Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 03-08-2006, 07:43 AM

To the original poster:

The premise of the argument relies on a very very flawed understanding of evolution, as some of the previous posters noted. Your understanding (or lack thereof) in discussing evolution seems to rely too heavily on Darwinian evolution, which really only says that (a) organisms have different reproductive success rates and (b) that certain traits are selected for from generation to generation. That's fine-and-dandy, except it doesn't really address the issues of inheritance within species or other evolutionary forces.

The contemporary / "modern" theory of Evolution is the Synthetic Theory, and it includes mathematically modeled variations in organisms over time (population genetics / genetic drift) and Mendelian genetics. Without those two "forces" of evolution, you could almost make an argument that we're not "evolving" anymore. However, this relies on the idea that Darwin's Natural Selection is the only force causing the evolution of a species. This is clearly not the case, and Darwin himself would likely agree if he were to view his reliance upon Lemarkian genetics with the science of today. Nezmot above makes another great point regarding this -- differential reproductive success is omnipresent, even today. Perhaps its not manifested as "faster runner = better breeder," but less attractive people will breed less frequently and will therefore, via natural selection, be selected against. In essence: future generations will have the DNA of the successful breeders, not necessarily the most "fit" for the environment -- you could be a horrible runner but if you breed frequently, you're likely to have an effect on the genetic variability of your population in future generations.

I humbly suggest you update your viewpoint to include the valid scientific and mathematical models that explain evolution as we mean it today. If you'd argue that "evolution" commonly refers to "natural selection," you'd again be wrong. That may be how laymen refer to it, but its certainly not the nomenclature that biologists, chemists, or anthropologists use. I'm certainly not an expert, but there's a great deal of "evolution" that you seem to be excluding for the sake of making a flawed philosophical argument.

Perhaps an Anthropology class at your local University is in order?

03-08-2006, 07:43 AM	#29 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	To the original poster: The premise of the argument relies on a very very flawed understanding of evolution, as some of the previous posters noted. Your understanding (or lack thereof) in discussing evolution seems to rely too heavily on Darwinian evolution, which really only says that (a) organisms have different reproductive success rates and (b) that certain traits are selected for from generation to generation. That's fine-and-dandy, except it doesn't really address the issues of inheritance within species or other evolutionary forces. The contemporary / "modern" theory of Evolution is the Synthetic Theory, and it includes mathematically modeled variations in organisms over time (population genetics / genetic drift) and Mendelian genetics. Without those two "forces" of evolution, you could almost make an argument that we're not "evolving" anymore. However, this relies on the idea that Darwin's Natural Selection is the only force causing the evolution of a species. This is clearly not the case, and Darwin himself would likely agree if he were to view his reliance upon Lemarkian genetics with the science of today. Nezmot above makes another great point regarding this -- differential reproductive success is omnipresent, even today. Perhaps its not manifested as "faster runner = better breeder," but less attractive people will breed less frequently and will therefore, via natural selection, be selected against. In essence: future generations will have the DNA of the successful breeders, not necessarily the most "fit" for the environment -- you could be a horrible runner but if you breed frequently, you're likely to have an effect on the genetic variability of your population in future generations. I humbly suggest you update your viewpoint to include the valid scientific and mathematical models that explain evolution as we mean it today. If you'd argue that "evolution" commonly refers to "natural selection," you'd again be wrong. That may be how laymen refer to it, but its certainly not the nomenclature that biologists, chemists, or anthropologists use. I'm certainly not an expert, but there's a great deal of "evolution" that you seem to be excluding for the sake of making a flawed philosophical argument. Perhaps an Anthropology class at your local University is in order? __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 03-08-2006 at 07:50 AM..