No, this is not an Evolution Versus Creationism Death Match. Really, there’s only so many times one can watch Godzilla squash Bambi before it ceases to be amusing any more.
Rather, this is a post intended to clear up some popular misconceptions about how evolution works. I’ve been meaning to write it for a long time, and some comments made at a Dragon*Con panel reminded me that I still haven’t ranted about this in my journal. So, it’s high time to get my rant on!
There are two popular notions about evolutionary processes that I hear all the time, often from folks who ought to know better, and they tend to get under my skin. The first is that evolution is no longer operating on human beings; the second is that evolution is goal-directed, that it makes a species “better.” Ready? Here we go!
Evolution still operates on people, just as it always has
“Evolution is about survival of the fittest,” people say. “Today, thanks to the miracles of modern technology, people who would have died a hundred or a thousand or ten thousand years ago can be kept alive. They don’t die off, so their genes still spread. So that means we’ve stopped evolving.”
Fine, except that it’s wrong. Evolution isn’t about survival of the fittest. That wasn’t Charles Darwin’s phrase; it was coined by Herbert Spencer, and was included in On the Origin of Species only at the fifth reprint, as it had become popular by that time.
But evolution is not, and never has been, abut “survival of the fittest.” That’s an overly simplistic and inaccurate view of how evolutionary processes work. Evolution is about the propagation of those genes which most enable an organism to…propagate its genes. What’s good for the gene is often, but not necessarily, what’s good for the organism; a gene that shortened its host’s life by fifteen years but increased the probability that its host would reproduce by .01% would do quite well in the evolutionary game.
(As a segue, I’ve frequently heard an argument against transhumanism in general and life extension in particular that says “Mortality and a finite life expectancy must be good for us. If they were not good for us, then we would not have evolved to have a finite life span. So the fact that we have evolved in such a way means that there is some benefit to being mortal.” This argument does not hold water, because the bulk of our evolutionary heritage comes from a time when most members of the species would die through accident, disease, or predation far, far before they would die of old age. A gene that conferred immortality offers no reproductive benefit to a species whose members are killed by leopards, diseases, tumbles off a cliff, or each other before they’re thirty. Ergo, such a gene would not be selected in favor of. We have genes that confer mortality because there’s no advantage to genetic immortality.)
Evolution is not about survival of the fittest. It’s about the genes that spread. Evolution needs only three things to operate, namely:
1. A population whose individuals are different from one another;
2. A system whereby those differences are heritable; and
3. A system whereby those differences make a difference in how likely an individual is to reproduce.
That’s it. That’ all it needs. And yes, you have those things in humanity. We are not all the same; the differences between us can be transmitted to our children, and sometimes, those differences make a difference in how likely we are to have children, or how many children we have.
Contrary to the crude understanding of evolutionary processes so common in pop culture, it is not necessary for individuals who have a particular trait to die for that trait to be selected against. If a particular gene–a gene making its bearer more likely to have asthma, say–decreases the odds that a person will reproduce by 0.01%, that’s enough. If even one person out of ten thousand has one fewer child because of a particular gene, then evolution is still working.
Modern medicine keeps many people alive today who would die in a pre-industrial society. That does not mean that people with detrimental genes have exactly the same number of children at exactly the same rate as people without that gene. As long as a particular gene has any impact on the number of children its hosts have, however slight, evolution still works.
Evolution is not goal-directed
Evolution does not make a species “better” for any value of “better” that people often use. Evolution favors genes that make its hosts more likely to reproduce. That’s it. A gene that causes you to die of a horrifying, debilitating cancer after you hit menopause isn’t going to be selected against.
Furthermore, evolution is completely blind with regards to “better” and “worse” as human values. At the panel, one person used Down’s syndrome as an example of how evolution no longer applies to human beings. If people with Down’s, he reasoned, have children, then how can evolution make the human species better?
This question falls down on a number of levels, and shows a lack of understanding of what evolution is. Down’s syndrome is not generally heritable; it’s caused by a particular genetic malfunction that does not, usually, affect the gametes.
But leaving that aside for the moment, let’s assume that it is heritable. What does that mean? If people with Down’s syndrome had more children than people without it, then from an evolutionary perspective, Down’s syndrome would be “better.” From an evolutionary standpoint, there is one and only one definition of the word “better,” and that is “more likely to reproduce.”
I mean, if you think about it, I am a worst-case scenario. I have not had children at all, and I have even opted for voluntary sterilization, so I never will have any children. My particular collection of genes is a dead end. I am, evolutionarily speaking, the poorest possible outcome. From the perspective of the processes we’re talking about, a person who has Down’s syndrome and has children is better than I am.
It frustrates me that American culture is so divided and American politics is so wrapped up in the idea of evolution, yet very few people even understand what “evolution” is. They feel passionately about it, but they’re incapable of articulating the most basic principles of evolutionary biology.
Rant off.
Unfortunately, I get into that same argument all the time. I feel your pain. My favorite is the idea that humans, because we use tools, are somehow “cheating” and are outside the spectrum of nature because they don’t understand that our brains that came up with the idea to use the tool is as much of an evolutionary survival trait as the claws and fangs of the other animals. I have also referenced your blue-green algae post in the anti-human movement that is related, that we are somehow exempt from or outside of the laws of “nature”.
Unfortunately, I get into that same argument all the time. I feel your pain. My favorite is the idea that humans, because we use tools, are somehow “cheating” and are outside the spectrum of nature because they don’t understand that our brains that came up with the idea to use the tool is as much of an evolutionary survival trait as the claws and fangs of the other animals. I have also referenced your blue-green algae post in the anti-human movement that is related, that we are somehow exempt from or outside of the laws of “nature”.
This is wonderful–thank you! I may have to add this to my memories as it touches on a couple of my own pet peeves about people’s “understanding” of evolution.
Another couple of pet peeves of mine:
1. People assuming that if you say that something is an evolved trait, you must also be claiming it’s a morally defensible trait. An example of this is when some scientists suggested that rape is an evolved behavior that has allowed men with little access to willing women to propagate their genes anyway. There was a huge feminist uproar about this–not attacking the actual science behind the suggestion, but attacking the idea that anyone would even dare voice this hypothesis. Evolution isn’t morally based. Sometimes we evolve in ways that are politically incorrect. I don’t think it’s really fair that men are on average bigger and stronger than women, but I shouldn’t attack scientists who study this and find it to be true. When a scientist tells us what *is,* they aren’t telling us what *should* be. Nor are they telling us that we have no choice in the matter. Our genetic makeup isn’t the only factor that governs our behavior.
