Subject:
|
Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Feb 2001 17:39:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
202 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Markus Wolf writes:
>
> > > >
> > > I guess it would have to matter for mathematical probability to make sense.
> > > How many Downs Syndrome children will be born before we give rise to X-men?
> >
> > I don't know the statistics for this, but the theory is fairly
> > straightforward. No matter how many thousands of deleterious (harm-causing)
> > mutations take place, as soon as a mutation that confers a benefit arises it
> > will spread through the population. Have any of the X-men had an X-baby?
>
> I don't know if it would spread through the population. Before I go on, I
> really want to keep this on friendly terms.
Ditto :o). I hope to make teaching evolutionary biology an important part of
my career, and I don't think that I can be a good teacher if I resort to
name calling etc. I'm not interested in harassing people just because they
have a world-view that is totally different from my own, I'd rather explore
those differences.
> I'm not a fighter and I am a
> creationist. And as a Christian I don't feel any argument is worth the cost
> of mutual respect and friendship so if I feel like I'm ticking you off or
> I'm getting bushwacked by the masses, I will retreat. It's not worth it to >me.
Ditto, ditto and ditto (except for the creationist bit). By the way, I hope
my explanation of chromosomes helped.
> But here's my question. Please tolerate this weak analogy because I know
> it's ludicrous but I'm just an average joe and I like plain English. I
> disagree that a single benefit would spread to the entire population because
> any change would have to be subtle at best. Let's say there was a girl born
> with an eye in the back of her head. That would be an improvement, because
> she could see danger coming from behind. She would not be as likely to be
> hit by a car, etc. (As a child, I often wondered if my mom had that
> ability) However, because I don't find that attractive, I wouldn't marry
> (or I guess mate) with her because it would not be attractive.
This is a key element of Darwin's theory!! Survival of the fittest only
makes sense in terms of _reproductive_ fitness. So no matter how great you
are, if you don't have children, your greatness won't be passed on.
> Now let's say I could get past the ugliness of the bonus eye because she was
> such a warm and wonderful person (assuming all the jokes about her didn't
> make her bitter I guess), and did mate with the new improved human. Is that
> extra eye so great that it would cause the rest of humanity to pale in
> comparison? No, they would continue to survive and live long because such
> sub-humans have lived just as well without that new difference.
True enough, but let's go a step further. It's easy to imagine that 3-eyed
people find other 3-eyes more attractive, and 2-eyes find other 2-eyes more
attractive. Maybe it's more extreme than that, and in 99% of cases each
finds the other so repulsive they won't ever mate with them (great
personality notwithstanding -- maybe they can just be friends?). You'll see
a shift, where despite the fact that the two types _can_ interbreed, they
hardly ever do. Eventually it might get to the stage where the two types
can't interbreed even if they want to (never underestimate the diversity of
human sexual variation). Now you've got two new species.
Here's another scenario. Imagine a population of 25% 3-blue-eyes, 25%
2-blue-eyes, 25% 3-brown-eyes and 25% 2-brown-eyes, all happily
interbreeding together, the proportions pretty constant from year to year.
Suddenly, a backstabbing feud emerges between blue-eyes and brown-eyes.
Pretty soon all the 2-eyes are foing to go extinct.
> And like those scary Killer Bees that were supposed to arrive here at some
> time. I understand that they have pretty quickly mellowed out because
> they've blended with the other non super Killer bees. Their gene pool was
> watered down by so many other bees even though they were more powerful.
I love bees!!! This is something I actually know about!!! (sorry got a bit
carried away) The main reason they mellowed out is because the USA is too
chilly for them. They can't stand the cold!! Go down to Mexico, ask a
beekeeper if they mellowed out there. No way!! They've totally taken over --
regular bee populations were totally transformed, and now the beekeepers
have to be a lot more careful with their hives (killer bees make more honey
though, so the beekeepers don't mind as much as they would otherwise).
> That would likely happen with my third eye family. Some would look like the
> Mrs, but others would look like me, and unless I could just produce a bumper
> crop of kids, or some great tragedy would strike all the other humans, my
> new family trait wouldn't take, especially if it was a recessive trait.
If it was recessive, it could spread through the population and no-one would
ever know, excpet when a three-eye carrier had children with another
three-eye carrier. This is exactly how fatal genetic diseases like cystic
fibrosis remain at a constant low incidence in the population. If three-eyes
is actually a benefit, then you might expect it to become much more common.
> This same thing would have to happen with every sizeable population in
> existence ever. If I'm totally off base, show me how. I really want to
> understand your point of view. In other words, not every improvement is
> vital, and thus would likely be watered down by the rest of the population.
>
> I also think we are "devolving" as human beings if you look at us as a
> culture. (I'm speaking as a U.S. citizen since that's all I know, but not
> to offend, please)
That's cool -- I'm Australian, we're almost as degenerate. We watch Jerry
Springer and laugh at the funny people from the U.S.
