The flaws of evolution

[Gothmog]

@Sir John, I would respond to you in more detail but your post is mostly unintelligible.

What makes you think we are no longer evolving?

If you will define species for me I will try to give you examples of when it has been observed.

Where does this 'get it at the same time' idea come from? Is this something they teach in church? It has no basis in the science supporting the ToE.

finns or swimming feet? heh.

 

[Sir John]

I didnt say we were no longer evolving.. I just asked for an exampel that we were...

What u mean with defince species?? Species is species.. its really no way of defining it..

Well, if just one gets it the genes will have a large chanse of diminishing.. they will eventually dissapear because theyre "filtered" out... if two gets it they will have a better chanse of speciment breedeing with someone who has the gene so it wont go away.. again this is highly unlikley...

 

[gael]

Quote Gothmog
'Either way there is no reason to suspect that ‘bleached skin’ is associated with lessened aerobic ability.'

Who said that?

The further north you go from Africia the colder the climate gets and the lighter the skin tone people have.
I don't know much about the diet of early man from region to region, but I'm pretty sure cereal diets would not have been in abundance at the dawn of modern man. Not in such a way that it would become a dominant food source and would cause enough disease that would alter our genes.
Early man depended on livestock and meat as his main food source. Were did they get all this cereal from?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by Sir John
What u mean with defince species?? Species is species.. its really no way of defining it..

Humans are generally getting taller and less hairy.

Well, if just one gets it the genes will have a large chanse of diminishing.. they will eventually dissapear because theyre "filtered" out... if two gets it they will have a better chanse of speciment breedeing with someone who has the gene so it wont go away.. again this is highly unlikley...

I already made a comment about this - they won't be filtered out because a better animal will breed more.

 

[Gothmog]

@gail - the quote about aerobic ability was from gingerbread man. I didn't mean to imply that you had said that - just that that was the comment that prompted me to bring up this topic.

It is my understanding that it wasn't so long ago that everyone had dark skin. It was when agriculture became abundant that cereal diets became prevalent and thus ricket became a powerful force in evolution. There may be a trade off w/death by skin cancer (or there may be other benefits to dark skin that I don't know about - or other problems with the bleached skin associated genes) to explain the latitudinal distribution of skin color. It is also possible that patterns of migration explain the skin color distribution (quite likely in my estimation). I do know that there are dark skinned people who are 'native' to Australia, New Zealand, South America, South Africa and Siberia, all of which are far from the equator.

What evidence do you have to support the theory that climate is related to skin color?

If you are really interested I suggest you search for 'rickets' or 'melatonin' along with Cavalli-Sforza.


@Sir John: first I must complement you on your English. I didn’t mean to imply that I was holding your language against you. Still…

We are evolving in that our gene pool is changing. Here is an example - The Yersinia (Black Plague) is a bacterium with a preference for individuals of specific ABO group, in this case, group O. The effects of ABO blood group on survival against most forms of epidemic illness is so distinct that a modern day map of the ABO blood group distribution in Europe closely parallels the locations of major epidemics, with higher densities of blood group A and lower frequencies of blood group O in areas historically known to have had long histories of repeated pandemics. On the other hand, in pre-urbanization days the survival advantage would have laid with blood group O as they are known to be more resistant to the flukes and worms that routinely parasitized these early humans, probably because they are the only blood group with antibodies against two other antigens, A and B. These changes are reflected in the local success or failure of each of the blood groups, which appear to have each had a moment of pre-eminence at a critical juncture in our history.

Will that do? If not you need to be more specific about what you mean by ‘evolve’.

“Species is species.. its really no way of defining it.”

Yes, well maybe you should look into it. In the case of modern agriculture it is quite easy to list a large number of plants that can no longer breed together – though they started out from the same ancestor less than 2000 years ago. That is one definition – ability to breed together as a group. Will that do?

Again, where did this ‘filtered out’ argument originate? I have heard it from a number of different sources. I addressed this question in my post on Jul 28, 2003 09:53 AM as my answer to the Third question posed in the first post of this thread. Let me know if you want more detail.

