Evolutionists contend that all creatures, including man, are in a constant state of change. They insist that worthwhile mutations overwhelm the general population through natural selection. This would imply a lot of mutation occurring all the time and varying amounts of mutant success occurring simultaneously. By this reasoning, some significant portion of the population would exhibit a biological variation from the norm. At least there would be pockets of successful mutations with superior survival skills waiting to overwhelm those less fortunate.

When the first binocular vision evolved as a mutation, it needed to appear in a statistically significant portion of the population for it to be effectively passed on. This means that no single individual of the species had the variation of two front facing eyes - dozens, if not thousands, did. The odds against that happening simultaneously become enormous.

Even the big, big numbers don't work. If homo sapiens as they exist today have been around for a million years, and life has only been developing for half a billion years, where is the time for mutation? You can't convince me I wouldn't be more likely to survive if I could see in the dark, or smell food a mile away. Where are these mutations among our population? They must be constantly popping up if evolution is to occur.

When I expressed this opinion to my aspiring marine botanist friend, he indignantly demanded that I should propose some other theory. "Well, there's the theory that preceded Darwin's that suggested that learned experiences were inherited. There's reincarnation. There's multiple universes where all possibilities occur. Of course, there're aliens. There's 'You are all figments of my imagination'". And including time loops, I bet I could come up with a couple more - all with adherent groups, some remarkably large.

Man is a complex, complex creature. If evolution is to work at all, it needs to get the show on the road. Uber humans should be developing as we speak. Wait a minute, what was that pain? I think I've evolved into a skeptic.

There's a neat little evolutionary lab on this planet called Iceland. Its a handy place when it comes to studying human genetics and mutation for three reasons. Its been around for a while, they have kept records going back to the first families to settle it, and it hasn't had many people coming or going as far as migrations.

For many of the Genetic mutations that cause rare chronic conditions such as premature aging, they can actually track the mutation down to the individual who first had the mutation in Iceland.

Mutations happen daily. The Human machine is so adept at fixing itself, and has so many backup systems that most mutations don't do much that could be noticed, but over thousands of years of mutation and breeding the effects stack up.

One other fault in the way you are looking at it Martin, is you seem to be looking only at the human part of the mutation cycle. who's to say Human's didn't start as a "Stacked Deck" already. Most of the mutations that make us Human might have occurred when we where Chimps. In fact one mutation might have caused a Cascading Chain reaction that set us on the evolutionary course to being Human. Who knows.

Another factor could be that bad mutations get fixed while good ones go unnoticed by the "fixers" so that mutations which benefit the individual might have more impact than the bad ones that kill it.

Scientists now believe that Whales evolved from a dog like creature that existed millions of years ago. Not unusual in and of itself, but there is evidence to show that they have actually evolved this way twice. ie A dog evolved into a whale, which later evolved to become a dog again, which later evolved to become a whale. Very odd indeed, but its actually not a rare occurence as far as nature goes. Sabretooth cats have evolved from normal cats at least 3 times an probably more.

Its very hard to imagine all this morphing going on even in the space of millions of years, but its even more impossible to imagine any other explanation when you look at all the little bits of evidence that show it to be true. Whales evolving from Dogs? Why not. Watch a pack of Killer whales hunt like wolves and it seems as good a fit as any.

Trying to map your limited perception based on a life of 75 to 100 years, to the possibilities that occur over 100s of millions of years, seems like an exercise in futility to me. Its apples and oranges.

Ok - at risk of responding to another "I just wannna keep it light but will say something really provocative just to show who is Poobah" thread:

"Uber" humans at some level have evolved, and are now currently walking among us.

When the Black Plague hit (I don't remember exactly when that was - middle ages sometime?) and was wiping out just about everyone who came in contact with it - there were isolated individuals who were resistent, who got sick and recovered - or didn't even get sick. Especially in England. Those Brits (from certain villages) who are descended from those survivors (just about all "real" Brits are) have that same genetic trait. So if the Black Plague ever hits again (and there was no treatment) - the survivors will all be having tea with the Queen Mum again some day.

