Evolution

Geoff: I have noticed that many people seem to misunderstand evolution. In fact some people positively demonise the whole process of natural selection.

This confuses me. Because if a pope sixty years ago can accept that evolution is a fact then why can't these IDers?

Anyway. My point is; how much to have to understand about evolution to accept it as the truth?

Djinnaya: Yes, Thor, Darwin's original theory is simple. But evolution has since developed into a complex topic, so I'm not surprised that many people have problems understanding it.

Darwin never understood the mechanisms of atavism and according to Stephen Jay Gould, the whole theory can only be saved if modified from "the evolution of single species" to "the evolution of whole eco-systems".

Nosferatu: ID is pretty much creationism in disguise. They are brewing up destruction and crafting clever ways to try and trick people into believing their evil ways. I seen them in their top hats with their mustaches concocting plans to try and destroy nature and science, but they fail time and time again almost like a cartoon plot.

Entropy: ID isn't creationism in disguise...it IS creationism.

PerpetualDreamer: First, I will say I am not a proponent of creationism. However, I have some knowledge of science and have in the past year looked into aspects of science that poke holes in Darwinism. Now perhaps, maybe it doesn't destroy Darwinism, exactly, but still.

Look at humans. We are learning and adapting, but we are not evolving. Devolving, perhaps. With every generation new additions of genetic-based problems grow in the general population. We are not getting stronger. Genetic/hereditary diseases are growing. I have never heard of genetic adaptations that prevents birth defects and various other genetic problems. With that in mind, it kinda tosses Darwin out on his ear. (Although some genetic problems will fade over generations.)

If I am wrong in this, I would love to hear it. Life according to Entropy is not all that pleasant.

Entropy: You are in deed very wrong. You need to take a look at life expectancy. You need to take a look at technological development. We are getting smarter, and because of this, we are living longer. As for evolving adaptations for diseases, there are populations of humans popping up whom are now immune to the HIV retro virus (that is not the only adaptation visible today). You are also a tad ignorant to the fact that evolution on a large scale will not occur unless some major incident kills off most of the population. There is no dire need for humans to evolve right now, and so, we aren't.

Nosferatu: Our brains have increased in capacity over the last couple hundred thousand years. Medical advances are one of the sole reasons we are living longer now. A couple hundred years ago there wasn't even anesthetics and it wasn't common to be missing a limb, teeth, fingers, an eye, etc. Look how far we've gone!

Geoff: WTF? What do you mean humans aren't evolving?

Do you think that in the short period of time where the sort of generational changes possible under evolution could be recorded that such macroscopic changes would have been made?

And to be honest Humanity is the one species on the planet capable of (consciously or not) shaping the direction of its evolution, simply through medical practices, I'm no advocate of eugenics.

I don't know anyone who disagrees with evolution who either doesn't understand it or has an ulterior motive.

PerpetualDreamer: I understand that humans live longer. Its not an aspect of evolution. Medical science is creating a lot of new survival techniques. As for immunities, 3% of the population are immune to HIV to begin with do to the shape of their sugar markers. (3% of the population is immune to any given natural disease.) The ones gaining the immunity now (from what I have read) are in high hit areas and occupations in Africa. That is a long way from a long term immunity like Sickle Cell Anemia for Malaria. Though Sickle Cell is a rather horrible solution for Malaria.

I am not talking about higher intelligence or disease immunology. I am looking at higher instances of physical and psychological genetic/hereditary problems that are not curable. Its a matter of genetics. Genetics may adapt, but not quick enough. Short of a X-Men movie type of genetic evolutionary shift (not talking mutants but time frame) we are in for even more serious problems.

Entropy: The genetic variation in our human population IS evolution. If a huge catastrophe were to occur, say, HIV broke out as a global epidemic, then you would see evolution occur. That 3% of the population would all of a sudden represent the entire population. This is how evolution operates.

Like I said, unless there is a need for change, you will not see the change. Until you understand this basic concept of Darwinian evolution, there is no room for intelligent conversation here. Enroll in a plant and animal cellular biology in college, and then come back and attempt a conversation.

As far as genetics are concerned, the fact that we are living longer is proof that our medical advancements are keeping up with disease. What are you looking for? That each human can live forever? Diseases will continue to evolve, but so will our immune systems. Did you know that our immune system contains antibodies for other 100,000 different kinds of antigens that don't even exist on Earth? We evolved WITH these diseases, so the human genome has some protection against them. As our knowledge of such things increase, our control will grow stronger. Not 100%, but enough for us to survive. Don't worry your little head about it.

PS- sickle cell anemia is curable now.

PerpetualDreamer: Sickle Cell Anemia is Nature's cure for Malaria. I think you missed something. And I will point out that I have taken college courses in biology. I am not lacking the basic education to have an opinion on evolution.