 

[gael]

Gothmog:
I've know evidence, its just something I thought made sense.
When i said further North from Africia I just mean't the colder climates of europe were white skin evolved.
It could be a change in diet, or even a combination of both.
I can't argue for or against any of them, I'm pretty ignorant about both.

 

[Gothmog]

Yes, it's funny how things that seem to make sense turn out to be wrong on furthur analysis. I actually posted Cavalli-Sforza's theory because I think many people share that misconception.

It seems that the reduction in vitamin D from sunlight at the higher latitudes (there's more sunlight at lower latitudes), combined with the cereal diet to produce a high incidence of rickets in europe. Thus if you had 'bleached skin' you were able to produce more vitamin D from the sun and less likely to die of rickets before you were able to reproduce. Makes alot of sense to me.

 

[skywalker]

I've read through this thread, and a lot of what's in it is completely missing the point.

Several reasons why evolution is correct:

1. It is tautological.

Evolution is tautologically true. The fittest survive to produce fit offspring. Fitness is defined recursively. Can you prove to me that in fact the fittest don't survive to produce fit offspring? It's impossible, because then those ones wouldn't be the fittest.

2. It has been observed.

(Note: I'm spitting this out from memory; it was in our Bio textbook.) In the 1800's in England there was a moth that was mostly white - there were only a few black moths. However, during industrialization, the soot covered a lot of its habitat - trees, etc. In a few years there were virtually no white moths, but there were a lot of black moths. Later, in the 1900's when pollution controls were established, the white moths began reappearing, especially in areas that had been significantly cleaned up. That was evolution at work.

3. Macroevolution is simply microevolution over a long period of time.

No lizard would ever suddenly give birth to a snake. However, say you had a small population of lizards that got cut off from the main population. They lived next to a river, where there was a lot of slick mud. Now, say one lizard had a mutation that made it behaved a bit oddly - it didn't use it's legs much, but sort of wiggled back and forth. It was able to move around in the slick mud a lot easier this way. It was pretty successful, and had lots of baby screwed-up lizards. Eventually the trait spread through the entire small population. Now, lizards that had long tails tended to be better at this, because it gave them more wiggling force. Gradually, the tails grew longer and longer and slimmer and more muscled over the generations. Later, a more serious birth defect occured - there was a lizard missing its hind legs. However, with them out of the way, it could wiggle around a lot faster. Just with the strange behavior, this mutation was successful and the lizard had many offspring, which over a few generations spread their genes throughout the small population. Finally, another defect occured - missing the front legs. Again, it made wiggling easier and was successful. Remember, this all happens over the course of hundreds or thousands of generations. By the time the two lizard populations come in contact again, they are extremely different.

 

[highstreet]

This thread reminds me of something that I read in that book Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He has this theory that today's primitive tribes (or those peoples who had been primitive up to recent times), like, for example New Guineans, are smarter than people born into older civilizations.

His argument is that in our society the only thing we are selected for is resistance to dissease. We are, after all, the descendants of the survivors of many plagues throughout history, and, indeed, the only thing keeping us from reproducing in our society (baring accidents) is sucumbing to some sort of childhood illness. If you survive that, chances are pretty good you'll be able to reproduce.

On the other hand, people who've lived in primitive societies have continued to be selected for intelligence, physical traits, etc. Pretty interesting theory, don't you think?

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by highstreet
This thread reminds me of something that I read in that book Guns Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond. He has this theory that today's primitive tribes (or those peoples who had been primitive up to recent times), like, for example New Guineans, are smarter than people born into older civilizations.

His argument is that in our society the only thing we are selected for is resistance to dissease. We are, after all, the descendants of the survivors of many plagues throughout history, and, indeed, the only thing keeping us from reproducing in our society (baring accidents) is sucumbing to some sort of childhood illness. If you survive that, chances are pretty good you'll be able to reproduce.

On the other hand, people who've lived in primitive societies have continued to be selected for intelligence, physical traits, etc. Pretty interesting theory, don't you think?

On the contrary - in modern society, with modern medicine, people need even less oritection from disease. It's true that in many ways evolution isn't fitting with modern human way of life, but still extremely stupid people aren't as likely to get married as smart people. In primitive societies those who survive still reproduce but they survive because of physical characteristics, including resistance to illnesses, and nearly not at all because of being smart.

