Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SkepticLance

Evolution stuffs up

Recommended Posts

That's a 28 million-year-old fossil whale. How are they afraid it's going to damage creationism any more than it already does?

 

Alright, but I want you to know I'm thorough in my research. This could take a while.

 

That is an excellent point. 28Million years old, carbon dated im sure. 28million > 6,000. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is an excellent point. 28Million years old, carbon dated im sure. 28million > 6,000. :D

 

Just because my "total dork hat" and my "uber nerd pants" haven't really felt like they are fitting properly lately, I'll go ahead and point out that it almost certainly wasn't carbon dated since that particular procedure has an upward limit of roughly 60,000 years. It's much more likely that some other form of radiometric dating like Potassium argon was used. :)

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Potassium Argon dating encompasses the correct time span. However, it is only useful if the fossil relates to a lava flow. This is because, when rock is melted, as in lava from a volcano, any Argon inside the rock is released (Argon is a gas). After the rock solidifies, any Argon 40 present will be the result of Potassium 40 decay. By measuring the Argon 40 in the lava, the time at which the lava was molten can be calculated.

 

If a fossil is found in sedimentary rock, and a lava flow is on top the the rock, then K/Ar dating can date the lava, and thus set a minimum date for the sedimentary rock, which will, of course, be older than the time in which the lava was molten.

 

If the sedimentary rock is on top of the lava, then a maximum date can be set. Ideally, the fossil in the sedimentary rock will be between two lava flows. This is more common than you might think, since a sedimentary layer can sometimes be plotted for hundreds of kilometres.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Potassium Argon dating encompasses the correct time span. However, it is only useful if the fossil relates to a lava flow. This is because, when rock is melted, as in lava from a volcano, any Argon inside the rock is released (Argon is a gas). After the rock solidifies, any Argon 40 present will be the result of Potassium 40 decay. By measuring the Argon 40 in the lava, the time at which the lava was molten can be calculated.

 

If a fossil is found in sedimentary rock, and a lava flow is on top the the rock, then K/Ar dating can date the lava, and thus set a minimum date for the sedimentary rock, which will, of course, be older than the time in which the lava was molten.

 

If the sedimentary rock is on top of the lava, then a maximum date can be set. Ideally, the fossil in the sedimentary rock will be between two lava flows. This is more common than you might think, since a sedimentary layer can sometimes be plotted for hundreds of kilometres.

 

Not just lava flows. Ash falls work just as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doubtless you are correct. However, the 'perfect creator' concept is still applied to a large degree by fundamentalists. And fundamentalists are the ones who deride evolution.

 

But you are still finding a theological flaw in Fundamentalism and in the Argument from Design.

 

If we are speaking strictly from science and looking for an "intellgent designer", that designer could have any personality at all, including being stupid and sadistic. All the designer has to do, from a scientific standpoint, is manufacture the plants and animals. It is only from a theological standpoint that "bad" designs are unacceptable.

 

To lucaspa

 

I stand by my statement that most faith consists of believing what you are told. This is why the vast majority of religious people follow the faith of their fathers.

 

You have too narrow a view of history. You are looking at just now. Let's take the two periods in history: the spread of Christianity in the 1st and 2nd centuries and the spread of Islam in the 9th and 10th centuries. Both were done peacefully. In each case you have vast numbers of people who gave up the "faith of their fathers" and went for a new faith.

 

And you can't say that is because "someone proselytised the change". Yes, someone needed to inform them of the new theory, but that does not mean they had to accept it. If you take this view, then people adhere to evolution only because it is what "they are told".

 

People do not have to stay in the faith of their fathers. As you noted, many in each generation do not. They decide that that theory doesn't work. Now, why can't you accept that the people who do stay in a theory do so because the theory works for them?

 

They choose to believe what they have been told, and this is faith.

 

Notice the "choose". People don't usually believe what they are told when it contradicts their experience. We can take this out of religion and look at other situations. When whites in the military were put in contact with blacks and served alongside them, they stopped believing in the "faith" that blacks were inferior and instead looked upon them as equals. If people choose to believe what they are told, it is because what they are told matches up to the evidence.

 

If you are really serious about that statement, what you have done is say that everyone here accepts every scientific theory on faith! Because we choose to believe what we are told in scientific papers and books! Are you sure you really want to try and tell us that the people who accept science are doing so because of faith?