2. Similarly, and also something you touched on…I hate when people assume that an evolved trait is necessarily the ideal one. For instance, people promoting that “hunter-gatherer diet” claim that because we evolved in hunter-gatherer societies, a diet similar to that of our ancestors must be the healthiest one we can eat now. But just because our bodies adapted to survive and reproduce in certain limited conditions, that doesn’t mean other conditions can’t be even better. It’s not like our ancestors had the opportunity to try. Certainly, some products of agriculture/industrialization *are* unhealthy for us, but others (such as access to dairy products, so that pregnant mothers don’t wind up losing teeth with every child) are most definitely a good thing. The mother who loses all her teeth in childbearing (because the human body is designed to feed the fetus first, the mother last) is just as much of a reproductive success as today’s toothy mom. But I’ll take my cow’s milk and pearly whites over a gummy stone-age grin anyday.
1. People assuming that if you say that something is an evolved trait, you must also be claiming it’s a morally defensible trait. An example of this is when some scientists suggested that rape is an evolved behavior that has allowed men with little access to willing women to propagate their genes anyway. There was a huge feminist uproar about this–not attacking the actual science behind the suggestion, but attacking the idea that anyone would even dare voice this hypothesis. Evolution isn’t morally based. Sometimes we evolve in ways that are politically incorrect. I don’t think it’s really fair that men are on average bigger and stronger than women, but I shouldn’t attack scientists who study this and find it to be true. When a scientist tells us what *is,* they aren’t telling us what *should* be. Nor are they telling us that we have no choice in the matter. Our genetic makeup isn’t the only factor that governs our behavior.
In a society when one of the dominant discourses is “natural = acceptable” (think about how much investment has gone into finding a gay gene and the argument that gay people are born gay as a means to justify gay rights), what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior? Furthermore, a lot of evolutionary biology, when studying humans, often reflects the sexism of our society (for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology).
Indeed.
The reason I have a problem with the rape=evolution argument is that I, personally, find it to be incredibly lazy science in addition to the fact that the only people I’ve heard make it are usually rape apologists using it in a really twisted (and usually political) way.
I’m not arguing for or against rape as being an evolved behavior. However, I remember when the book A Natural History of Rape came out, the majority of responses to it read something like, “I haven’t actually read this book, but it’s offensive and wrong!!1!11!!” If you want to accuse researchers of lazy science, then you need to actually read their studies (the actual journal articles) and analyze their methods using scientific standards. And if you do that and you still decide that the science is shoddy, that’s fine, that’s exactly how science is meant to work. I have no problem with that. It’s the folks who immediately dismiss any research that contradicts their world-view that I have a problem with. That and the folks who read a story about a study in USA Today and think they have any ability to judge its worth based on a 300-word mangling of the science.
If you want to accuse researchers of lazy science, then you need to actually read their studies (the actual journal articles) and analyze their methods using scientific standards. And if you do that and you still decide that the science is shoddy,
I have, and I did.
It’s the folks who immediately dismiss any research that contradicts their world-view that I have a problem with.
Me too. And the world view of women=passive and men=aggressive/men want lots of partners and women want monogamy/men rape because of evolution! tends very much to come from people who have a very sexist worldview. It influences the science–or lack thereof–and their research and their arguments are poorly constructed.
If you’ve read peer-reviewed articles that express the whole evolutionary-rape thing well, that’s great. I haven’t, and I’ve looked. In addition to that there are a bunch of pseudo-intellectual rape-apologists running around quoting (what I believe is) already shoddy research for political reasons. If there are feminists freaking out on one side, there are just as many, if not more, individuals reading USA Today articles and telling me that–evolutionarily speaking–women prefer pink! It’s bad science, bad journalism, and a bunch of sexist jerks saying “It must be true!” without putting much thought into it, because they see the world that way anyway.
Personally, I think complex and interesting discussion can be had on the subject–as well as the subject of evolution vs. environment in general–but it’s been abused to much for social or political gain that it’s not even a scientific argument anymore. Often, it has more to do with social policy.
Point being, I honestly think we’re agreeing. We’re both bothered by the same thing (lazy/shoddy science) we’re just sitting on opposite sides of the issue (presumably), and I’m merely trying to point out that the evolutionary biology camp has its own group of political opportunists.
*So much, not “to” much.
I think we’re agreeing, too. As for whether we’re sitting on opposite sides of the issue–I never gave an opinion on the issue. 😉 I merely gave an opinion on people who automatically assume that when someone says a behavior is evolved, that they must be saying it’s morally acceptable. Replace “rape” with any other human behavior and it’s still an incorrect assumption.
I think (and can correct me if I’m wrong) that the original point was not so much that “evolved” is inherently a moral distinction so much as it is taken as a moral distinction.
Science does not occur in a vaccuum (har). Researchers are just as likely to have political motivations, or social biases, as just about anybody else. The people funding them are often even more likely to have an agenda.
I merely gave an opinion on people who automatically assume that when someone says a behavior is evolved, that they must be saying it’s morally acceptable. Replace “rape” with any other human behavior and it’s still an incorrect assumption.
I think it’s problematic but fair to make that assumption. It’s fair because, especially in the west, I think the vast majority of people out there are making a moral judgment. It’s problematic because it perpetuates the assumption. The western world, I think, has trouble doing or thinking anything without ascribing some kind of judgment to it–usually moral.
The whole pink/blue thing is actually involved in advertising changes in the US in the early 1900’s.
Prior to that, pink was associated with boys (as it was a milder version of red which was considered a masculine color due to its link to fire) and blue for girls because it was tranquil and calm like the ocean.
So that particular one’s memetics, not genetics, but is still linked to biased views of sex & gender 🙂
The reference was to an article floating around that claims that girls genetically prefer pink, and boys blue, and that it must be because women were gatherers and were looking for ripe fruit, so their eyes would be drawn to red, so they like pink. It’s stupid and wrong on about 98709870868976 levels. The study itself showed that all people tend to be drawn to blues and purples, but that women more often tended to be drawn to purple. And that’s more red than blue, so that means women like pink!
Yup, I’m aware 🙂
I was just pointing out the idiocy of that given that anyone who’s taken a marketing class knows it’s a societal construst & only about 100 years old.
Ahhh, ok. Sorry if that seemed snippy or defensive. 🙂
‘s cool 😉
what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?
I don’t think we should limit research subjects (or censor their results) based on what is and isn’t politically correct. The good that comes out of any research study is that we increase our knowledge of the world around us, and hopefully our ability to make it a better place. If the evidence bears out that rape is indeed an evolved behavior, then I think it’s worth knowing that. It might give us clues to how we can best prevent it, which I think is a very good thing to do. But basically, I think knowing the truth is better than believing in pretty lies. And the only way to get to the truth is to allow all researchers to present their results and state the conclusions they have drawn. And then other folks can look at their methods and repeat their studies and determine if, in the grand scheme of things, the study has merit. If you subjectively censor reearch you don’t like then you can’t actually determine what is and isn’t true.
for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology
Actually, in evolutionary biology it’s becoming less and less common. And the reason is that numerous studies are coming out showing that females (of many species, including humans) aren’t nearly as monogamous-minded as we once believed. For example, genetic tests have revealed that chimpanzee females will risk life and limb (male chimps are very violent) to sneak outside the group and have sex with males from other groups. Again, this is how science works. It’s cumulative. No one study provides a definitive answer to questions, but you can’t get a clear picture of what’s going on unless you have access to all the studies available and the ability to study, repeat, and improve on their methods.
