Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Thinking In Lockstep (Evolution)
www.fredoneverything.net ^ | 3/3/4 | Fred Reed

Posted on 03/02/2004 7:32:26 PM PST by teldon30

Oh help. The religious orthodoxy that impedes discussion of biological evolution continues with its accustomed dreadful tenacity. I’m going to hide in Tierra del Fuego.

One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory. A physicist who doubts, say, the theory of general relativity will be expected to show good cause for his doubt. He won’t be dismissed in chorus as delusional and an enemy of truth.

By contrast, he who doubts the divinity of Christ, the prophethood of Mohammed, or the sanctity of natural selection will be savaged. It is the classic emotional reaction of the True Believer to whom dissent is not just wrong but intolerable. Which is unfortunate. If the faithful of evolution spent as much time examining their theory as they do defending it, they might prove to be right, or partly right, or discover all manner of interesting things heretofore unsuspected.

Among the articles of faith: Life evolved from the primeval soup (sheer conjecture; the existence of the soup is inferred from the theory); evolution occurred, as distinct from change; accounting for all characteristics of life (mere assertion); natural selection being the driving force (unestablished). Many of these points are logically separable. Since evolution serves the purposes of a religion, namely to explain human origin and destiny, they are invariably bundled.

A few questions:

It is asserted, though not demonstrated, that point mutations caused by, say, cosmic rays sometimes give an animal a slight advantage over others of its species, and that these advantages accumulate over countless generations and lead to major changes. Demonstrable fact, or plausible conjecture? I note that metaphysical plausibility often substitutes for evidence in matters evolutionary. The approach ignores hard questions, such as whether tiny advantages, if engendered at all, rise above the noise level, or what that level might be.

At any rate, the idea is that slight selective pressure (operational definition, please? Units?) over enough time produces major changes. The idea is appealingly plausible. But, for example:

(1) A fair number of people are deathly allergic to bee stings, going into anaphylactic shock and dying. In any but a protected urban setting, children are virtually certain to be stung many times before reaching puberty. Assured death before reproduction would seem a robust variety of selective pressure.

Yet the allergic haven’t been eliminated from the population. Why is it that miniscule, unobserved mutations over vast stretches of time can produce major changes, while an extraordinarily powerful, observable selective pressure doesn’t? The same reasoning applies to a long list of genetic diseases that kill children before they reach adulthood. (Yes, I too can imagine plausible explanations. Plausibility isn’t evidence.)

(2) Homosexuality in males works strongly against reproduction. Why have the genetic traits predisposing to homosexuality not been eliminated long ago?

(3) Pain serves to warn an animal that it is being injured, or to make it favor, say, a wounded leg so that it can heal. Fair enough. But then why did we evolve the nerves that produce the agony of kidney stones—about which an animal can do absolutely nothing?

(4) There are at least two ways in which a species might change over time. One is the (postulated) accumulation over very long periods of mutations. Maybe.

The other is the concentration of existing traits by selective breeding, which is nothing but deliberate natural selection. The latter is demonstrable, and can happen within a few generations. If a breed of dog has weak hips, for example, the defect can be rectified by interbreeding those with better hips until good hips become the norm. About this there is no doubt. If natural selection occurs as advertised, this is where we would expect to see it.

Now, the genes exist for the brains of a Gauss or Newton, the phenomenal vision of Ted Williams, the physical prowess of Cassius Clay. Presumably (a tricky word) in a pre-civilized world, strong and intelligent people with superbly acute (for humans) senses would be more likely to survive and spread their genes, leading to a race of supermen. Is this what we observe?

Here we come to an interesting question: Do the superior pass along their genes more reliably than the inferior? In primitive tribal societies do we observe that the brighter have more children than the not so bright?

Do the most fit men breed with the most fit women, or with the most sexually attractive? As a matter of daily experience, a man will go every time for the sleek, pretty, and coquettish over the big, strong, bright, and ugly. I mention this to evolutionists and they make intellectual pretzels trying to prove that the attractive and the fit are one and the same. Well, they aren’t.

(5) If intelligence promotes survival, why did it appear so late? If it doesn’t promote survival, why did it appear at all?

(6) People have a wretched sense of small and mediocre hearing. Why? The pat explanation is that people evolved in open territory, where sight is more important than the other senses. People walked erect, keeping their eyes well above the ground so that they could see farther. As noses became smaller, there was less room for the olfactory apparatus.

Is much of this not palpable nonsense? Horses have eves at about the same altitude as people, yet have acute senses of smell. Anywhere but in perfectly open territory, a sense of smell is obviously important in detecting predators, as it is at night, when many things hunt. Excessively small nasal apparatus? Cats and rats have little room for olfactory equipment yet have acute senses of smell. Do sensitive ears take up more space than sorry ones?