 

Congratulations. While trying to belittle faith as something less than science, you have managed to put both of them on the same level!

 

There will be a minority who have some kind of religious experience that changes their faith, but most are the result of believing what they have been told.

 

Assertion without data. SkepticLance, have you ever talked to theists? Better yet, have you ever listened to theists? It doesn't look like it. Instead, you are making assertions without any idea what you are talking about. The vast majority of theists have some kind of religious experience: but one that is consistent with the faith that they are in. As I said, most people don't just "believe what they are told" if what they are told goes against their personal experience.

 

Either way, I'm not so sure about agricultural ®evolution being a slow change.

 

Some sources to read up on ideas concerning the origin of agriculture:

http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci124/lec24.html

http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/agorigin.htm

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030410&ct=1

http://www.comp-archaeology.org/AgricultureOrigins.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070601173931.htm

 

To lucaspa: I've read elsewhere how important agriculture was to the deveolpment of human society. But the basics of agriculture are not that complicated -- put the seed in the ground and wait.

 

ROFL! Way too simplistic. When do you put the seed into the ground? Too early and frost might kill it. Too late and the crop doesn't mature until winter kills it off.

 

What type of ground? Different plants require different soils. And, of course, we haven't even gotten to depth in the ground. For many plants, put the seed too deep and the seedling doesn't break ground before it runs out of energy stored in the seed. So it dies. Different plants have different depths for germination.

 

How do you prevent the plants you want from being overrun with other plants (weeds)? You can't just "wait", a farmer must be active during the growing season.

 

So no, I don't think it is going to be possible to teach any of the other apes to do agriculture. The evidence we have shows that they do not have the long term planning or attention span necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ROFL! Way too simplistic. When do you put the seed into the ground? Too early and frost might kill it. Too late and the crop doesn't mature until winter kills it off.

 

What type of ground? Different plants require different soils. And, of course, we haven't even gotten to depth in the ground. For many plants, put the seed too deep and the seedling doesn't break ground before it runs out of energy stored in the seed. So it dies. Different plants have different depths for germination.

 

Well, the birds and other animals don't seem to have too much of a problem spreading the seeds. To do proper agriculture would require some intelligence, but even a bird-brain can plant a seed.

 

How do you prevent the plants you want from being overrun with other plants (weeds)? You can't just "wait", a farmer must be active during the growing season.

 

Not all plants need weeding, and that would have been less of a problem before we domesticated the plants and made them dependent on us in the first place.

 

So no, I don't think it is going to be possible to teach any of the other apes to do agriculture. The evidence we have shows that they do not have the long term planning or attention span necessary.

 

I'd agree that they probably can't be taught, but you don't need to know what you're doing to practice agriculture. Leaf-cutter ants can "farm" mushrooms without even having a proper brain. It does seem like it is highly unlikely that we would have learned agriculture instinctually, but the ants did.

 

Anyhow, I should have a look at the links you gave E Coli.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lucaspa said

 

"But you are still finding a theological flaw in Fundamentalism and in the Argument from Design."

 

We could end up arguing semantics here. I would call it a flaw in the logic used by fundamentalists, rather than a theological flaw.

 

As I said, we will probably not agree on the business of 'faith'. I stand by my statement that most people follow the faith of their fathers, and do so simply because they choose to believe what they are told. Sure, there have been times when faiths change. Here in NZ the polynesian native peoples - the Maori - became Christian instead of polytheists. It happened because they met a clearly more powerful and wealthier people - the Europeans and their missionaries. They were told a new message. They accepted it, and probably because the power of the new white people was so clear cut. This led them to choose to believe what they were told.

 

However, for each generation in which religious faith changes rapidly, there are numerous in which there is no, or little change, and people simply follow the faith they are taught. For example, the Maori had 600 years in NZ before the Christians arrived, meaning about 24 generations with no change compared to the one or two generations of rapid change in religious belief.

 

In either case, for the majority of religious people, the faith is simply what they were taught, and chose to believe. Faith is choosing to believe what you are told.

 

This is very far from science, and my argument does not, in any way, reduce science. Scepticism is a vital part of science. The unwillingness to believe what you are told runs throughout scientific history and has led to many break throughs.

 

This is quite contrary to religious faith. In fact, religious history is full of examples of religious leaders actually killing those who question. eg. the Inquisition, and some Muslim societies (like the Taliban) today. Scepticism is a vital part of science. It is a massively, and sometimes violently, resisted quality in religion. Faith is almost the opposite of scepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has been mentioned...