I also believe at one time they believed that those people who had a resistance to the Black Plague - also held a resistance to the AIDS virus. I don't think they still think that true. However - there are definitely individuals (very few) on earth today who have rid their bodies of the AIDS virus (no trace left) and there are others who have been repeatedly exposed and have not contracted AIDS. They are being studied. If treatment options hadn't been developed - those would be the people who would survive & populate the earth further.

There are people resistent to the super bugs, super virus, etc that are currently threatening us.

I propose - whatever event eventually wipes out humans - that there are individuals today whose descendants might go on to repopulate the earth in all their 3 toed glory, if we don't blow it up first.

Are we back to the "my puny brain just can't comprehend the gigantically large numbers involved" argument?

This and the "evolution has stopped for now" arguments always get my goat.

Yes we are back to that ;-) Its funny how you can take my words and translate them so precisely, its like you where reading my mind better than the pathway from my brain to my typing fingers could.

Sarcasm aside, No one can fathom the numbers, because no one has lived a significantly long enough period of time to have a good sample of what we are dealing with here. If you had lived for 1000 years, then I might say you could be the expert on the subject on mutation and evolution, but you havn't and as far as I'm aware, no one has yet The only record that comes close is the history of Iceland, as I mentioned in my previous post.

Most of the numbers I've seen you throw around are to small by numbers I don't even know the name for Martin. In the previous thread you compared years to seconds of processing. Apples and oranges.

In all of your posts I havn't seen you multiply the years by the number of people, by the number of cells mutating and heck by the number of animals mutating in that time period for that matter. I am no expert, I'm not even a hobbyist when it comes to evolution, but I feel safe in saying that since evolution must involve the human body, the environment, the inter-relations of most of the systems in that environment, its probably as complicated or more so than the human body, the environment, etc etc.

Since no one has figured out everything about the human body, Its safe to say no one really knows how it got here in the first place.

I'm sure you are a smart guy Martin. You seem that way to me and I've seen you state it several times, You obviously know allot about 3d and you know allot about other things as well. You may have a phd in Biology and evolution for all I know, but every word I've seen you write on the subject seems overly simplistic in its implications. You may be doing that for other reasons, say stimulating passionate conversations and discourse. Whatever. But taking one sentence out of several paragraphs and implying that it means one thing when it obviously means another seems paranoid and simple beyond your intelligence.

Every word any human language could write about a concept so massive seems trivial, arrogant, and "wrong" in the bigger scheme of things.

As far as evolution Stopping, whatever evolution is? Not sure if I implied that or someone else did, but that just seems stupid to me. I doubt any mechanism in Nature "stops" happening. Doesn't that imply that life stops happening? Or am I oversimplifying things now.


Question. What drives you to write "Martin's Minutes"? Specifically ones like this evolution thread.

since natural selection is a key factor of evolution, what exactly are we naturally selecting against these days? not much.

most medical maladies that would have killed or severely injured children are now mitigated by medical science.

just because you don't see your neighbor growing wings or another set of legs doesn't mean evolution never did it's thing.... or won't again.

-jon

ps: martin's love for the rants section was never more obvious than today.

I reject any notion that humans just can't understand. This is close to the "faith" argument that creationists employ.


What drives humans to do anything? Food? Sex? That's why animals do things but why do we do things? Have our motives evolved too? Are envy, spite, resentment, avarice, gluttony, and vindictive behavior the result of evolution? How about love, compassion, creativity, and hope?

To prove to yourself that evolution is "true," imagine what it would take to make that so. Don't accept the argument that you "can't understand" it. You have manifest intelligence - think it through. That's what I did...

martin: how is it we can both fully comprehend every nuance and implication of the world we live in since time began and have totally different ideas about how we got here? ' ' )

i have a rule: anyone who tells you they know what happens when you die is lying.

i'm working on a corollary dealing with prehistory as well.

