm What I believe to be the case is that most mutations are harmful,
The most commonly observed mutations detectable as variation in the genetic makeup of organisms and populations appear to have no visible effect on the fitness of individuals and are therefore neutral. …

https://rehabilitationrobotics.net/are- ... s-neutral/
but that two steps back (or three, or a dozen) can eventually complete the chain to something beneficial.
This is called "epistasis"and can make a functionally neutral gene or genes useful or harmful. It's sort of a wild card in genetics, but is an observable phenomenon. Recombination from mutations in a population can produce this effect.
So this solves two common objections with one stone: The many many more harmful than helpful mutations, and the puzzling map that seems to say there's no path from state A to state B because most of the mutations on the way would be harmful. My answer is that yes, they are harmful, and harmful traits remain in the population for a while unless it's under stress.
They could be recessives, for example. And keep in mind, "useful" and "harmful" only have meaning in terms of environment. If the environment changes, so will the selective value of genes.

Sheila D
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #17

Post by Sheila D »

I have studied the theory of evolution, I have studied the origin of life on Earth, I have studied the big bang theory and other theories concerning the origin of the universe. I have had discussions with others concerning those theories - so no I did not stop - there I answered the question the way it was asked "at first glance." Thank you for your input - all of the above-mentioned I have formed my beliefs.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6892 times
Been thanked: 3244 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #18

Post by brunumb »

Sheila D wrote: Thu Dec 23, 2021 11:14 am I have studied the theory of evolution, I have studied the origin of life on Earth, I have studied the big bang theory and other theories concerning the origin of the universe.
Despite all that you could still write something like this:
Those organisms was smart - smart enough to develop brains to think, eyes to see, ears to hear, ways to except and devour food, pass out that which is not needed and so much more about all the physical bodies of all the creatures. And the need for male and female to reproduce without the same degree of evolution. Why not just keep evolving?
Learning is not necessarily a guaranteed outcome of studying.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Sheila D
Student
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2021 6:29 am
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 2 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #19

Post by Sheila D »

[Replying to brunumb in post #18]

Not a very bright way of calling me stupid - well there are a lot of smart people who don't believe in the theory of evolution - as I said I've done studies and people ask those very same questions.

Some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-americans ... ution.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/ ... -evolution

https://www.aaas.org/part-i-i-dont-believe-evolution
https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ion-2016-9

I LEARN _ I DON'T BELIEVE AS YOU _ GOOD BYE

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6892 times
Been thanked: 3244 times

Re: How Crazy does Evolution Seem?

Post #20

Post by brunumb »

Sheila D wrote: Fri Dec 24, 2021 5:56 pm Some scientists are even beginning to doubt Darwin's theory of evolution
https://www.discovery.org/v/darwin-dissenters-speak/

https://phys.org/news/2014-01-americans ... ution.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2012/ ... -evolution

https://www.aaas.org/part-i-i-dont-believe-evolution
https://www.businessinsider.com/christi ... ion-2016-9
I was hoping for something substantial in support of your view but all you presented were some personal opinions, argumentum ad populum, and the biased views of the Discovery Institute. When any of them actually refute the theory of evolution rather than just indulge in a lot of hand waving, then you might have a point.

Back to the questions posed, they amount to a straw man version of evolution critique since they demonstrate no understanding of the actual principles involved. Based on that, my conclusion regarding studying and learning seems perfectly valid.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

Post Reply