(7) Without weapons, humans would appear to be easy prey for almost anything. A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man. A pack of hyenas would have no trouble killing him. Any big cat would need about ten seconds.

People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me in Bali because it wanted a banana I was eating. I was a husky 180 and lifted weights. I tried to push the thing off of me, and instantly realized I couldn’t. The little beast was ferociously strong. I gave it the banana.

A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well (and anyway there aren’t trees in open territory), cannot swim naturally, has teeth useless as weapons, no claws, and poor musculature. (Why the latter? Strength isn’t of value in survival?) He can neither smell nor hear an approaching big cat (say) and, unless armed, couldn’t do anything about it anyway. Hiding isn’t a choice: People are noisy, their children uncontrollably so. When unwashed, humans reek. Our young are extraordinarily helpless for long years.

Were we already packing heat when we swung down from the trees?

(8) So much of evolution contradicts other parts. Sparrows evolved drab and brown so that predators won’t see them. Cockatoos and guacamayas are gaudy as casinos in Las Vegas so they can find each other and mate. But…but….

The answers to these questions either lapse into a convoluted search for plausibility or else boil down to the idea that since guacamayas are as they are, their coloration must have adaptive value. That is, it is the duty of the evidence to fit the theory, rather than of the theory to fit the evidence. This is science?


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

1 posted on 03/02/2004 7:32:26 PM PST by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: teldon30
That's how it is with liberal academia, be it evolution, global warming, economics, social theory, whatever:

If the data don't support the theory, change the data.

2 posted on 03/02/2004 7:51:23 PM PST by gg188
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188
Science = logical, rational
Creationism = Emotional, irrational.

QED

3 posted on 03/02/2004 7:54:14 PM PST by Jeff Gordon (LWS - Legislating While Stupid. Someone should make this illegal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
theres some interesting and perhaps deliberate misrepresentations of genetics and evolutionary theory here.

lets pick on at random... hmm... the sense of smell. humans have a poor sense of smell. did you know that neanderthals had a great sense of smell? they couldnt talk very well, though. their skulls had too much olfactory stuff and this meant they couldnt speak as well. meanwhile our ancestors were getting cosy with the wolves (eventually these would be bred into dogs) whose keen noses made up for that. and they could talk much more effectively than the neanderthals. advantage: cro magnon.

evolutionary theory can easily be misinterpreted in so many ways. he wonders why he isnt stronger than a monkey if he is better? well strength comes at a cost. how much energy would we use to be so strong? maybe its better to be weaker and require less resources (food) to operate? part of our advantage is due to our sociability and communication. we can group together, organise, use tools/weapons (by using our brains) and the wolves will not defeat us.

our young are helpless for many years... oh but they have an advantage after that. all this language and socialisation comes at a price of long rearing but the advantages are obvious.

colorful birds? well thats useless. its a kind of selection, though. the mechanisms in the birds that make them pick a mate based on colorful plumage is a system that feeds back on itself to create more colorful plumage? advantage? only within its own system of selection. there is a cost to this selection and theres a reason it tends only to happen in lush tropical environments where these birds have lots of food and live in relative safety and ease. these creatures are basically saying: 'look at me i am SO healthy and competent that i can afford to grow a long red tail'. creatures from more harsh environments arent able to spare the energy required to maintain some plumage or feature that is simply used to find a mate.

i dont deny this guy the right to argue his points, but he is selectively pulling specific things from evolutionary theory and misrepresenting them or failing to see that science has reasons for these things.
4 posted on 03/02/2004 8:03:30 PM PST by sweneop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
Great, funny article. If it only appeals to COMMON SENSE and not twisted sophistication, fine. I'm in. Evolutionist/abortionist/LIBertarian-LIBerals, go ahead and call me an idiot or whatever your pet insult is this week. Whatever.
5 posted on 03/02/2004 8:19:11 PM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
no i wouldnt call someone an idiot because of their faith or because they beleive in creationism or whatever, but i dont like this guy coming in and misrepresenting what I believe in order to argue against it.
6 posted on 03/02/2004 8:28:39 PM PST by sweneop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Ping
7 posted on 03/02/2004 8:35:33 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sweneop
> misrepresenting what I believe

I don't think he gives a $hit what you believe. He wrote a funny, common-sense article, which many fine and sensitive sophisticates and evolutionists won't like. Ha!
8 posted on 03/02/2004 8:41:51 PM PST by old-ager
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory

In reality, the situation is just the opposite.