-jon

chuckle. My argument isn't that humans can't understand. Its that even if we had lived for millions of years and experienced "Macro" evolution on the scale we are talking about, Our memories would not be perfect, our ability to compute the equations necessary to get a micro detailed picture of the process "IN OUR HEADS" is probably impossible without the aid of Computers, and since those have only recently "evolved" we have a long road ahead of us before we can say something is or is not the definitive answer.

90 percent of a brains memories are so fluid they change day to day. How much more fluid must a process over millions of years be? My argument is that you could understand snapshots or slices of anything, but you can't know every interaction of every molecule in the ocean.



So are you saying evolution is or isn't true? I've more than imagined what it would take to make it so and am completely happy with my belief that its "the process". Doesn't mean I know how it started, or even if someone started it. I have "personal" theories on the subject, but I don't pretend that they are anything rational.

My thought on evolution's viability also correlate with the reasons I think reincarnation ,in some form, is possible. Though I think evolution is much more likely than reincarnation. I guess over 15 billion years, considering that I exist at all, anything is possible.

lol, once again, Jon states my position in much more succinct and much funnier words. Cheers to you Jon.

It's ironic that those believing in the fundament coincidental big-bang say the system strive perfection.
I have my own botanic friend.

Absolutely right. Because the following argument is wrong :


"It" doen't mean (imply) that.

Who is right: the biologists who say that it takes several thousand members of a species to maintain a viable population - or the evolutionists who say it takes only one?

Not a valid question.

It looks like symmetry in form has a long history down the fossil record--not just vertibrates. two eyes, two ears, etc... Life appears to favor symmetry. That seems to be an organizing principle, at least amongst most animals on earth--so I'm not suprised that there aren't 3-eyed or 1-eyed cyclopses running around....

that is not a valid argument--fallacy of complex question. You are creating a false dichotomy between evolutionist and biologist, and also ascribing statements to them that may or may not be the position of any particular evolutionist, and certainly cannot be ascribed to all evolutionists en masse.

If no one wants to rebut my supposition that it takes many members of an evolutionary species to continue an aberrant, possibly beneficial, mutation, then my argument still holds - the odds of simultaneously compatible mutations continuing the mutation via sex are too great.

If you want to create a different breed of dog, you just need two different dogs to start with. Over several generations, you can end up with very different looking animals:

- the biologists who say that it takes several thousand members of a species to maintain a viable population of several thousand members are right.
- the biologists who say that it takes several thousand members of a species to maintain a viable population in a way saying frequency makes perfect are wrong.
- the evolutionists who say it takes only one to maintain a viable population are wrong but one as in 'first/prime' IS indeed important.

Niels

Milk, meal and eggs do mix pancakes, you could add what you want and keep calling them pancakes but the milk, meal and eggs don't go and don't make trees on a weird mutation-scale.

Niels

Remember, my argument isn't that mutation isn't possible... My argument is that it needs to happen at a tremendous scale (remember those big numbers) to get to us, and that it still should be happening because the scale is so tremendous, that I should be able to see it, and that a billion years don't cut the mustard given that we can't even create "life" yet.

What if that mutation made the person Super Man/woman, and His/her sperm/egg split to make 10 babies per birth. They would also have the super gene and they would have 10 babies per birth. As long as one individual survived and bred then the trait would survive.

Perhaps the reason evolution seems to have slowed down in Humans, is that we are having less kids.

My brother lives basically like a man 1000 years ago might. He lives off the land, and Hunts and grows his food. He doesn't go to the doctor at all and probably won't considering he's so far removed from the modern world.

He's 50. 1000 years ago 50 was ancient.

You can pick one point or two to argue that evolution isn't true. And your Argument might hold water till the end of time. But that doesn't make the overwhelming evidence any less overwhelming.

Sherlock Holmes mantra. In the absence of any other facts or data, the only answer left with support must be the Truth. Doesn't mean that the whole deck of cards won't come crashing down on the theory one day.

On a different Note. I seem to see a pattern as to when these "Debates" come up and when the arguments get renewed. Perhaps another theory for the pile of theories.