You might say, “What good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?” But there are plenty of conservatives out there who might say, “What good can come from a study that argues that reproductive freedom is good for women?” No matter what you study, someone will be opposed to your results. Which is why everyone needs to be free to publicize their results, instead of letting political opinions squelch them.
In a society when one of the dominant discourses is “natural = acceptable” (think about how much investment has gone into finding a gay gene and the argument that gay people are born gay as a means to justify gay rights)…
I don’t think that the idea that sexual orientation is genetic is necessarily about “justifying gay rights.” Frankly, I think a stronger case for gay rights can be made simply on the basis that people’s private choices are not, and should not be, a matter of public policy, and that equal protection under the law is not meaningful if it doesn’t apply to everyone.
Nevertheless, I do strongly feel that the pursuit of knowledge, of and by itself, has value. We are physical creatures; we operate in accordance with the laws of physics; our behaviors are rooted in our brains, which are physical organs shaped by our genes and our experiences. If sexual behaviors are influenced by genetics, that’s something that’s worth knowing about.
Anything we can learn about ourselves has value. The truth has value. Understanding ourselves better is important; it is knowledge that counters ignorance and superstition.
“…what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?”
If it is true, then knowing that it is true has value.
People may misuse this kind of knowledge to attempt to justify violence and rape. This is not an argument against learning whether it’s true that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy, because the people who would use this to try to justify it have already decided that rape is acceptable. It’s not like you’re going to find people who say “Well, you know, I used to believe that rape was morally wrong, but hey, now that I know it’s a behavior that has been selected in favor of among many primate species, now it’s OK–in fact, I think I’m going to exercise my evolutionary heritage by raping someone on the subway this afternoon”–and any person who would do such a thing is clearly not a good person to begin with.
“Furthermore, a lot of evolutionary biology, when studying humans, often reflects the sexism of our society (for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology).”
Very common, at least among laypeople. Among serious evolutionary biologists, that idea has been shown not to hold up very well; modern evolutionary biologists have discarded that model in favor of one in which many primate species, including our own, benefit the most by pair-bonding and then cheating. (This idea is supported by sociological surveys, which reveal things like the fact that about 5% of all families in the US have at least one child who is the product of an illicit affair, and the fact that women are statistically more likely to cheat during times when they are most fertile). That’s one of the nice things about the scientific method; science tends to be self-correcting over the long term.
I hate when people assume that an evolved trait is necessarily the ideal one.
Well yeah, especially when you consider things like Tay-Sachs & Sickle Cell Anemia are evolved survival traits.
This is wonderful–thank you! I may have to add this to my memories as it touches on a couple of my own pet peeves about people’s “understanding” of evolution.
Another couple of pet peeves of mine:
1. People assuming that if you say that something is an evolved trait, you must also be claiming it’s a morally defensible trait. An example of this is when some scientists suggested that rape is an evolved behavior that has allowed men with little access to willing women to propagate their genes anyway. There was a huge feminist uproar about this–not attacking the actual science behind the suggestion, but attacking the idea that anyone would even dare voice this hypothesis. Evolution isn’t morally based. Sometimes we evolve in ways that are politically incorrect. I don’t think it’s really fair that men are on average bigger and stronger than women, but I shouldn’t attack scientists who study this and find it to be true. When a scientist tells us what *is,* they aren’t telling us what *should* be. Nor are they telling us that we have no choice in the matter. Our genetic makeup isn’t the only factor that governs our behavior.
2. Similarly, and also something you touched on…I hate when people assume that an evolved trait is necessarily the ideal one. For instance, people promoting that “hunter-gatherer diet” claim that because we evolved in hunter-gatherer societies, a diet similar to that of our ancestors must be the healthiest one we can eat now. But just because our bodies adapted to survive and reproduce in certain limited conditions, that doesn’t mean other conditions can’t be even better. It’s not like our ancestors had the opportunity to try. Certainly, some products of agriculture/industrialization *are* unhealthy for us, but others (such as access to dairy products, so that pregnant mothers don’t wind up losing teeth with every child) are most definitely a good thing. The mother who loses all her teeth in childbearing (because the human body is designed to feed the fetus first, the mother last) is just as much of a reproductive success as today’s toothy mom. But I’ll take my cow’s milk and pearly whites over a gummy stone-age grin anyday.
Very nice rant! A couple of comments:
People who claim we’ve stopped evolving because we’ve cured most major causes of death are more than wrong; they’re ironically wrong. If genes predisposing to nearsightedness, say, proliferate and become common because myopia no longer confers a selective disadvantage—that’s evolution! Moreover, infant and childhood mortality, while greatly reduced, is far from abolished even in industrial nations, and there, natural selection still has room to act—and, as you mention, anything that prevents reproduction is as bad as death, from an evolutionary perspective. Studies of population biology indicate that that very small differences in fitness—undetectably minuscule differences—can drive big changes over the long haul. Hence, we still have plenty of opportunity to evolve, despite our greatly extended lifespan.
It is fun to try to identify evolutionary forces in modern Western society. Teenage depression? Drunk driving? Inability to cope with noise pollution? A big problem in doing so is that our environment—which by now is largely a product of our own society—keeps changing so quickly. And, needless to say, the change is accelerating.
One can also argue that in the context of overpopulation, “voluntary” sterility (i.e., sterility when fertility is physiologically possible) confers a selective advantage, albeit a very indirect one, in that it can prevent a population from destroying itself through overconsumption. Definitely there are animal species whose fecundity diminishes after reaching a certain population density.
Actually, in your list of three requirements for evolutionary change, natural selection is not strictly required. If a population is very small, random chance will do the trick (i.e., genetic drift). Drift, however, is not likely to spur large changes in modern human populations, as mobile as most of us are.
Some very intriguing recent work has been done looking at genes that have undergone recent positive selection in humans. Many, like the lactase gene in Northern Europeans, have probably been favored by the advent of agriculture some twelve millenia past.
Very nice rant! A couple of comments:
People who claim we’ve stopped evolving because we’ve cured most major causes of death are more than wrong; they’re ironically wrong. If genes predisposing to nearsightedness, say, proliferate and become common because myopia no longer confers a selective disadvantage—that’s evolution! Moreover, infant and childhood mortality, while greatly reduced, is far from abolished even in industrial nations, and there, natural selection still has room to act—and, as you mention, anything that prevents reproduction is as bad as death, from an evolutionary perspective. Studies of population biology indicate that that very small differences in fitness—undetectably minuscule differences—can drive big changes over the long haul. Hence, we still have plenty of opportunity to evolve, despite our greatly extended lifespan.
