Evolution Extinct

[Marlow]

I know we've discussed this before - I'm too lazy to find the thread - but the creationists won a small victory ( :wink: ) when a noted geneticist declared evolution over.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... 0982.story

Evolution, as we understand it, may indeed be over for man (however, a nice little full-scale nuclear war could change that), but we WILL continue to change in appearance and physical (in)capabilities forever. Eloi anyone?

[malmo]

Ho hum. De-evolution has been known for 35 years.

[eldrick]

taffy

that prof is at my ole college

i woudn't take that lecture too seriously as it was part of a lunchtime lecture series where various faculty members, students coud come too after a liquid lunch & have a little snooze before resuming work/study ( if i'd known about it in advance, i wouda applied for a ticket )

prof jones is also a well-known self-publicist & in habit of sensationalising stuff so he can sell more of his books

[Pego]

taffy

that prof is at my ole college

i woudn't take that lecture too seriously as it was part of a lunchtime lecture series where various faculty members, students coud come too after a liquid lunch & have a little snooze before resuming work/study ( if i'd known about it in advance, i wouda applied for a ticket )

prof jones is also a well-known self-publicist & in habit of sensationalising stuff so he can sell more of his books

Precisely.

[tandfman]

Others apparently share this dim view of Prof. Jones and his theory.

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evol ... -2008.html

[Marlow]

Others apparently share this dim view of Prof. Jones and his theory.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evol ... -2008.html

hmmm, everything mentioned there to prove that evolution hasn't stopped, only convinces me more that it has. He has cleverly redefined evolution as 'change', which, as I noted above, will continue ad infinitum. But if one defines evolution as I learned it in school - a mutation that gives an individual an advantage in survival - natural selection - than we have stopped. Changes in individuals are no longer being rewarded in small confined populations, so there is no population shift towards the mutation's advantage. The increasing 'interracial mixing' (ugly term) is now driving the plot, not an advantageous single organism's mutation. I'm sure Daisy can explain why I'm wrong here, but in the narrow vision of how Darwin defined evolution - natural selection through the rewarding of a series of individual mutations' advantage in survival, I can't see how it's still in play.

[Pego]

Others apparently share this dim view of Prof. Jones and his theory.
http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/evol ... -2008.html

hmmm, everything mentioned there to prove that evolution hasn't stopped, only convinces me more that it has. He has cleverly redefined evolution as 'change', which, as I noted above, will continue ad infinitum. But if one defines evolution as I learned it in school - a mutation that gives an individual an advantage in survival - natural selection - than we have stopped. Changes in individuals are no longer being rewarded in small confined populations, so there is no population shift towards the mutation's advantage. The increasing 'interracial mixing' (ugly term) is now driving the plot, not an advantageous single organism's mutation. I'm sure Daisy can explain why I'm wrong here, but in the narrow vision of how Darwin defined evolution - natural selection through the rewarding of a series of individual mutations' advantage in survival, I can't see how it's still in play.

Explanation by Daisy is an easy way out for you. Being a TOE, I naturally assume, you can read in English :wink: . Read this book. It taught me a lot.

http://www.amazon.com/What-Evolution-Er ... 658&sr=8-1

[malmo]

But if one defines evolution as I learned it in school - a mutation that gives an individual an advantage in survival - natural selection - than we have stopped. Changes in individuals are no longer being rewarded in small confined populations, so there is no population shift towards the mutation's advantage. The increasing 'interracial mixing' (ugly term) is now driving the plot, not an advantageous single organism's mutation. I'm sure Daisy can explain why I'm wrong here, but in the narrow vision of how Darwin defined evolution - natural selection through the rewarding of a series of individual mutations' advantage in survival, I can't see how it's still in play.

Darwin knew nothing of genetics and never spoke of gene mutation. Natural selection refers to a species competitive exploitation of its ecological niches, through the accumulation of desirable inheritable traits. (Self-)Selective breeding, fecundity and survival (of the fittest, if you will), all contribute to the concentration of 'desirable' traits.

Genetic mutation can introduce desirable (and undesirable) traits to a species, but was unknown in Darwin's day. Regardless, genetic mutations rarely take hold within a genetic pool, except in the case of mass extermination, where the mutant pool the only surviving population. A typical example here would be fast life-cycle organisms like bacteria. Mutations that make microbes resistant to modern medicines wouldn't normally show itself without first decimating the unresistant population. But that's un-natural selection at work here.

[bad hammy]

It is obvious from posts around here and on other online sites that we are definitely in devo mode . . .

[Marlow]

Darwin knew nothing of genetics and never spoke of gene mutation. Natural selection refers to a species competitive exploitation of its ecological niches, through the accumulation of desirable inheritable traits. (Self-)Selective breeding, fecundity and survival (of the fittest, if you will), all contribute to the concentration of 'desirable' traits.

I think we have a case of semantic differential here. Whether or not Darwin could attribute the changes to genetic mutations is irrelevant. Species evolve only when an individual mutation is advantageous to a species' long-term (relatively speaking - multigenerational) survivability and that mutated gene is passed on and 'improved' upon. The things I underlined above all speak to this.

[Pego]

Darwin knew nothing of genetics and never spoke of gene mutation. Natural selection refers to a species competitive exploitation of its ecological niches, through the accumulation of desirable inheritable traits. (Self-)Selective breeding, fecundity and survival (of the fittest, if you will), all contribute to the concentration of 'desirable' traits.

I think we have a case of semantic differential here. Whether or not Darwin could attribute the changes to genetic mutations is irrelevant. Species evolve only when an individual mutation is advantageous to a species' long-term (relatively speaking - multigenerational) survivability and that mutated gene is passed on and 'improved' upon. The things I underlined above all speak to this.

1. Evolution is non-directional, therefore unpredictable.
2. Tiny modifications may constantly occur (do not have to), even without the speciation.
3. It takes many generations (longer than the Homo Sapiens existence) to actually see a substantial change.
4. Of what we know of our species, it has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.

[Marlow]

It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.

If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.

[Daisy]

It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.

If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.

I suspect that Pego is referring to the increase in diversity and the changes in alleles in the population as a whole.

[Pego]

It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.

If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.

Yes. The things you list are my "variable causes". The species has adapted to changed (improved) conditions.

Also, what Daisy said.

[eldrick]

It has evolved even over the past 1000 years (a measly 50-70 generations). Causes are variable, but it has.

If you're counting us being taller and healthier and smarter, that is not evolution. It is better nutrition, medicine, and living conditions.

they are linked

i've read that man evolved quicker when he discovered fire & then was able to cook some of his root vegetables, which allowed more nutrients to be released from the food ( i assume vitamins/minerals ) & also when he mastered rudimentary animal husbandry ( simple herding ) rather than a la carte hit/miss hunting thus guaranteeing a constant supply of quality meat - fuelling a big increase in brain size & separating us finally from the chimps

increase in brain size from higher protein intake is evolution