Non-praying Mantis

Excellent post, Wounded King! My sentiments exactly. Albert, consider this my reply to the second part of your post.

NPM

Non-praying Mantis

Here is the reply to the first part of your post, Albert.



My apologies for my misinterpretation.



Actually, like evolution, there are instances where the effect of gravity on an object is minimal. When an object is in interstellar space, the local gravity sources have only a minor effect on the object. Evolution can work at different speeds. One example of this is punctuated equilibrium. Punk eek is defined as short periods of intense evolutionary pressure interspersed with long periods of low levels of evolutionary stress. This causes quick changes in a population, during periods of intense evolutionary pressure, which are then held in a kind of stasis when evolution works at a much slower pace, making only minor adjustments.

There are five conditions which need to be in place to halt evolution:

1) a large population
2) no immigration into, or emmigration out of, the population
3) no mutation (or at least no beneficial mutation) occuring
4) completely random (with respect to genes) mating
5) individuals producing offspring at similar rates

These conditions are called the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, and they can be used to measure how much evolution is affecting a population.

Because at least one, or usually more, of these conditions is usually present in a population, evolution is operating on all populations at all times, but right now, in human terms, it is operating very slowly on humans because:

considering the world population as a whole:
1) our world population is large
2) there is no immigration or emmigration (it would have to come from off-planet)
3) there is less result from natural selection than could occur
4) most people are capable of reproduction and there is comparatively little difference (on the average) in numbers of successful offspring

This slows the current amount of evolution, but it is still operating. By the way, there is no such thing as "devolution" or "retarding" of a species. Evolution is like acceleration (a change in the speed or direction of the motion of a physical object) in this regard.



I think I understand what you are trying to imply, that we can improve our species by making smart evolutionary choices (such as attempting to create a "master race").

Eugenics, as this is known, is not as simple as it appears. Just because Hitler and the Nazis thought that the "Aryan" race was superior, does not mean that it actually was superior! A large, healthy population has many different alleles (different types of genes) present for most traits. Variation is importatnt in a healthy population. This allows for the population to recover when certain environmental (remember this term includes things such as disease and predators!) factors change and genes that were once beneficial are now detrimental. It is often hard to determine whether a gene is detrimental or beneficial in all conditions, and in many cases, most genes vary in this. Eradicating certain "detrimental" genes from our population may have good effects now, but we have little ability to predict what might be beneficial later.

Consider sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia is a genetic disease where the red blood cells "sickle up" (become pointy instead of round) from the presence of a certain type of hemoglobin. When an individual has two copies of the sickle cell gene, he/she has a multitude of physical problems including a shortened lifespan, brain and spleen damage, intense pain, heart problems, and so forth. It would appear that sickle cell anemia is a "detrimental" gene.

But wait! The very same gene that gives sickle cell anemia with two copies, gives resistance to malaria (a deadly fever causing disease in parts of Africa, Asia, and South America). That gene allows those people possessing one copy of the gene to survive malaria easily (when many of the other "normal" people succumb to it and die) and in parts of the world where malaria is common, so is the gene. Is the sickle cell gene beneficial or detrimental? Depends on the situation. There are many other genes like this.

If we could find out how to make "designer babies" with enhanced attributes (intelligence, or other "desirable" traits), should we make them? I don't know, the question is more complicated than: "since evolution picks the "best", we should do what evolution does and punish the "losers." This situation could be more trouble than it is worth. If you have seen the movie GATTACA, you might know what I mean. Do we want such a society? We disagree on that point, and also on how (and if) it should be accomplished.

If you do not understand evolution properly, I can see how you might make this determination. I hope you have not only learned something from my posts, but also have changed some of your viewpoints. If not, then what is the point of these posts?

NPM

Fiach

Fiach

Wounded King

Dear Fiach,

You recount a sci fi story you once read

While this is interesting it doesnt counter NPMs point that there is no such thing as de evolving. All those example from the story are, as you pointed out, examples of the humans evolving to fill different niches not examples of humans de evolving, even if they evolve to superficially resemble ancestral species. If we assume that evolution is a process by which mutations leading to an overall increase in fitness become stabilised in a population or subpopulation beacuse of the competitive advantage it gives then de evolving would require a mutation leading to an overall decrease in fitness becoming stabilised. Sickle cell anaemia is a perfect example as we have two populations, one where malaria is endemic and the other where it isnt, where in one case the sickle cell trait leads to an overall increase in fitness and the other where it leads to an overall decrease. Were sickle cell anaemia to be propagated and stabilised in the population without endemic malaria this would then perhaps be an example of de evolution.

Fiach

Sickle Cell Anaemia is like many mutated traits, it worked for a malaria at risk population. The payback was Sickle crisis, anaemia, and strokes but they lived long enough to produce offspring more than kids who died of malaria before reaching puberty. Many evolutionary traits that overall inproved survival and adaption carried paybacks. Humans benefitted by upright gait to move out on the grasslands, use destrous hands, see predators in high grass that made us successful. The payoffs of chronic back pain, herniated discs, frequent choking, high risk of disembowellment by stone knives, hyena's teeth, and lion's claws were not bad enough to outweigh the benefits of upright posture. A clever engineer could have developed an upright human with a flexible notochordal, ligament reinforced spinal like support without hearniated discks and chronic back pain, better feet without fallen arches and plantar nerve entrapments (Tarsal Tunnel Syndrome, etc.