It is fun to try to identify evolutionary forces in modern Western society. Teenage depression? Drunk driving? Inability to cope with noise pollution? A big problem in doing so is that our environment—which by now is largely a product of our own society—keeps changing so quickly. And, needless to say, the change is accelerating.
One can also argue that in the context of overpopulation, “voluntary” sterility (i.e., sterility when fertility is physiologically possible) confers a selective advantage, albeit a very indirect one, in that it can prevent a population from destroying itself through overconsumption. Definitely there are animal species whose fecundity diminishes after reaching a certain population density.
Actually, in your list of three requirements for evolutionary change, natural selection is not strictly required. If a population is very small, random chance will do the trick (i.e., genetic drift). Drift, however, is not likely to spur large changes in modern human populations, as mobile as most of us are.
Some very intriguing recent work has been done looking at genes that have undergone recent positive selection in humans. Many, like the lactase gene in Northern Europeans, have probably been favored by the advent of agriculture some twelve millenia past.
A) Yes, “survival of the fittest” ain’t Darwin.
B) It takes MANY generations to know what “fit” might be. I can think of a GREAT survival trait that many of us in the US right now would rather not have — the ability to store excess calories as fat easily. We don’t live longer, healthier lives because of it. It just kept our ancestors from dying before we reproduced.
And yes, lack of a desire to procreate, from a racial standpoint, isn’t a great outcome.
On an individual level? Who cares? World’s full of people!
A) Yes, “survival of the fittest” ain’t Darwin.
B) It takes MANY generations to know what “fit” might be. I can think of a GREAT survival trait that many of us in the US right now would rather not have — the ability to store excess calories as fat easily. We don’t live longer, healthier lives because of it. It just kept our ancestors from dying before we reproduced.
And yes, lack of a desire to procreate, from a racial standpoint, isn’t a great outcome.
On an individual level? Who cares? World’s full of people!
1. People assuming that if you say that something is an evolved trait, you must also be claiming it’s a morally defensible trait. An example of this is when some scientists suggested that rape is an evolved behavior that has allowed men with little access to willing women to propagate their genes anyway. There was a huge feminist uproar about this–not attacking the actual science behind the suggestion, but attacking the idea that anyone would even dare voice this hypothesis. Evolution isn’t morally based. Sometimes we evolve in ways that are politically incorrect. I don’t think it’s really fair that men are on average bigger and stronger than women, but I shouldn’t attack scientists who study this and find it to be true. When a scientist tells us what *is,* they aren’t telling us what *should* be. Nor are they telling us that we have no choice in the matter. Our genetic makeup isn’t the only factor that governs our behavior.
In a society when one of the dominant discourses is “natural = acceptable” (think about how much investment has gone into finding a gay gene and the argument that gay people are born gay as a means to justify gay rights), what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior? Furthermore, a lot of evolutionary biology, when studying humans, often reflects the sexism of our society (for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology).
Indeed.
The reason I have a problem with the rape=evolution argument is that I, personally, find it to be incredibly lazy science in addition to the fact that the only people I’ve heard make it are usually rape apologists using it in a really twisted (and usually political) way.
Evolution favors genes that make its hosts more likely to reproduce. That’s it.
Well, not quite. It favors genes that make its hosts likely to reproduce, its offspring likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and maybe a couple more generation that it can have a direct effect (depending on the species).
Women hit menopause because they help their descendants survival better by helping out as grandmothers than by continuing to attempt reproduction themselves. Men don’t because reproduction doesn’t much affect their usefulness to later generations.
Okay, fair enough. Evolution favrs genes that make its host more likely to reproduce successfully; in social animals, successful reproduction may depend on more factors than just popping out the pups. 🙂
Evolution favors genes that make its hosts more likely to reproduce. That’s it.
Well, not quite. It favors genes that make its hosts likely to reproduce, its offspring likely to survive long enough to reproduce, and maybe a couple more generation that it can have a direct effect (depending on the species).
Women hit menopause because they help their descendants survival better by helping out as grandmothers than by continuing to attempt reproduction themselves. Men don’t because reproduction doesn’t much affect their usefulness to later generations.
Nice rant. By any chance, have you read Philip K. Dick’s The Golden Man? Dick understood evolution. Because of that story, more than any other, he says, he got lots of bitchy letters from folks who didn’t.
I haven’t! I’ll have to look for it now.
In, y’know, my copious free time. Heh, heh.
Toward the end, I summarize it here.
Nice rant. By any chance, have you read Philip K. Dick’s The Golden Man? Dick understood evolution. Because of that story, more than any other, he says, he got lots of bitchy letters from folks who didn’t.
One interesting argument I’ve heard is, roughly, “Evolution would never have favored something as smart as man, or advances that cause us to live as long as we do, because evolution only favors traits that get you to reproductive age and help you reproduce.”
Erm…
Stable society, lots of food stores, lots of infrastructure, medicine, etc…. That all favors lowered infant mortality. And let’s face it: Generational continuity helps.
Smart communities are more successful and thus have more successful offspring. The “excess” capacity of the human mind enabled it to adapt its environment to suit its needs as much or more than the human needed to adapt to the environment.
This argument was particularly interesting to me, because it came from my highly educated Uncle, who was a Master’s in psychology. I still wonder where that disconnect is. I couldn’t write his argument off as ill informed, but I still don’t think it’s sound. (His argument specifically was that the human brain could not be the result of evolution, because it was too well organized, and far beyond what evolution might favor in any sort of incremental approach.)
…amending the argument I was rebutting….
He argued that the additional mental capacity that allows seemingly endless human innovation was such a departure from what had come before, and mostly favorable to people after they had had offspring such that it could not possibly be a successful or meaningful selection criterion.
Therefore it had to come from “somewhere else.” (aka God.)
I’m pretty much the only agnostic / atheist in my family, so…. I just let that lay where it fell…
(I call myself agnostic for my family’s sake, but the longer the go, the more atheist I feel.)
He argued that the additional mental capacity that allows seemingly endless human innovation was such a departure from what had come before, and mostly favorable to people after they had had offspring such that it could not possibly be a successful or meaningful selection criterion.
*blink* *blink*
Wow. Just…wow. It’s hard to know where to start.
We, like other primates, are social animals; we benefit, from an evolutionary standpoint, from social complex structures that help us to raise the children that we bear. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, it does little good to bear children that then die.
Our big brains are tools of survival, just like fangs and claws. It’s a bit like arguing that a lion’s claws benefit it in ways that go beyond merely bearing young, ergo the lion’s claws could not have been formed by evolutionary processes. It misses the point on so many levels.