9 posted on 03/02/2004 8:46:38 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gg188
The author is delusional
10 posted on 03/02/2004 8:47:31 PM PST by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sweneop
I've yelled at bears and dogs and they both seem rather upset by loud noises. Also a good reason to hurry up and invent fire.
11 posted on 03/02/2004 8:49:10 PM PST by BiffWondercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: sweneop
"theres some interesting and perhaps deliberate misrepresentations of genetics and evolutionary theory here.

lets pick on at random... hmm... the sense of smell. humans have a poor sense of smell. did you know that neanderthals had a great sense of smell? they couldnt talk very well, though. their skulls had too much olfactory stuff and this meant they couldnt speak as well. meanwhile our ancestors were getting cosy with the wolves (eventually these would be bred into dogs) whose keen noses made up for that. and they could talk much more effectively than the neanderthals. advantage: cro magnon."

Which is misrepresented ... the evolutionary theory or genetics?

If a theory is not law, how can it be misrepresented?

12 posted on 03/02/2004 8:51:16 PM PST by knarf (A place where anyone can learn anything ... especially that which promotes clear thinking.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: old-ager
you invite aggression in your first post like its all you expect from someone who might disagree with you, but then you display it yourself in your reply to me after i refused to stoop to that level.

the article attempts to use science against science. it aims to throw doubt on evolutionary theory but its main problem is that it misrepresents many of the tenants of the theory or selectively ignores some to prove some dubious points.

its like if i say: god created man? then why does homosexuality exist? god cant have created man!

you of course might argue about free will, or that the devil might have a hand in things or something like that. i am only presenting one single portion of a system and arguing against it when other parts of your beleifs explain these things.

he is actually bringing up things that evolutionary theory DOES HAVE EXPLANATIONS FOR. he is ignoring those explanations and arguing against a sole point out of context and in a vacuum. anyone is welcome to question theories, but they should really address the whole, rather than selected portions that can be twisted into neat little dismissive refutations.
13 posted on 03/02/2004 8:54:54 PM PST by sweneop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sweneop
p.s. before anyone mocks me i know tenant should be tenets.
14 posted on 03/02/2004 8:57:22 PM PST by sweneop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: knarf
Which is misrepresented ... the evolutionary theory or genetics?>

a bit of both actually.

If a theory is not law, how can it be misrepresented?

im not quite sure what you mean here... the theory, well many theories that comprise what we would call evolution cover some of the things he posed as if they were unanswerable questions (like why is a monkey stronger than me? why am i slower than a dog?) and he hasnt argued against those, he has IGNORED THEM. i will always invite open and frank debate of theories, be they the theory of evolution or the theory of creationism, but one must actually counter the opposing views points rather than just ignoring them.
15 posted on 03/02/2004 9:02:15 PM PST by sweneop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
You make some excellent points. I'm not sure that every trait needs to convey an advantage, I could be wrong on this accord, however.

Let me get back to a point you make that I want to expand upon. If man has evolved over millions of years from some animal like form, when/why/how did we lose the massive animal strength and agility comensurate with survival in the wild? Animals have weigh-to-strength ratios that make humans looks soft and puny by comparison. Where did my animal strength go? Why would our species evolve this out?

16 posted on 03/02/2004 9:33:42 PM PST by Diplomat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
One difference between faith and science is that science allows with reasonable grace the questioning of theory

In reality, the situation is just the opposite.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's noticed how "graceful" the Religion forum is when some group or another's pet theory heads up to the chopping block. That must be why it's the only forum here with its own specially-assigned, single-tasking moderator, right? Because of how graceful everyone is... ;)

17 posted on 03/02/2004 9:41:58 PM PST by general_re (Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant. - Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
bump
18 posted on 03/02/2004 9:49:42 PM PST by Tribune7 (Vote Toomey April 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diplomat
I didn't write this editorial...some folks need to read some of Fred's rants to see where he is coming from...he is a common sense guy that infuses down home humor with thought provoking commentaries...you don't have to agree with everything he says...but he sure is entertaining sometimes.

I studied evolution in college...it explains a lot of things we see around us...but not everything IMHO. It is useful to study...and fight over for that matter...but there is something lacking in the Theory...i am not coming from a religious point of view...i just don't think it's a tidy theory...not yet....if we keep tossing it around we may get it right. IMO Fred is just stating that sometimes you have to bend the theory to explain things that are obvious to the lay person...is that science?...maybe not.
19 posted on 03/02/2004 10:03:32 PM PST by teldon30
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: teldon30
A persistent forty-pound dog would be a challenge for a single man...
People are weak. I once had a semi-domesticated monkey of perhaps thirty pounds jump on me...
A man cannot outrun a toy poodle, cannot climb well...

Most 12 year old country boys could beat the crap out of a 40 lb dog, throw a 30 lb monkey 30 feet, catch and kill a toy poodle in 10 seconds, and climb a tree faster than this writer can climb stairs.

A man who lived by his wits, outdoors his whole life could do it with one hand tied behind his back.

20 posted on 03/02/2004 10:42:35 PM PST by CapandBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-108 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson