Monkeying with evolution

The Baltimore Sun ^ | July 24, 2008 | David P. Barash

[Soliton]

"My dear, let us hope that it isn't true!" the wife of the bishop of Worcester is reputed to have exclaimed 150 years ago, on hearing that human beings might be descended from apes. "But if it is true, let us hope that it doesn't become widely known!"

When it comes to sociobiology - better known these days as "evolutionary psychology" - the bishop's wife has modern counterparts: The religious right and the secular and supposedly scientific left are remarkably on the same page, both sides inclined to dispute or misrepresent the relevance of evolution to human beings. The former, of course, deny the underlying science. But what about the latter? They're secular, they're rational, they're tolerant, aren't they?

And there's the rub. For more than 30 years, left-leaning academics - notably residing in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences - have been strongly opposed to using evolutionary theory to help make sense of human behavior, in part because their professional training emphasizes the role of social learning and cultural traditions, and - perhaps even more - because they fear the possible findings. Do racial differences imply genetic distinctions that might argue against social equality? Are women fated for kitchen work and childbearing, not high-level physics? And even if the science is more nuanced than that (which it certainly is), will the simpler message drown out the details and provide ammunition for social regression?

[Coyoteman]

From the article:

And there's the rub. For more than 30 years, left-leaning academics - notably residing in the humanities and, to a lesser extent, the social sciences - have been strongly opposed to using evolutionary theory to help make sense of human behavior, in part because their professional training emphasizes the role of social learning and cultural traditions, and - perhaps even more - because they fear the possible findings.

Perhaps we need more rational, conservative academics.

Conservative does not necessarily mean theocon. There are a lot of other -cons, most of whom were already -cons when theocons were still voting Democratic.

[Soliton]

Conservative does not necessarily mean theocon

In this article it does however.

[Coyoteman]

Conservative does not necessarily mean theocon.

In this article it does however.

And moreso lately on this website as well.

[jimbobaby]

Perhaps we need more rational, conservative academics

Perhaps what we need is faith! We don't need science to protect creation. It takes faith not science. Just flush out that evolution garbage.

Besides, even with science it takes more faith to believe in that garbage than creation!

[Soliton]

Besides, even with science it takes more faith to believe in that garbage than creation!

I take it you live in a tree and live off of the land then? You probably just prayed that your words would appear on the screen since your hatred of science would prevent you from using one of its creations, the computer.

[Sherman Logan]

the disgraceful pseudoscience of The Bell Curve and its ilk, promoting the false claim that if any trait or tendency is "in the genes," there's nothing that society can do.

The author lost me here. The science of The Bell Curve has not been successfully challenged. And the book doesn't claim what the author says it does.

[Sherman Logan]

There are actually several pretty good evolutionary arguments against continued human evolution in advanced societies.

A couple:

1. We modify the environment to suit us, removing the pressure for us to adapt to the environment.

2. In modern societies, those who are least successful in that society’s terms tend to reproduce at a much higher rate than those who are most successful. If anything, this may be an example of anti-evolution. It’s difficult to envision this not having some impact over many generations.

[Coyoteman]

In modern societies, those who are least successful in that society’s terms tend to reproduce at a much higher rate than those who are most successful. If anything, this may be an example of anti-evolution. It’s difficult to envision this not having some impact over many generations.

I wouldn't try to stretch this argument too far.

The percentage of humans in a a high-tech environment is still not a majority. When you throw in full access to modern medicines that percentage drops considerably.

Part of evolution relies on diversity within a genome. I think what we are doing currently is stretching that range by allowing some who would not ordinarily survive in a primitive cultural state to do so.

If and when conditions change, having the widest range of variation will be beneficial as that increases the odds that at least some within the population will be adequately adapted and hence will survive.

Finally, your analogy to modern societies--what makes you think that those who are "the least successful" are not well adapted? Reproducing and having large families is a primary index of success in evolutionary terms. It is the ones who are highly successful who choose to have no children that are evolutionary dead ends.

[Soliton]

There are actually several pretty good evolutionary arguments against continued human evolution in advanced societies.

We also are able to keep even very ill people alive long enough for them to reproduce. I don't think there is any such thing as anti-evolution though. What you call anti-evolution is just plain old evolution.

[count-your-change]

Galileo's experience with the Catholic Church is brought up when an example is needed to illustrate the unscientific intolerance of deviation from the orthodoxy of the day.
Today the orthodoxy that claims it is the all embracing truth is the evolution doctrine in all it's expressions. Imagine the reaction in the houses of worship of learning and science to someone who dissents from that “beyond all doubt or question” doctrine of evolution. We need not imagine, they would first be branded with that dread epithet, “Creationist” and see their livelihood and reputation savaged.
Now perhaps if they recanted their heresy they might be allowed to be left alone so long as they remain silent.
The actors since the days of Galileo have changed in a bit of role reversal but the script is the same.
At least Galileo wasn't accused of corrupting the nation's youth.
The author says that various groups twist the theory of evolution to their needs. True enough but the author also fails to note that evolution is said to be random, undirected by intelligence, so who can say evolution would not produce a result that might be considered undesirable in the social context of today? And that despite individual responses to the amount of nature/nurture they receive.
What in evolutionary theory would make this unlikely or impossible?
“ But the fact that something has been misused in the past does not make it bad, or even untrue. Moreover, applying evolution to understanding ourselves offers, for example, a potentially powerful antidote to some of the things that the left fears the most: ethnocentrism and racism. That's because evolution emphasizes the underlying biological commonality shared by all members of the species Homo sapiens, regardless of superficial differences. As for sexism, doesn't that reside in differential valuing of the sexes, not in the struggle to understand them?”
Nor does it make it true. Evolution theory may emphasize “commonality” it does not emphasize equality, in fact it makes inequality justifiable on a genetic basis if not a social one.
Far from evolution theory being twisted into racism and ethnocentrism, these are simply the fruits of the poison tree, Evolution.

[Coyoteman]

At least Galileo wasn't accused of corrupting the nation's youth.

Galileo was a piker. See Darwin Central's motto for a comparison!

; - )

[LiteKeeper]

INTREP

[Soliton]

Far from evolution theory being twisted into racism and ethnocentrism, these are simply the fruits of the poison tree, Evolution.

The truth is just the truth. It isn't good or evil. It just is.

Before Hitler came for the Jews, the Church did. Beware of the log in your own eye!

[Soliton]

Soliton reporting for duty Sir!

[Dog Gone]

We don't need science to protect creation. It takes faith not science.

Wow.

You are scary.

[count-your-change]

And before that was the Babylonions. You’re poking at the wrong eye. What have I to do with “the Church”? I only set forth an example.

[count-your-change]

Uhhhhh...Yes. Chuck D. does not look happy.

[Soliton]

I only set forth an example.

If evolution was true would you accept it?

[count-your-change]

If its false will you reject it? What? You want verbal tic-tac-toe? Please!
If you want to call belief in evolution an expression of a faith in a process that has all the traits of an Omnipotent God except leave out the God part that I understand but truth is quite another matter.
Evolution argues that life arose by simple lifeless elements organizing themselves into complicated living organisms that were able to reproduce. Just a small step across a Grand Canyon of impossibility if you have enough faith....in a god called Evolution.