Our big brains, language, and tool use all help us to survive and to raise young. In fact, the kind of intelligence we have clearly, demonstrably confers an overwhelming survival advantage over other primate species. This is precisely the type of advantage that evolutionary processes tend to produce!
Please allow me to violently agree with you. 🙂
…and interestingly, the article linked to by below proposes a biological adaptive mechanism which would favor runaway development of our big brains. 🙂
One interesting argument I’ve heard is, roughly, “Evolution would never have favored something as smart as man, or advances that cause us to live as long as we do, because evolution only favors traits that get you to reproductive age and help you reproduce.”
Erm…
Stable society, lots of food stores, lots of infrastructure, medicine, etc…. That all favors lowered infant mortality. And let’s face it: Generational continuity helps.
Smart communities are more successful and thus have more successful offspring. The “excess” capacity of the human mind enabled it to adapt its environment to suit its needs as much or more than the human needed to adapt to the environment.
This argument was particularly interesting to me, because it came from my highly educated Uncle, who was a Master’s in psychology. I still wonder where that disconnect is. I couldn’t write his argument off as ill informed, but I still don’t think it’s sound. (His argument specifically was that the human brain could not be the result of evolution, because it was too well organized, and far beyond what evolution might favor in any sort of incremental approach.)
…amending the argument I was rebutting….
He argued that the additional mental capacity that allows seemingly endless human innovation was such a departure from what had come before, and mostly favorable to people after they had had offspring such that it could not possibly be a successful or meaningful selection criterion.
Therefore it had to come from “somewhere else.” (aka God.)
I’m pretty much the only agnostic / atheist in my family, so…. I just let that lay where it fell…
(I call myself agnostic for my family’s sake, but the longer the go, the more atheist I feel.)
I’m not arguing for or against rape as being an evolved behavior. However, I remember when the book A Natural History of Rape came out, the majority of responses to it read something like, “I haven’t actually read this book, but it’s offensive and wrong!!1!11!!” If you want to accuse researchers of lazy science, then you need to actually read their studies (the actual journal articles) and analyze their methods using scientific standards. And if you do that and you still decide that the science is shoddy, that’s fine, that’s exactly how science is meant to work. I have no problem with that. It’s the folks who immediately dismiss any research that contradicts their world-view that I have a problem with. That and the folks who read a story about a study in USA Today and think they have any ability to judge its worth based on a 300-word mangling of the science.
If you want to accuse researchers of lazy science, then you need to actually read their studies (the actual journal articles) and analyze their methods using scientific standards. And if you do that and you still decide that the science is shoddy,
I have, and I did.
It’s the folks who immediately dismiss any research that contradicts their world-view that I have a problem with.
Me too. And the world view of women=passive and men=aggressive/men want lots of partners and women want monogamy/men rape because of evolution! tends very much to come from people who have a very sexist worldview. It influences the science–or lack thereof–and their research and their arguments are poorly constructed.
If you’ve read peer-reviewed articles that express the whole evolutionary-rape thing well, that’s great. I haven’t, and I’ve looked. In addition to that there are a bunch of pseudo-intellectual rape-apologists running around quoting (what I believe is) already shoddy research for political reasons. If there are feminists freaking out on one side, there are just as many, if not more, individuals reading USA Today articles and telling me that–evolutionarily speaking–women prefer pink! It’s bad science, bad journalism, and a bunch of sexist jerks saying “It must be true!” without putting much thought into it, because they see the world that way anyway.
Personally, I think complex and interesting discussion can be had on the subject–as well as the subject of evolution vs. environment in general–but it’s been abused to much for social or political gain that it’s not even a scientific argument anymore. Often, it has more to do with social policy.
Point being, I honestly think we’re agreeing. We’re both bothered by the same thing (lazy/shoddy science) we’re just sitting on opposite sides of the issue (presumably), and I’m merely trying to point out that the evolutionary biology camp has its own group of political opportunists.
*So much, not “to” much.
what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?
I don’t think we should limit research subjects (or censor their results) based on what is and isn’t politically correct. The good that comes out of any research study is that we increase our knowledge of the world around us, and hopefully our ability to make it a better place. If the evidence bears out that rape is indeed an evolved behavior, then I think it’s worth knowing that. It might give us clues to how we can best prevent it, which I think is a very good thing to do. But basically, I think knowing the truth is better than believing in pretty lies. And the only way to get to the truth is to allow all researchers to present their results and state the conclusions they have drawn. And then other folks can look at their methods and repeat their studies and determine if, in the grand scheme of things, the study has merit. If you subjectively censor reearch you don’t like then you can’t actually determine what is and isn’t true.
for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology
Actually, in evolutionary biology it’s becoming less and less common. And the reason is that numerous studies are coming out showing that females (of many species, including humans) aren’t nearly as monogamous-minded as we once believed. For example, genetic tests have revealed that chimpanzee females will risk life and limb (male chimps are very violent) to sneak outside the group and have sex with males from other groups. Again, this is how science works. It’s cumulative. No one study provides a definitive answer to questions, but you can’t get a clear picture of what’s going on unless you have access to all the studies available and the ability to study, repeat, and improve on their methods.
You might say, “What good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?” But there are plenty of conservatives out there who might say, “What good can come from a study that argues that reproductive freedom is good for women?” No matter what you study, someone will be opposed to your results. Which is why everyone needs to be free to publicize their results, instead of letting political opinions squelch them.
I think we’re agreeing, too. As for whether we’re sitting on opposite sides of the issue–I never gave an opinion on the issue. 😉 I merely gave an opinion on people who automatically assume that when someone says a behavior is evolved, that they must be saying it’s morally acceptable. Replace “rape” with any other human behavior and it’s still an incorrect assumption.
I think (and can correct me if I’m wrong) that the original point was not so much that “evolved” is inherently a moral distinction so much as it is taken as a moral distinction.
Science does not occur in a vaccuum (har). Researchers are just as likely to have political motivations, or social biases, as just about anybody else. The people funding them are often even more likely to have an agenda.
I merely gave an opinion on people who automatically assume that when someone says a behavior is evolved, that they must be saying it’s morally acceptable. Replace “rape” with any other human behavior and it’s still an incorrect assumption.
I think it’s problematic but fair to make that assumption. It’s fair because, especially in the west, I think the vast majority of people out there are making a moral judgment. It’s problematic because it perpetuates the assumption. The western world, I think, has trouble doing or thinking anything without ascribing some kind of judgment to it–usually moral.
While Darwin didn’t use the phrase “survival of the fittest,” the term is used worldwide in any center of learning with a biology department. It’s used for a a very good reason too.
“Survival of the fittest” absolutely describes how evolution works. It does, perfectly.
However, it has nothing to do with physical fitness, or mental acuity, or being all badass and scary. It means how well an organism “fits” into a specific environment.
As an example, lets say we have two types of hares, black hares and white hares. They are genetically identical except for a single (or several if you wish) gene(s) that do nothing except determine the colour of the hares. Now lets say they’re living in the Tundra.