> Look at the decreasing work ethic, growing disrespect
> for human life, weakening family unit, etc. Now I know that technology has
> improved, but that's just because we're adding to previous knowledge. To me
> a great example of the "dumbing down" of America is the replacement of game
> shows (that were on when I stayed home from school) with Jerry Springer type
> shows (that are on today). Look how much more interested we were in who was
> left on Survivor than what was happening on that Russian sub at the same
> time. But perhaps I digress. Take a hundred typical "Americans" (I don't
> like to use that term since everyone in both N. and S. America are
> Americans) and drop them in a third world country without welfare and
> technology and they wouldn't survive. Drop them in an untamed wilderness
> and they wouldn't survive the first winter. Do you agree, or would you say
> that luxury has slowed down and perhaps reversed evolution?
Humans have changed the rules. As soon as we started specialising beyond
hunter-gatherer, we swapped one sort of survival for another, and with each
technological revolution we move further away from our condition as animals.
> And are we hurting ourselves as a species by caring for the handicapped and
> infirm when we should just let them die? That ruins the survival of the
> fittest and would pollute the species. Are birth defects on the rise or
> fall? I don't know.
There's some seriously nasty arguments in this neck of the woods. From a raw
biological perspective, it's probably true. But from a raw biological
perspective all that matters in life is surviving until you reproduce.
Anyway, there's still an overwhelming majority of perfectly healthy happy
humans, and a large number of people with minor defects who still live
happy, healthy lives. Ït's worth remembering too that diversity in our
populations is a source of strength for the species. In my opinion, our
humanity is more important than any supposed pollution of the gene-pool.
> > Age of the Earth? Radioactive decay. Is 4.5 billion years long enough to
> > allow for plenty of mutation and natural selection to take place? Yep.
>
> How do you know the starting point of the radioactive decay or other kinds
> of decay?
This isn't my area of expertise. Ross provided a good reference refuting
creationist "age of the earth" arguments:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=9251
> > Evolutionary psychology is a massive and controversial field. My glib one
> > sentence summary is that we may be pre-disposed to certain behaviours, but
> > ultimately our individual and collective behaviour should be mitigated by
> > conscience and culture.
>
> If we evolved to this point by accident, we should purge our consciences and
> cultures of morality since it unseemingly causes us to help those who should
> be eliminated by survival of the fittest. That's the only way our species
> can progress. Of course, I don't believe this but if you're right about
> evolution, everything about this statement is true. This is a wonderful
> discussion that I would love to continue because I think this topic is more
> important for life here and now.
It's only true if you think that evolutionary theory is the answer to the
most important human questions. It's not. I think it's the most important
source of answers for most biological questions, but as I said above, humans
are more than just animals. We need philosophy, history, theology,
literature, art etc etc to understand ourselves, as well as science.
Evolutionary biology tells us how we got here. It doesn't tell us what it
means to be human, or what we should do next.
> > > I haven't seen any but the first, and I question why the humans that were
> > > there under the dominion of the monkeys de-evolved? Were they another
> > > species, or did they survive better being dumb?
> >
> > In the novel (IIRC) it's described as Frankenstein meets Spartacus, with a
> > bit of Gulliver's Travels and "The Time Machine" thrown in. Or maybe that's
> > just my interpretation.
>
> If that was an explanation, it didn't help me at all. Did you actually
> answer my questions without me knowing it? :O)
Frankenstein: human creation (ape slaves); Spartacus: slave revolt;
Gulliver: sub-humans, satire of humanity as animals; Time machine: travel to
a changed world where humans have devolved. Sorry, I got carried away
thinking about the inspirations for the story.
> I guess what you're telling me is that it wasn't really supposed to be an
> intelligent work but just a fun concept film. I can accept that easily.
I actually think it's a bit of both: an intelligent concept, but a fun
b-grade film.
> > Becuase they're so funny they actively interfere with my suspension of
> > disbelief.
>
> As I side, did you ever see on the Simpsons when they did a clip from Planet
> of the Apes: the Musical. That was one of the few times in my life I
> laughed so hard I cried.
Gotta keep an eye out for it... love the Simpsons, the best tv show ever.
> > Sorry for the bitter tone in my earlier post, I'm rapidly wearying of this
> > "debate".
>
> I'm equally guilty. I usually don't come to offtopic.debate because I find
> that I stop liking people if I'm not careful. I suppose it's immaturity on
> my part, but I don't deal well with arrogance or 8 people vs. 1 all
> attacking with different points.
That's not immaturity, that's maturity (IMHO). Let's keep it as friendly as
possible.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Support for a 'young' earth.
|
| (...) I don't know if it would spread through the population. Before I go on, I really want to keep this on friendly terms. I'm not a fighter and I am a creationist. And as a Christian I don't feel any argument is worth the cost of mutual respect (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