Part of my views on evolution is related scientific information. The theory that humans evolved from apes makes some sense (do to genetic similarities,) but it still has gaps. In addition to those gaps are little things like domestic plants. Not all domestic plants have an explainable wild version. And to make matters worse, current science cannot make wild plants like wheat, for example, domestic. So how did neolithic man do it?

The reason this matters in the issue of evolution is that it opens more holes in archaeological history and asks questions most do not want to deal with.

I have a major problem with current mainstream explanations of human evolution. Currently, science has too many holes. The fact that people hold firm to old beliefs without considering all the research speaks volumes. Its geocentric vs. heliocentric all over again. And this time, mathematics are not going to solve the problem for us.

Geoff: WHAT!

Humanity did not evolve from apes! How many times does this have to be said before it sinks in!

Humanity and apes co-evolved from a common ancestor. FFS! And the evidence is compelling. Not only genetic, physiologic and fossil evidence but social and psychological as well. Humans act like intelligent apes (well most of us), especially when acting on instinct or in social situations.

Entropy: Firstly Perp, you can't fool me for one second with your claim that you have been taught evolution by a credible professor in school. You do not understand how evolution works, which is evident by your posts on the topic. There is nothing I hate more than a person who pretends to be something they are not. It drags a lot of feeble minds down with them.

Next, archaeological records don't mean a whole lot in terms of disproving theories. Less than 1% of all organic matter turn into fossils when they die. Conditions have to be perfect for that process, and in most cases it is not. So of course there are gaps, but you don't have to take the evolutionary tree as law. I don't either. Regardless, it does not disprove the theory.

So science is just too fragmented for you to be comfortable with it? How sad for you. What is your point with that, by the way? Science is a STUDY. The word "study" implies that it is incomplete. Our knowledge is limited because our intellect is limited, but the things we do know about science have produced some pretty cool results. That computer you are typing on, for instance. You speak of science as if it is a religion... all unproven, a leap of faith. It isn't. The goal of science is not only to understand, but to APPLY it to our lives in order to improve the quality of said lives. Airplanes, cars, CAT scans, internet, aspirin, pianos, rain coats, waffle makers... science, science, science, SCIENCE. This isn't like praying to god and having to make up evidence for his existence in your life, this is technology only made possible through the study of science. So while you stamp your feet saying it is just too complicated for you, consider this: you are not a scientist, nor do you understand a fraction of what they do. Don't you think your lack of education and understand would produce FAR more holes than what really exist? The correct answer is yes.

If you don't like science, then don't play with it. If you simply want to be a critic of scientific theories, then fine, all scientists are critics, but get some education on the topics first.

Geoff: I think that is the problem Entropy. Although evolution is a cogent theory, we don't have all the details of every species' ancestral history.

And in some opinions, that's bad. They like everything set out in intricate detail. Even if some of those details contradict others.

Entropy: Well, it would be bad if we claimed that the evolutionary tree was fact. But that is the "theory" part of evolution. It isn't fact, because we can't prove that the tree is correct as it stands. It is fine if people question the tree.

Evolution in of itself is not theory, it IS fact. The mechanism is proven as it can be observed every day. That is not up for question. The only people who try to disprove that are the equivalent of people who don't "believe" in gravity. You can question is, but it makes you look like a moron.

Geoff: No, it is not still a theory, although it was. the trouble is most people without a scientific background equate the word 'Theory' with 'Something someone made up'

They are thinking of a hypothesis. Gravitation was also a theory. It is a set of general rules governing a field of scientific study which is supported by experiment and evidence.

The process of evolution by now is sufficiently supported by evidence to be classified as a scientific Law.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm for an excellent definition of scientific terminology.

Entropy: I know. I am saying that the evolutionary tree is left to question, its kind of like scientists best guess.

Outbackjack: I believe in evolution but allow me to throw a spanner in the works.

The missing link.

From neanderthal to homosapiens is a jump of about 12 chromosomes I think.

Therefore are they not two entirely different species?

knock yourselves out

Geoff: Hyxy Sapiens Sapiens (the correct Latin term for modern Humans) did not evolve from Neanderthals. Neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end, a branch of the Homonid tree which died out as they could not compete with the Cro Magnons encroaching on their territory and lost out.

There is some debate about the possibility of Neanderthals and Cro Magnons cross-breeding (as it were) however evidence in favour of this is debatable.

Outbackjack: There is no doubt that neanderthals were an evolutionary dead end.
With all our science we still cant find the real answer of where we evolved from.

Serabi: Sickle Cell Aneamia curable now?

What is the outlook (prognosis) for patients with sickle cell anemia?

The life expectancy of persons with sickle cell anemia is reduced. Some patients, however, can remain without symptoms for years, while others do not survive infancy or early childhood. Nevertheless, with optimal management patients can now survive beyond the fourth decade.