 

64 codons/anti-codons and only 20 amino acids; 44 are repetitious.

 

To employ all 20 amino acids with 4 base pairs, you need codons at least 3 letters long (2 letters only provides 16 possibilities). If DNA was designed by a perfect being, however, it would have been created far more efficiently with less redundancies.

 

For example: 6 base pairs, 2 letter codons. Thus, there would only be 16 repetitious combinations, and DNA would be translated much faster to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the really bad flaws in the creationist argument is based on their idea of a perfect creator.

 

Evolution is imperfect by its very nature - too many random variables. The results of evolution are very often seriously imperfect. If life had been created in finished form by a perfect creator, that life would, ipso facto, be perfect. Why would a perfect creator indulge in crappy workmanship?

 

Some of the imperfections I see as a result of evolution's stuff ups are ;

 

The human appendix

The fact that our breathing tube (trachea) and our swallowing tube (esophagus) open in our throats side by side, resulting in thousands of choking deaths each year.

Menstrual pains.

Inability to make Vitamin C inside the human body in spite of most of the required genetic mechanism being present.

 

Any comments, or other examples ?

 

Older guys cannot urinate so well because the prostrate gland is squeezing against the urethra.

 

 

I mean, seriously, what kind of perfect creator would put a sewer system smack dab in the middle of a recreation area?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, I am agnostic. So no throwing spears at me. ;)

Now, would it not be dead dull if everything worked perfectly?

What would we do with ourselves then? Would we just sit around being smug, omnipotent and immortal?

I think we should be thankful that there is likely to be no God, no intelligent design, no Thor, this gives us a shit load of challenges to amuse ourselves with while we are still conscious. Otherwise we might as well all be a collection of rocks.

I’m not saying that imperfection is actually perfect in itself; I’m saying that we are possibly more fortunate than we might imagine, that there are stuff ups and perceived stuff ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 17 May 2008 issue of New Scientist has an item called 'The old curiosity shop' about vestigial organs.

 

It lists a few human vestigial organs, which I found of interest.

 

1. Vomeronasal organ. A remnant of the old system of detecting pheromones. Apparently, in humans, the receptor cells are non functional, but the overall structure is still in place, though useless.

 

2. Goose bumps. Tiny muscles attached to hair follicles to raise them in cold weather. In other mammals, this increases thermal insulation. In humans, with our tiny hairs, it is useless.

 

3. Darwin's Point. A protrusion of the outer ear in a few humans. It appears to be the remnant of a structure for pivoting the ear. In humans, with immobile ears, this structure is useless.

 

4. The tail bone. Obviously, humans do not need the remnant of the bones of the tail. It is interesting though, to note that there are more than 100 medical reports of babies born with tails. I wonder how an intelligent design enthusiast would explain a human born with a tail!

 

5. Wisdom teeth. We all know that these are useless and a problem to many, with impacting on other teeth etc. It is interesting that over a third of Homo sapiens are born today with no wisdom teeth. With the movement to softer foods and smaller mouths, our species appears to be evolving away from wisdom teeth.

 

Vestigial organs MUST be a problem to those who promote intelligent design versions of creationism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4. The tail bone. Obviously, humans do not need the remnant of the bones of the tail. It is interesting though, to note that there are more than 100 medical reports of babies born with tails. I wonder how an intelligent design enthusiast would explain a human born with a tail!

 

The coccyx isn't totally useless. Muscles attach there. It's also good for livening up gross anatomy classes.

 

Creationist/convict Kent Hovind actually hosted once a scathing and comically inept attack on evolutionists using the coccyx by a John Hinton: http://www.faceeternity.com/evolution_tailbone.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another angle for looking at scientific intelligent design. If we react O2 and H2 we get water. Even when the universe was young and still a subatomic stew this reaction into water was already in the design based on the laws of nature. It was not in affect but was already defined. One can trace plasma oxygen and hydrogen leaving the sun, I will be bet you it will form water. It is not random survival of the fittest forming H4O, tomorrow. The H2O has selective advantage because of design.

 

It is also likely that DNA,RNA is part of the same broad design. Water forms under certain conditions. Give the right conditions the genetic material is also reliable since it is part of the design. We have not found alternatives, other than in science fiction. We need to look at the real data. The cell is another design where there is no alternative in terms of something that is alive. If it was as random of a crap shoot there should be cell alternatives out there at least in fossil evidence. At this low level the preponderance of the data is in favor of design, due to no alternatives just like there is not three forms of water molecules. But the question is how far up does the design actually go? Does it stop at the cell?