 

[highstreet]

Originally posted by G-Man


but still extremely stupid people aren't as likely to get married as smart people.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. First, it's not marriage we should be focusing on, but reproducing. Second, I have noticed from life experience that smarter people tend to go to college and university, and maybe have one or two kids when their career permits, and not so smart people tend to drop out of high-school and have kids.

Now, I know, this is a gross over-generalization, and there are many many exceptions both ways, but it at least serves to illustrate that 'stupid' people reproduce just as much in our society.

 

[gael]

If primitive tribes are still primitive how can they be smarter? If anything they don't represent ancient mankind, they just have similiar practices than our ancestors.
They've been side tracked and stunted in thier development. They exist in a limbo, not going backwards or fowards, while the rest of the world races on foward.

People in modern societies chose a mate for all the same reasons you mentioned, intelligence, physical traits, etc that usually are similar or complement their own.

If stephen hawkins was part of a primitive tribe, he'd probably already be dead. If not they would be spoon feeding him mush completly unaware of the mind that he has.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by highstreet
Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. First, it's not marriage we should be focusing on, but reproducing. Second, I have noticed from life experience that smarter people tend to go to college and university, and maybe have one or two kids when their career permits, and not so smart people tend to drop out of high-school and have kids.

Now, I know, this is a gross over-generalization, and there are many many exceptions both ways, but it at least serves to illustrate that 'stupid' people reproduce just as much in our society.

Many of these high school drop outs are such because of social rather than genetic reasons. And from those I know, really stupid one aren't very successful with women. Also, remember that smarter people are usually richer which gives them an advantage in medical treatment. They're less likely to die before having all the children they want and they have a significantly greater chance of being able to reproduce. Their children will also probably live in a healthier and safer environment and therefore have a greater chance of reaching maturity.

 

[highstreet]

Primitive tribes are primitive because of geopolitics. Their environment didn't provide the low-labour high-nutrition grains of other areas, nor animals which were domesticable, etc. and also isolated them from the more advanced civilizations with whom they may have been able to trade ideas and goods.

As for how he maintains that they're smarter is because in our society any person will be caught by some safety net, and thus be able to squeeze out enough substenance to reproduce. In more primitive societies, you gotta know how to catch it, find it, discern it from the poisonous ones, make it yourself, etc.

 

[Pongui]

G-Man.

Just popping out babies doesn't cut it. They must go on to rear offspring of their own, and so on.

 

[highstreet]

Originally posted by G-Man


Many of these high school drop outs are such because of social rather than genetic reasons. And from those I know, really stupid one aren't very successful with women. Also, remember that smarter people are usually richer which gives them an advantage in medical treatment. They're less likely to die before having all the children they want and they have a significantly greater chance of being able to reproduce. Their children will also probably live in a healthier and safer environment and therefore have a greater chance of reaching maturity.

There are just as many unintelligent women as men, you know.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by highstreet
There are just as many unintelligent women as men, you know.

And they usually go together... Leading to poor families that have fewer chances of raising their children.

 

[highstreet]

Originally posted by G-Man


And they usually go together... Leading to poor families that have fewer chances of raising their children.

For centuries we had plagues that took down people without discriminating by class, intelligence, looks or anything, really, except immunity. Where was the selection for intelligence then? If you were a genius and died along with your whole family, guess what? Your line died too. If, you were the village idiot and had immunity, your offspring now fill the village.

That isn't as relevant anymore, I know. But it was at work for centuries. It now works differently, but to the same end. Over here in Canada we have something called welfare. If you are a drop out with five kids, none will starve and all will get health-care, and all have a good chance of reproducing.

If you are a yuppie, sometimes your career gets in the way and you have one or two kids. So, intelligence is not really a guarantee that you'll outbreed in our society.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by Ado
(Fanks, spellink whas neva a specaltie)

Exactly my point though, evolution will not now give you a snake-like creature genetically identical (or close enough to qualify what I think you mean) to a current snake. The only way to do this would be to begin with the ancient origin for snakes and try to follow the same evolutionary path.