But Evolution is not a cognitive analytical engineer. It comes up only with what gets by (adapts.) If God did it he is nothing to brag about for engineering skill. Consider all of the failed mutations that we haven't had time nor space to discuss. (Situs inversus, transposition of the cardiac great vessels, ventricular septal defects (foramena), genetic fatal blood clotting disorders, failure of neuronal migration in the brain of a child, cyclopses, anencephalics born without a brain, babies born with an open neural tube, encephalocoeles, etc. etc. etc.etc. I'm afraid I would have to flunk God in Engineering 101, and suggest he consider a custodial career.

Fiach

Fiach

Were sickle cell anaemia to be propagated and stabilised in the population without endemic malaria this would then perhaps be an example of de evolution.

It is not devolution because the malarial population did not change in the wider population where malaria did not exist. Howver, in a non-malarial place, like London or Liverpool, or Washington, DC. where there is no malaria, the siclker is maladapted, sufferes crisis episodes that are terribly painful, general malaise,and strokes. But there is no reward.

This is not from devolution. It is from Christian Europeans taking them from Africa as slaves and selling them in America and the West Indies. Evolution couldn't move fast enough to count for the disease replacing malaria, that of the Christian Slave Trade.

Fiach

Non-praying Mantis

Fiach, sickle cell anemia is not "devolution," because "devolution" does not exist! Regardless of what advantages or disadvantages result from mutation and natural selection, these are all results of evolution, not "devolution."

NPM

Wounded King

Dear Fiach,

I am not quite sure what you think you are arguing. NPM said previously
In response to which you recounted a sci fi story you had read about humans on a planet evolving to take up a variety of niches. I was simply suggesting that your story was pretty much comletely irrelevant to NPMs post, unless you were suggesting that this niche adaptation was an example of de-evolution. Since both you, me and NPM seem to have said that de-evolution does not exist I dont see where any problem arises.

My point about sickle cell anaemia was that it would only be if such a detrimental trait were to be stabilised and propagated, by natural selection, in a population where its overall effect on fitness was negative you would have something you might be able to term de-evolution or perhaps anti-evolution would be more accurate. An example of a trait which was detrimental overall and yet spread through a population and became stabilised would provide a good creationist counter argument, I am fairly confident that no such traits exist however as the entire process of natural selection, which is required to promote these traits in this scenario, is geared to do almost the exact opposite.

It would be possible to propagate these traits by selective breeding, although it would be pretty stupid, but that is a different question all together.

Im not quite sure where your critique of gods skill as an engineer came into things either, neither NPM nor myself were espousing a creationist line. Still, I suppose god bashing is part of what these forums are about.

There is of course such a thing as devolution you yourself, as a Scot, should be well aware of it.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Wounded,
You say that the absence of God does not mean that
As we all learned in elementary school and had reinforced prior to that by the childhood game, “Mother May I,” the difference between MAY and CAN is the difference between permission and possibility.

No one denies that both theists and atheists CAN act brutally, history is abundantly clear that this is not merely a theoretical possibility. But God and I deny that a theist MAY act brutally. A theist, on orders from God, does not have permission to act evilly. Whereas, a atheist, in order to obtain whatever good ends their little hearts desire, may permit themselves to act evilly. How can they not? If man is the measure of all things without reference to God, then man defines all things and can do evil and consider it good.

You assert: It should. It would if I were an atheist. It did to the theist Dostoevsky. Morality uncoupled from the authority of a transcendent being is mere sentimental claptrap. Your good is my evil. If I like blue-haired blond-eyed people I ought to be able to genetically create them and exterminate all others. In short, man-based morality (as opposed to God-based morality) is nothing other than window dressings for our ever-changing irrational preferences.

You say, Nice rhetoric, too bad it couldn’t mean something as well. As a theist I believe I am the product of God, and as such, even tho it has no rhetorical flourish, I freely admit that I am, therefore, His slave. Oh wert you, as an evolutionist, just as honest.

If the principal that brought us into existence is random mutations and environmental stresses whereby my fitness triumphed over the less fit, then how do you justify the moral outrage I presume you share with me over Hitler’s genocidal and nearly successful WWII rampage?

I, on the other hand, am not logically compromised in my condemnation of Hitler for I believe that we were brought into existence by a loving God Who is on record for the first being last and the last being first, a God Whose modus operandi is that He “will not quench the smoldering wick nor break the bruised reed.” Morally Outraged, And Denying You Any Right to Be, Albert the Traditional Catholic

lpetrich

Albert Cipriani:
sexless to sexed?

Asexual reproduction is good for making copies of oneself; however, it is not so good in a relatively harsh environment.

Sexual reproduction is essentially playing the genetic lottery in hopes of coming up with some good combination.

Thus, protists often prefer asexual reproduction in good times and sexual reproduction in bad times.

single cells to multiple cells?

There are lots of ways to make a living, and one can do it by being small and one can do it by being big.

And a way to become big is to become multicelled.

water-breathing to air-breathing?

Water breathing is good for being under water, while air breathing is good for being above water.

As to the water-to-air transition, some fish can gulp air, an ability which can be handy for fish that live in swamps, where much of the oxygen can be consumed by decay.

skeletons on the outside to skeletons on the inside?

Hard outer shells are good body armor, but they can be heavy and difficult to grow.

hard scales to soft feathers?

Feathers are good for insulation, even if they are not very good for protection.

earth-bearing limbs to air-bearing wings?

Vertebrate wings are all modified front limbs. they were most likely used for gliding before they were used for powered flight. Gliding is less demanding structurally -- one does not need to have one's muscles adapted for flight and stuff like that.