 

As far as I know there are no intelligent single cell life forms. This is usually reserved for multicellular. So multicellular is part of the design. It is a milestone that needs to be achieved before things can go further. If that was not the case, there should be Einstein Amoebae. One might even include warm blooded, better oxygen transfer with gills and lungs, nervous system and the brain, male-female, sensory systems, to name a few other design milestone features. Again these are almost singular commonality in terms of moving up the ladder. I am not concerned about cosmetics but am thinking more in terms of the nuts and bolts under the hood.

 

I still like evolution because it appears to be the process between the design milestones. The analogy is reacting O2 and H2 to form water. This is not a simple reaction, even though it has a design goal in mind. There is a lot of random molecular, radial and ionic things in the chain reaction. But all that confusion is leading to a final simplicity within the H2O design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5. Wisdom teeth. We all know that these are useless and a problem to many, with impacting on other teeth etc. It is interesting that over a third of Homo sapiens are born today with no wisdom teeth. With the movement to softer foods and smaller mouths, our species appears to be evolving away from wisdom teeth.

 

I disagree with this one. With our modern diet they may well be worthless, but before they were useful for tough foods and such, and as a replacement for lost teeth (which there were a lot of). Now, having replaceable teeth, that would be good design. For that matter, being able to regenerate all body parts would be useful, especially if we were designed to live forever.

 

Vestigial organs MUST be a problem to those who promote intelligent design versions of creationism.

 

Not really; they'd be a minor embarrassment at most. Since God cursed all of creation after Adam sinned, that's an excuse for pretty much anything. As to the morality of doing so, especially since he forbade punishing children for their father's crimes, that's much more questionable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Mr. Skeptic

 

There are indications from charcoal deposits which suggest that our species had fire since well before our species actually evolved.

 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_erectus.html

 

This implies cooking, and hence a reduced need for hard chewing and lots of teeth. There has been enough time for the beginnings of evolution away from wisdom teeth.

 

On the theological argument, I really have a problem. With a being (God) who may be mere wishful thinking, debating his motives is really unlikely to have any value in a real world. There is little doubt that the first books of the bible were pretty much myth, legend, and possibly parable. Not even much history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To Mr. Skeptic

 

There are indications from charcoal deposits which suggest that our species had fire since well before our species actually evolved.

 

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Galaxy/1508/H_erectus.html

 

This implies cooking, and hence a reduced need for hard chewing and lots of teeth. There has been enough time for the beginnings of evolution away from wisdom teeth.

 

That's interesting. Yet until recently, and still in poorer countries, people loose lots of their teeth, so the extra teeth would still be useful.

 

On the theological argument, I really have a problem. With a being (God) who may be mere wishful thinking, debating his motives is really unlikely to have any value in a real world.

 

True enough. But many people use the bible as a guide to morality, so for many millions of people it has some value.

 

There is little doubt that the first books of the bible were pretty much myth, legend, and possibly parable. Not even much history.

 

Well, it might surprise you then that people who go to church tend to disagree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't mean they're right, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr Skeptic said :

 

"Yet until recently, and still in poorer countries, people loose lots of their teeth,"

 

Would this not result in evolution towards more durable teeth rather than retaining extra teeth? Recently tooth loss comes from tooth decay, from eating sweeter foods. However, in the past, tooth loss has resulted more from abrasion. In less 'processed' times, food often contained dirt and sand grains. When chewed, these abraded teeth down.

 

Having extra teeth, especially some that caused problems by impacting, would not appear to me much of an adaptive advantage when all teeth were wearing down together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really, it would only be impacted by selection if the loss of teeth caused significant enough health issues prior to passing on their genes.

 

If they have kids before their "loss of teeth" causes death, then it won't matter much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To iNow

 

I understand your point. The way evolution works on humans is that characteristics that have an effect later in life have a lesser influence on evolutionary change than characteristics that have an effect earlier in life.

Important note : The effect may be smaller but they still have a significant effect.