After all, rattlesnakes and taipans are genetically different, just as humans and mosquitoes are - they are just closer together, they share a common ancestor.

yup. agree there. they are of the same "snake" species.

Convergent evolution is observable, where animals from very different origins have evolved similar traits in order to survive the best, given the environment. Dolphins are not fish, but they have fish-like features. John Howard is not human, but has human traits (couldn't resist, sorry...).

Human traits? Must've missed those

The horse/donkey (zebra) issue is a classic one. Generally donkeys and horses would not mate in the wild, that in itself enough to satisfy some definitions of species. The claim is that both shared a common ancestor before either or both deviated to fill a particular environmental niche to the point that the combination of gametes can spit out a viable offspring, but that offspring cannot reproduce.

not sure about the common ancestor, but again, it's not my area of expertise

If we say for the discussion that horses are identical to the ancient ancestor and donkeys were the ones to split, you could theoretically (over a long period) re-create the speciation of the donkey by exerting the same environmental pressures on a group of horses where donkey-like traits offer the better chance of survival. You don't breed different species to create a new one, you change the conditions that define survival.

but in this case, its still not a different species. The horse hasn't turned into a snake (yet) Now if the donkeys were living near a river where it was muddy, and one evolved that used his belly and wiggled to move...

The anti-evolutionists often point to the wording or the definitions coming from science, but these come from us, from humans. The sky is blue - if I lacked the correct words to convey this it would not change the fact that the sky is blue.

but that's more a misunderstanding of what each group is talking about rather than concrete arguments.

Originally posted by G-Man
As to children by two family members, it's a completely differnet issue that has nothing to do with good or bad genes.

yes it does. if both are family members then they have a much higher chance of sharing a recessive gene, therefore a much higher chance that it can be reproduced.

Originally posted by Gothmog
I do know that there are dark skinned people who are 'native' to Australia, New Zealand, South America, South Africa and Siberia, all of which are far from the equator.

well they weren't actually native to australia. they came from asia originally (a long time ago). And we have tropical areas here, we aren't THAT far from the equator (says he, living in canberra )

Originally posted by G-Man
It's true that in many ways evolution isn't fitting with modern human way of life, but still extremely stupid people aren't as likely to get married as smart people.

Originally posted by highstreet


Sorry, but I have to disagree with that. First, it's not marriage we should be focusing on, but reproducing. Second, I have noticed from life experience that smarter people tend to go to college and university, and maybe have one or two kids when their career permits, and not so smart people tend to drop out of high-school and have kids.

They often drop out and have a lot of kids too. Generally wealthier people will have less kids.

 

[G-Man]

Originally posted by highstreet
For centuries we had plagues that took down people without discriminating by class, intelligence, looks or anything, really, except immunity. Where was the selection for intelligence then? If you were a genius and died along with your whole family, guess what? Your line died too. If, you were the village idiot and had immunity, your offspring now fill the village.

True, but if you were rich you were likely having better sanitation and better medical care, who reduced your chances of dieing. This survival chance gap between rich and poor had become much greater in the last two centuries with the advancment of medicine, but it existed before as well. Also, back then the genius was usually an important employee of the king/local ruler and therefore was more likely than less intelligent people to get married.

That isn't as relevant anymore, I know. But it was at work for centuries. It now works differently, but to the same end. Over here in Canada we have something called welfare. If you are a drop out with five kids, none will starve and all will get health-care, and all have a good chance of reproducing.

Socialism wasn't ment for smart people And although they won't starve to death, they'll have a significantly greater chance of dieing. In Israel every few weeks or months we hear about a poor family trying to collect money for organ transplants, etc. They don't always manage to do this.

If you are a yuppie, sometimes your career gets in the way and you have one or two kids. So, intelligence is not really a guarantee that you'll outbreed in our society.

You might have one or two kids, but it's nearly certain both will also have families and a good job, etc. Also, the industrial revolution has changed the world significantly, in this issue as well. It's results still haven't been determined completely. With time the gap between rich and poor will grow, with time children of richer people will need to work less, etc.