Most patients suffer intermittent pain crises, fatigue, bacterial infections, and progressive tissue and organ damage. Impaired growth and development is the end result of the physical and emotional trauma that is endured by children with sickle cell anemia.

Causes of death include bacterial infection (the most common cause), stroke or bleeding into the brain, and kidney, heart, or liver failure. The risk of bacterial infections does diminish after three years of age. Nevertheless, bacterial infections are the most common cause of death at any age. Therefore, any signs of infection in a person with sickle cell anemia must be reviewed with a doctor to prevent damage and save lives.

Interestingly, the sickle cell gene somewhat protects against malaria infection. This makes those with sickle cell trait (gene carriers) at least partially resistant to malaria. Furthermore, the geographic distribution of the sickle cell gene is similar to that of malaria infection. Sickle cell anemia is a lethal condition that threatens life. But there may be a selective advantage to being a sickle cell carrier (trait) if the person resides in an area of the world where malaria is very common. The advantage a person with sickle cell trait has over a non-carrier of the gene may explain why sickle cell anemia did not disappear from the world even though it is lethal.

The sickle cell gene is not a "black gene." It just happens to disproportionately occur in the black population. When a black person who carries a sickle cell gene has children with a non-black person, the children may inherit the sickle cell gene regardless of their color. There are also non-black persons who carry the sickle cell gene.

Recent research is examining further ways to promote the development of the fetal hemoglobin that delays the development of sickle cell in the newborn. Bone marrow transplantation is being used for patients with severe sickle cell anemia who have a genetically identical sibling that can offer the transplant marrow. Future treatments may involve genetic engineering where cures might be achieved.

Finally, genetic counseling can be helpful for parents and families to prevent sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is an inherited illness. Both parents must be carriers of the sickle cell gene for a child to be affected with sickle cell anemia. If each parent is a carrier, any child has a one chance in two (50%) of also being a carrier and a one in four (25%) chance of inheriting both genes from the parents and being affected with sickle cell anemia.

Maybe the mosquitoes sense it and do not want to drink 'tainted' blood,

PerpetualDreamer: Albeit a small error in a previous post does not change the basis of my argument. An insect in a forest where the trees have changed bark colors, because of an environmental factor, may change color to accommodate in order to survive. The solution would have to come with the bark change. Why do humans not "evolve" within their ecosystem? Blindness, deafness, asthma, and various other problems continue and/or increase, but are not advantageous to survival. Where is the potential advantage for the increase in asthma? How about the increase in autism? People are living longer, and with diverse problems, because of advances in science. Without medical treatment available, the life span would revert to previous centuries.

Entropy: Evolution doesnt happen like you say. Populations evolve, individuals do not. An individual bug in a forest could not change its color to adapt. The bug population would most likely carry enough variation in color to accommodate the change in forestry. All of the poorly colored bugs of that species would die, and the properly colored bugs would survive and reproduce. You would see the population shift from one color to the other through natural selection.

Diseases are just another part of evolution. There are good variations and there are bad ones. The key is that they happen RANDOMLY. Evolution is not a cognitive working force... it just throws genes in a box, shakes them together and sees what happens. If the variation is beneficial, the individual survives. If it isnt, it dies. The end.

PerpetualDreamer: There have been instances of species drastically changing color, and other adaptations, to accommodate environmental changes. Why do humans not changes (as a group) to accommodate for environmental changes? Originally, humans were adapted to their environment. Some humans have cold adaption (which gives them larger brains) and some with heat adaption which does not require somewhat large brains. But I have yet to hear of subsequent changes to brain size do to climate changes, or populations relocating.

Where is the advantageous potential to human changes to environment. Asthma, for example. This is a condition that has been linked with a number of environmental factors, both natural and other. It, and allergies, have been linked to the increase in antibacterial usage. How is that beneficial?

Where are the adaptations for pollution, diseases, ect? Why, instead of adaptations, are hereditary, and contagious, diseases increasing? Cancer has been around for a long time, and yet we have not adapted to internally combat it.

Entropy: No animal changes in a single lifetime. If they do, then you are referring to things with the genetic ability to change color, like chameleons, anoles, octopus, etc. You do not understand the mechanism of evolution. Please read the first post to this topic and learn from it before posting these bad queries.

No one said Asthma was beneficial... and evolution is not driving to MAKE beneficial variations. It is simply to make changes, period.

PerpetualDreamer: The point of evolution versus de-evolution is the belief that natural selection is the survival of beneficial adaptions. Animals that adapt to their environment survive. Animals that do not adapt do not survive. Therefore, why, if Darwanism is correct, are humans not adapting as a species to conditions that have killed them for a long time?