 

A lot of this is the grandfather principle. Keeping a grandparent alive, fit and healthy longer assists in improving the odds of survival of the grandchild, since grandparents assist in caring for the young. An effect such as gum infections from impacting wisdom teeth would be negatively adaptive, even if it happens only to older people, since their reduction in fitness and survival reduces the survival chances of grandchildren.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point. I hadn't considered the grandparent effect on survival of the offspring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, the birds and other animals don't seem to have too much of a problem spreading the seeds. To do proper agriculture would require some intelligence, but even a bird-brain can plant a seed.

 

As you noted, birds and animals spread seeds, they do not plant them. Birds and animals usually pass the seeds thru their digestive tracts and they fall out with the feces.

 

Agriculture is very different. It is deliberately placing seeds where you want them, in conditions that are particularly favorable to their sprouting and growing. And then making sure the plants you want are not crowded out by plants you don't want.

 

Not all plants need weeding, and that would have been less of a problem before we domesticated the plants and made them dependent on us in the first place.

 

It's still a problem, because, from the plant's pov, all that is needed is that a few plants grow to produce more seeds. But agriculture requires that the vast majority be the plants that you want. Unless the plant is a transplant to a new ecology (like kudzu), you don't have that.

 

I'd agree that they probably can't be taught, but you don't need to know what you're doing to practice agriculture. Leaf-cutter ants can "farm" mushrooms without even having a proper brain. It does seem like it is highly unlikely that we would have learned agriculture instinctually, but the ants did.

 

As you said, natural selection designed ants to do agriculture. But natural selection did not design apes to do so. Chimps and humans have to do agriculture intellectually, and it appears that natural selection did not design chimp brains for the required abstract thought and foreplanning necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To iNow

 

I find the grandparent effect very interesting. It explains a couple of unusual things about humans.

1. Our very long lifespan

2. The reason males live almost as long as females.

 

In other primates, in the main, lifespan is limited to the time that parents can assist in improving survival of their offspring. And females mostly live a lot longer than males, since they are needed to assist offspring survival. Among humans, where grandparents are useful, evolution has given us a long lifespan. Males live almost as long as females, reflecting a stronger grandchild survival from the efforts of the male grandparent, as well as the female.

 

For us humans, it is probably more accurate to suggest that evolution has not finished with us till our grandchildren reach adulthood. Then 'Mother Nature' is happy for us to die. Hence our '3 score years and ten.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lucaspa said

 

"But you are still finding a theological flaw in Fundamentalism and in the Argument from Design."

 

We could end up arguing semantics here. I would call it a flaw in the logic used by fundamentalists, rather than a theological flaw.

 

The point was that bad designs are not a scientific problem. Bad designs do not argue against the scientific validity of ID. The "bad" designs can still be artifacts manufactured by an intelligent entity. After all, the rack and thumbscrews are manufactured artifacts by sadistic humans. There are ample examples of stupid designs manufactured by humans. Think of the Pinto and its exploding gas tank as just one example. Or the Soviets putting a critical oil line right under the big red star on the side of their helicopters so that the mujahaddin had a nice aiming point to hit it. :)

 

The "bad design" argument only works against ID if you have the theology that deity is "good", "more intelligent than humans", and "kind". If the deity is not too bright and sadistic, then the "bad" designs can still be manufactured by the ID. So the bad design argument is not a scientfic argument but a theological one. The bad design arguments says that ID has theology that is not consistent with Judeo-Christianity.

 

As I said, we will probably not agree on the business of 'faith'. I stand by my statement that most people follow the faith of their fathers, and do so simply because they choose to believe what they are told.

 

You can't limit "they choose to believe what they are told" to only religious faith. If you do, you are using the fallacy of Special Pleading. What you are doing, SkepticLance, is making an airtight argument to have creationism/ID included in science class! I know you are trying to decrease the status of religious also say that kids will believe what they are told in science class also! Therefore, in order not to "indoctrinate" children, we must tell them about alternative ideas, not just teach them evolution!

 

I think the price we have to pay for you to keep your mythology of why people believe things is just too great.

 

Let's take your native people example and see, how with a few changes, it can apply to science:

 

Sure, there have been times when faiths change. Here in NZ the polynesian native peoples - the Maori - became Christian instead of polytheists. It happened because they met a clearly more powerful and wealthier people - the Europeans and their missionaries. They were told a new message. They accepted it, and probably because the power of the new white people was so clear cut. This led them to choose to believe what they were told. However, for each generation in which religious faith changes rapidly, there are numerous in which there is no, or little change, and people simply follow the faith they are taught.