Usually, the white hare “fits” better, because his white fur will blend in and give him more camouflage than the easily seen black hare.
THAT is what “survival of the fittest” means. It’s not that the term doesn’t apply, it’s that people misuse it, and it’s depressing.
If you think that people misunderstanding evolution is annoying, trade me places. Every university course I take that even begins to mention evolution, Darwin, or even biology in general spends at minimum 1/2 a lecture explaining what evolution actually is, and how not to misunse the term “survival of the fittest.”
While Darwin didn’t use the phrase “survival of the fittest,” the term is used worldwide in any center of learning with a biology department. It’s used for a a very good reason too.
“Survival of the fittest” absolutely describes how evolution works. It does, perfectly.
However, it has nothing to do with physical fitness, or mental acuity, or being all badass and scary. It means how well an organism “fits” into a specific environment.
As an example, lets say we have two types of hares, black hares and white hares. They are genetically identical except for a single (or several if you wish) gene(s) that do nothing except determine the colour of the hares. Now lets say they’re living in the Tundra.
Usually, the white hare “fits” better, because his white fur will blend in and give him more camouflage than the easily seen black hare.
THAT is what “survival of the fittest” means. It’s not that the term doesn’t apply, it’s that people misuse it, and it’s depressing.
If you think that people misunderstanding evolution is annoying, trade me places. Every university course I take that even begins to mention evolution, Darwin, or even biology in general spends at minimum 1/2 a lecture explaining what evolution actually is, and how not to misunse the term “survival of the fittest.”
Tacit, have you read David Brin’s article “Neoteny and two-way sexual selection in human evolution”? I think you’d find it fascinating.
Online here.
Interesting article. I think it has a couple of flaws, the most major of which is a focus on pair-bonding as “the” evolutionary strategy of human reproduction; most evolutionary biologists who study human breeding strategies think it’s more complex than that.
A human female has an evolutionary advantage in choosing mates who will stick around and help raise the young, for reasons which the article goes into at length. But there is also an evolutionary advantage in fathering multiple children with multiple fathers. Multiple fathers means a wider assortment of genes in the offspring. Since a woman always knows that any child she has is genetically hers, it pays to have as wide a genetic assortment of fathers as possible, because if she puts all her genetic eggs in one basket–fathering all her children with one father–then her young may all be vulnerable to, for example, a particular disease or parasite to which the father happens to be particularly vulnerable.
There is no one singe “best mate.” A mate who is physically strong, who cares for the children, and who is otherwise genetically desirable but who contains a genetic weakness that is lurking beneath the surface may doom all of a woman’s offspring. Women who were strictly monogamous faced a tiny, but nevertheless still present, genetic risk; women who fathered children with many males could, to a tiny degree, offset that risk.
So in other words, there is an evolutionary advantage to be pair-bonded in a long-term relationship with a mate, but to cheat on that mate with other males! Women who do this have a greater chance of having at least one of their children survive a calamity to which their long-term mate has some particular genetic susceptibility, such as disease.
I think he’s focusing on pair-bonding, and stopping there, because that’s all that’s needed to illustrate his thesis. Continuing on to other adaptive behaviors would just complicate things, especially for the audience, who, as we widely observe, don’t necessarily understand evolution, and/or may use its jargon to advance political agendas.
Tacit, have you read David Brin’s article “Neoteny and two-way sexual selection in human evolution”? I think you’d find it fascinating.
Online here.
the whole article had me so infuriated i threw things, and i’m still angry about it this morning. i’d be interested to hear your take on it.
That’s the kind of article that could only come from a politician with an axe to grind, not a scientist. Given that its author is a professor of politics and not an evolutionary biologist, its conclusions are about what I’d expect. This is clearly a man who has never actually attended so much as a freshman-level class in evolutionary biology.
I briefly thought about writing a point-by-point rebuttal, but what’s the point?
the whole article had me so infuriated i threw things, and i’m still angry about it this morning. i’d be interested to hear your take on it.
I just finished reading “Origin” not too long ago, so this was a good refresher, though I knew these things already.
Humans ARE still evolving. I think the so-called “obesity epidemic” is overblown BS, but it is true that the average 10-year-old-boy and the average teenage girl today are about 10 pounds heavier than the same boy or teenage girl in the 1950s. They’re also about 1 inch taller today.
It’s hard to say whether that’s a genetic evolutionary adaptation or an environmental issue, though. Most of the studies I’ve read attribute the increase in height among modern humans to better nutrition rather than genetics; our ancestors had the genes which would let them reach our height, but lacked the nutrition to get them there.
I want to say that it’s occurred too quickly to be an evolutionary adaptation, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist and therefore can’t prove it. And as far as evolution goes, it seems likely that fat-storing genes are maladaptive in a society with stable food supplies; even extra height might be, although you’ve got sexual selection working against you there.
I’m not sure that fat-storing genes are necessarily maladaptive in situations of stable supply. In the timescale relevant to evolution of our species, we haven’t had stable food supply conditions long enough to see how they’ll affect our evolution.
It might work out that fat-storing, while individually disavantageous, may be evolutionarily advantageous, being selected for (or at least not selected against) for some reasons not presently obvious.
There might be an evolutionary connection triggered by obesity. Researchers have noted that larger girls, it seems, are going into puberty younger, sometimes as young as eight. Given a few generations of plenty — so much food we can actually get fat — triggering an early sexual maturation allows the community to produce more offspring to eat all that tasty, tasty food.
An anecdote: My son’s school has a girl who was in fifth grade last year, as as far as I know, she was the usual ten years old, but she looked 20, easily, except for being maybe 4’9″. She was also apparently one of the less mentally mature fifth graders. It was honestly kinda creepy.
I just finished reading “Origin” not too long ago, so this was a good refresher, though I knew these things already.
Humans ARE still evolving. I think the so-called “obesity epidemic” is overblown BS, but it is true that the average 10-year-old-boy and the average teenage girl today are about 10 pounds heavier than the same boy or teenage girl in the 1950s. They’re also about 1 inch taller today.
In a society when one of the dominant discourses is “natural = acceptable” (think about how much investment has gone into finding a gay gene and the argument that gay people are born gay as a means to justify gay rights)…
I don’t think that the idea that sexual orientation is genetic is necessarily about “justifying gay rights.” Frankly, I think a stronger case for gay rights can be made simply on the basis that people’s private choices are not, and should not be, a matter of public policy, and that equal protection under the law is not meaningful if it doesn’t apply to everyone.
Nevertheless, I do strongly feel that the pursuit of knowledge, of and by itself, has value. We are physical creatures; we operate in accordance with the laws of physics; our behaviors are rooted in our brains, which are physical organs shaped by our genes and our experiences. If sexual behaviors are influenced by genetics, that’s something that’s worth knowing about.
Anything we can learn about ourselves has value. The truth has value. Understanding ourselves better is important; it is knowledge that counters ignorance and superstition.
“…what good can come from a study that argues that rape is an evolved behavior?”
If it is true, then knowing that it is true has value.
People may misuse this kind of knowledge to attempt to justify violence and rape. This is not an argument against learning whether it’s true that rape is an evolved reproductive strategy, because the people who would use this to try to justify it have already decided that rape is acceptable. It’s not like you’re going to find people who say “Well, you know, I used to believe that rape was morally wrong, but hey, now that I know it’s a behavior that has been selected in favor of among many primate species, now it’s OK–in fact, I think I’m going to exercise my evolutionary heritage by raping someone on the subway this afternoon”–and any person who would do such a thing is clearly not a good person to begin with.
“Furthermore, a lot of evolutionary biology, when studying humans, often reflects the sexism of our society (for example, how common it is to assert that women want monogamy while men want nonmonogamy in evolutionary biology).”
Very common, at least among laypeople. Among serious evolutionary biologists, that idea has been shown not to hold up very well; modern evolutionary biologists have discarded that model in favor of one in which many primate species, including our own, benefit the most by pair-bonding and then cheating. (This idea is supported by sociological surveys, which reveal things like the fact that about 5% of all families in the US have at least one child who is the product of an illicit affair, and the fact that women are statistically more likely to cheat during times when they are most fertile). That’s one of the nice things about the scientific method; science tends to be self-correcting over the long term.
Re: Fitness
Fair enough. The word “fitness” in a narrow biological sense is appropriate.
There’s a common problem in science, that goes beyond evolutionary science, which is that scientists often use words in very specific ways that don’t mean the same thing as the vernacular. You see this among some of the weird, New-Age “woo woo” interpretations of quantum mechanics, which are almost always predicated on the mistaken idea that our minds can affect the physical world at the quantum level. These silly notions almost always come from the fact that people hear the physicist talking about an “observer,” and believe that the word “observer” means “person looking at something,” when to a quantum physicist the word “observer” means “anything whose state depends in a thermodynamically irreversible way on the state of the thing with which it interacts.”
So, yes, “survival of the fittest” is meaningful in the biological sense of the word “fittest,” but not in the common vernacular sense of the word “fittest.”
Re: Fitness
Fair enough. The word “fitness” in a narrow biological sense is appropriate.
There’s a common problem in science, that goes beyond evolutionary science, which is that scientists often use words in very specific ways that don’t mean the same thing as the vernacular. You see this among some of the weird, New-Age “woo woo” interpretations of quantum mechanics, which are almost always predicated on the mistaken idea that our minds can affect the physical world at the quantum level. These silly notions almost always come from the fact that people hear the physicist talking about an “observer,” and believe that the word “observer” means “person looking at something,” when to a quantum physicist the word “observer” means “anything whose state depends in a thermodynamically irreversible way on the state of the thing with which it interacts.”
So, yes, “survival of the fittest” is meaningful in the biological sense of the word “fittest,” but not in the common vernacular sense of the word “fittest.”
Okay, fair enough. Evolution favrs genes that make its host more likely to reproduce successfully; in social animals, successful reproduction may depend on more factors than just popping out the pups. 🙂
I haven’t! I’ll have to look for it now.
In, y’know, my copious free time. Heh, heh.
He argued that the additional mental capacity that allows seemingly endless human innovation was such a departure from what had come before, and mostly favorable to people after they had had offspring such that it could not possibly be a successful or meaningful selection criterion.
*blink* *blink*
Wow. Just…wow. It’s hard to know where to start.
We, like other primates, are social animals; we benefit, from an evolutionary standpoint, from social complex structures that help us to raise the children that we bear. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, it does little good to bear children that then die.
Our big brains are tools of survival, just like fangs and claws. It’s a bit like arguing that a lion’s claws benefit it in ways that go beyond merely bearing young, ergo the lion’s claws could not have been formed by evolutionary processes. It misses the point on so many levels.
Our big brains, language, and tool use all help us to survive and to raise young. In fact, the kind of intelligence we have clearly, demonstrably confers an overwhelming survival advantage over other primate species. This is precisely the type of advantage that evolutionary processes tend to produce!
That’s the kind of article that could only come from a politician with an axe to grind, not a scientist. Given that its author is a professor of politics and not an evolutionary biologist, its conclusions are about what I’d expect. This is clearly a man who has never actually attended so much as a freshman-level class in evolutionary biology.
I briefly thought about writing a point-by-point rebuttal, but what’s the point?
Interesting article. I think it has a couple of flaws, the most major of which is a focus on pair-bonding as “the” evolutionary strategy of human reproduction; most evolutionary biologists who study human breeding strategies think it’s more complex than that.
A human female has an evolutionary advantage in choosing mates who will stick around and help raise the young, for reasons which the article goes into at length. But there is also an evolutionary advantage in fathering multiple children with multiple fathers. Multiple fathers means a wider assortment of genes in the offspring. Since a woman always knows that any child she has is genetically hers, it pays to have as wide a genetic assortment of fathers as possible, because if she puts all her genetic eggs in one basket–fathering all her children with one father–then her young may all be vulnerable to, for example, a particular disease or parasite to which the father happens to be particularly vulnerable.
There is no one singe “best mate.” A mate who is physically strong, who cares for the children, and who is otherwise genetically desirable but who contains a genetic weakness that is lurking beneath the surface may doom all of a woman’s offspring. Women who were strictly monogamous faced a tiny, but nevertheless still present, genetic risk; women who fathered children with many males could, to a tiny degree, offset that risk.
So in other words, there is an evolutionary advantage to be pair-bonded in a long-term relationship with a mate, but to cheat on that mate with other males! Women who do this have a greater chance of having at least one of their children survive a calamity to which their long-term mate has some particular genetic susceptibility, such as disease.
Please allow me to violently agree with you. 🙂
It’s hard to say whether that’s a genetic evolutionary adaptation or an environmental issue, though. Most of the studies I’ve read attribute the increase in height among modern humans to better nutrition rather than genetics; our ancestors had the genes which would let them reach our height, but lacked the nutrition to get them there.
…and interestingly, the article linked to by below proposes a biological adaptive mechanism which would favor runaway development of our big brains. 🙂
Toward the end, I summarize it here.
There might be an evolutionary connection triggered by obesity. Researchers have noted that larger girls, it seems, are going into puberty younger, sometimes as young as eight. Given a few generations of plenty — so much food we can actually get fat — triggering an early sexual maturation allows the community to produce more offspring to eat all that tasty, tasty food.
I want to say that it’s occurred too quickly to be an evolutionary adaptation, but I’m not an evolutionary biologist and therefore can’t prove it. And as far as evolution goes, it seems likely that fat-storing genes are maladaptive in a society with stable food supplies; even extra height might be, although you’ve got sexual selection working against you there.
I think he’s focusing on pair-bonding, and stopping there, because that’s all that’s needed to illustrate his thesis. Continuing on to other adaptive behaviors would just complicate things, especially for the audience, who, as we widely observe, don’t necessarily understand evolution, and/or may use its jargon to advance political agendas.
I’m not sure that fat-storing genes are necessarily maladaptive in situations of stable supply. In the timescale relevant to evolution of our species, we haven’t had stable food supply conditions long enough to see how they’ll affect our evolution.
It might work out that fat-storing, while individually disavantageous, may be evolutionarily advantageous, being selected for (or at least not selected against) for some reasons not presently obvious.
Here’s one general-audience article. Are we still evolving?
You’ll likely want to do your own research on the points that are relevant to you.
Here’s one general-audience article. Are we still evolving?
You’ll likely want to do your own research on the points that are relevant to you.
Why evolution is a Mythology
Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell.
Already being done.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6733797.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/08/20/tech-life.html
That’s not relevant, though. We do not have to be able to ‘invent’ gravity to know that it exists, nor be able to create a star from scratch to know how starts form, develop, and die.
By the way, it’s “voila,” not “walla.”
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
Where do you people come from? Seriously?
And why too cowardly to reveal your identity?
Ugh.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
The writing style suggests this anonymous poster is none-other than Ken Ham himself, the “creator” of AIG. If not, he certainly has a serious gay crush on Ham’s hams.
What a douche.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
Dear God.
I hadn’t been to the “answersingenesis” site before, and all I can say is wow. Im…err, honored to be the recipient of a man who has done so much to
retardfurther advance human knowledge.The Bible says that God created the earth first, then afterward created the sun; ergo, every model of cosmology developed by all scientists must be wrong. It must be nice, in a manner of speaking, to be able to believe something so blindly.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
You haven’t been to AIG? Really? You posted their freaky “don’t matter to god, don’t matter to anyone” teaser ad on your Optimist post.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
I know, but I didn’t grab it from them. I haven’t actually read any of the contents of their site ’til now.
Pity, too.. That site is comedy gold!
Why evolution is a Mythology
Many people, when they can’t provide evidence for their theory, adopt the strategy of falsehood. Such is the case with many of those who have fallen victim to the propaganda of renowned evolutionists.
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell. This should be possible, since they certainly have a very great amount of knowledge about what is inside the ‘simple’ cell.
After all, shouldn’t all the combined Intelligence of all the worlds scientist be able the do what chance encounters with random chemicals, without a set of instructions, accomplished about 4 billion years ago,according to the evolutionists, having no intelligence at all available to help them along in their quest to become a living entity. Surely then the evolutionists scientists today should be able to make us a ‘simple’ cell.
If it weren’t so pitiful it would be humorous, that intelligent people have swallowed the evolution mythology.
Beyond doubt, the main reason people believe in evolution is that sources they admire, say it is so. It would pay for these people to do a thorough examination of all the evidence CONTRARY to evolution that is readily available: Try answersingenesis.org. The evolutionists should honestly examine the SUPPOSED evidence ‘FOR’ evolution for THEMSELVES.
Build us a cell, from scratch, with the required raw material, that is with NO cell material, just the ‘raw’ stuff, and the argument is over. But if the scientists are unsuccessful, perhaps they should try Mother Earth’s recipe, you know, the one they claim worked the first time about 4 billion years ago, so they say. All they need to do is to gather all the chemicals that we know are essential for life, pour them into a large clay pot and stir vigorously for a few billion years, and Walla, LIFE!
Oh, you don’t believe the ‘original’ Mother Earth recipe will work? You are NOT alone, Neither do I, and MILLIONS of others!
PS: Please don’t lie about the ‘first life’ problem, scientists are falling all over themselves to make a living cell. Many have admitted publicly that it is a monumental problem. And is many years away from happening, if ever. Logical people understand this problem and have rightly concluded that an Intelligent Designer was absolutely necessary. Think of it this way, if all the brilliant scientists on earth can’t do it, how on earth can anyone believe that it happened by accident?????
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
If evolutionists want to end the arguments all they have to do is, get their brilliant heads together and assemble a ‘simple’ living cell.
Already being done.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051219.wxlife19/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6733797.stm
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/08/20/tech-life.html
That’s not relevant, though. We do not have to be able to ‘invent’ gravity to know that it exists, nor be able to create a star from scratch to know how starts form, develop, and die.
By the way, it’s “voila,” not “walla.”
I hate when people assume that an evolved trait is necessarily the ideal one.
Well yeah, especially when you consider things like Tay-Sachs & Sickle Cell Anemia are evolved survival traits.
The whole pink/blue thing is actually involved in advertising changes in the US in the early 1900’s.
Prior to that, pink was associated with boys (as it was a milder version of red which was considered a masculine color due to its link to fire) and blue for girls because it was tranquil and calm like the ocean.
So that particular one’s memetics, not genetics, but is still linked to biased views of sex & gender 🙂
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
Where do you people come from? Seriously?
And why too cowardly to reveal your identity?
Ugh.
The reference was to an article floating around that claims that girls genetically prefer pink, and boys blue, and that it must be because women were gatherers and were looking for ripe fruit, so their eyes would be drawn to red, so they like pink. It’s stupid and wrong on about 98709870868976 levels. The study itself showed that all people tend to be drawn to blues and purples, but that women more often tended to be drawn to purple. And that’s more red than blue, so that means women like pink!
Yup, I’m aware 🙂
I was just pointing out the idiocy of that given that anyone who’s taken a marketing class knows it’s a societal construst & only about 100 years old.
Ahhh, ok. Sorry if that seemed snippy or defensive. 🙂
‘s cool 😉
An anecdote: My son’s school has a girl who was in fifth grade last year, as as far as I know, she was the usual ten years old, but she looked 20, easily, except for being maybe 4’9″. She was also apparently one of the less mentally mature fifth graders. It was honestly kinda creepy.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
The writing style suggests this anonymous poster is none-other than Ken Ham himself, the “creator” of AIG. If not, he certainly has a serious gay crush on Ham’s hams.
What a douche.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
Dear God.
I hadn’t been to the “answersingenesis” site before, and all I can say is wow. Im…err, honored to be the recipient of a man who has done so much to
retardfurther advance human knowledge.The Bible says that God created the earth first, then afterward created the sun; ergo, every model of cosmology developed by all scientists must be wrong. It must be nice, in a manner of speaking, to be able to believe something so blindly.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
You haven’t been to AIG? Really? You posted their freaky “don’t matter to god, don’t matter to anyone” teaser ad on your Optimist post.
Re: Why evolution is a Mythology
I know, but I didn’t grab it from them. I haven’t actually read any of the contents of their site ’til now.
Pity, too.. That site is comedy gold!