 

Ever hear of Thomas Kuhn? What you have just described is "normative" science and scientific revolutions. Kuhn says that, most of the time, scientists work within paradigms and there is no, or little, change. Then comes a situation where a new paradigm is encountered. There is a period of conflict and the new paradigm is accepted, or rejected, because the power of the people to argue for it is so clear cut or there is a powerful emotional appeal. The winners then establish the paradigm, teach only that paradigm, fund only that paradigm, scientists simply follow the paradigm they are taught.

 

Do you really think science works like that? I don't. I think theories are evaluated on evidence. Now, if people evaluate ideas based on evidence in science, how, without invoking Special Pleading, can we argue that people do not evaluate ideas outside science? Including religious faith. Yes, the white people were more powerful, and that might be one piece of evidence the natives used to reevaluate their faith. Many religions equate the power (and reality) of deity with the fortunes of believers. If the believers do not do well or people with other theories of deity do better, then that becomes evidence that the other theory is better and more accurate.

 

For example, the Maori had 600 years in NZ before the Christians arrived, meaning about 24 generations with no change compared to the one or two generations of rapid change in religious belief.

 

Because the evidence didn't change. Look at geocentrism. Scientists for well over 1800 years accepted the theory that the earth was the center of the solar system and that the sun and planets orbited the earth. Then in the period 1543-1633 (4 generations) it all changed. Most of the change occurred within the period 1590-1609 (when Kepler published his planetary laws of motion), shorter than a single generation. A rapid change due to new data.

 

This is quite contrary to religious faith. In fact, religious history is full of examples of religious leaders actually killing those who question. eg. the Inquisition, and some Muslim societies (like the Taliban) today. Scepticism is a vital part of science. It is a massively, and sometimes violently, resisted quality in religion. Faith is almost the opposite of scepticism.

 

You haven't shown that faith is the opposite of skepticism. Instead, what you showed was that skepticism is an integral part of faith. What you showed was that some religious leaders fight skepticism. So, religious faith is skeptical. As you say, it is skepticism which leads to the repression. Thank you for proving your point wrong.

 

If you look into science, you can also find many examples where the prominent leaders in science have tried to repress the new ideas. Look at Owen's attacks on Darwin and evolution as just one example. Or better yet, look at the scientific establishment's (including Darwin) attack on Vestiges of Creation. Repressing the new idea of evolution. What happens in science is that the leaders don't have the political power to repress the ideas to the extent of the Inquisition or Taliban. It's not that the desire was lacking; the power was lacking. Fortunately.

 

Finally, consider that your view is counter to evolution. Natural selection is never going to work at getting people to believe things that are contrary to the evidence. Such an attitude is anti-survival.

 

To iNow

 

I find the grandparent effect very interesting. It explains a couple of unusual things about humans.

1. Our very long lifespan

2. The reason males live almost as long as females.

 

The theory is really the grandmother theory. In hunter-gatherer societies, it is the grandmothers that help care for the infants, not the grandfathes. It explains why females live longer than males. Longer lifespan is selected for in females. Males get the longer lifespan as a benefit, not as directly selected.

http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/10.01/WhyWomenLiveLon.html

 

I can't find any source documenting your claim that female apes live a lot longer than male apes. Perhaps you can share your source.

 

However, I do find several cites indicating that ape lifespan is basically the same as human. Which does call into question the grandparent hypothesis:

http://michellegilders.hosting4less.com/michellegilders/greatapelife.html

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/apes/chimp/

 

 

For us humans, it is probably more accurate to suggest that evolution has not finished with us till our grandchildren reach adulthood. Then 'Mother Nature' is happy for us to die. Hence our '3 score years and ten.'

 

Sorry, but for our evolutionary history, grandparenthood came in the 30s. Think about it. Humans can have children starting at 15 or so. That means that grandparents are going to be in their 30s. And, for most of history, 35 was indeed the general lifespan with a few lucky individuals living into their 60s.

 

If you look, most of the degenerative diseases -- athlerosclerosis, cardiac infarcts, arthritis, tendonitis, osteoporosis, cancer -- happen in the 50s to 60s. When natural selection is done with us because the grandmothers have already taken care of the grandkids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it not a possibility that intelligent design theory, in other words the creation of life by some intelligent form(i have no idea what it is or could be) could include the process of evolution. It is always a possible explanation that The design was meant to form on its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.