That is a common misunderstanding about average lifespan. Infant mortality is the reason that the average lifespan was once in the 40s, but is now in the 80s.
When infant mortality was higher (say 50%), take 1000 people half of whom die before age 1 and the rest live to 80 years old. That gives you an average lifespan of 40.5 years.
The current infant mortality in the United States is 8 in 1000. So averaging the 8 infants with 992 people living to 80 years old gives you a lifespan of 79.3 years.

so 1000 years ago you might be lucky to live to be 50, but you wouldn't be ancient.

Just for disclosure purposes, I am a creationist who believes that evolution does play a part in our world as it exists today.

I don't believe that massive numbers of genetic mutations are necessary to sustain a trait. It simply takes one individual with a trait to pass it on to his offspring that potentially creates its continuance. On top of that, in a fairly closed environment, you probably have offspring mating with offspring, resulting in a larger possibility that the then dominant trait will survive and be passed on. In a million random chances, it may only happen once, but once it does, it may continue until evolution causes the trait to change. We as humans rarely mate with our siblings in this day and age so I think that may have something to do with all of this reduction in obvious evolution at the moment.

Take the flounder for instance. Although I have no proof what so ever, I believe that it is logical to assume that a fish that is fairly flat, and therefore might typically lie on its side, would have a higher survival rate if the eye that is underneath the fish is closer to his "nose" allowing for some sight in its environment. Since no offspring are perfect reproductions of their parents, the placement of the eye is random within some tight constraints. If all of the flounder whose eyes were closer to the front of their face had a greater chance of survival, and therefore a greater chance for reproducing, the net effect could be that the placement of the eye continues to move further and further forward until it eventually moves to the other side of the face. Survivability, reproduction, some random chance with a little blind luck thrown in may be the reason the flounder has two eyes on one side of his head.

Or God made him that way.

I don't know (I haven't bothered to research the mating habits of flounder - I have a hard enough time worrying about my own), and I don't believe that anyone has "proved" it one way or the other. However, one day the natural predators to the flounder may die off, or change habitats, or decide they just want to eat tuna (I like tuna!) and then random chance, mutation, breeding etc. may cause the eye to move back to the other side of his head.

Of course I am not a geneticist, biologist, evolutionist or doctor, and the only PhD I hold is when I hold my brother's when he's rubbing it in. But I love lively discussion and I am willing to be convinced otherwise, as long as the arguments make sense.

-Doug

[SIDEBAR YER HONOR]

OMG Colin ! - Do we have the same brother?

[/SIDEBAR YER HONOR]

Carry on

We do but it depends on ones humanability.



Did you talk with Jesus?

Niels

Yes. Food, Sex.

Everything about us is geared towards survival of the individual & continuation of MY species. We are still animals, delusional animals, thinking we are different.

"Envy, spite, resentment, avarice, gluttony, and vindictive behavior" and all the other selfish competitive behaviors have been bred into us. The strongest bully gets the resources, gets the girls. The ladies select mates that they feel will "provide" and ensure the survival of their young. They also go for individuals that smell nice too, er... that is... those who smell familiar (my tribe).

"Love, compassion, creativity, and hope" and all the other feel good chemical emotions have also evolved to aid in survival & continuation. Those traits/emoptions help us fit into the group family/tribal system, "I'll share my wooly mammoth burgers with you this time, next time the tabs on you". Survival of the iindividual, perpetuation of the group.

I understand (maybe) why we are geared towards survival of the individual - so that the species can survive.

I have no idea WHY the species must survive. Not a clue.

So everything can be understood when the Earth (the creation of the mice) computes the final answer. Assuming a bunch of beurocratic Vogons don't come along and blow it to bits.



Possibly! Does your brother look like the common misconception of Jesus? My grandmother, may she rest in peace, used to say my brother should play Jesus in one of those easter Passion plays, I don't think he took it as a compliment.

In case anyone thinks this is off topic for this thread. You are dead wrong. My brother is the Uber Human! I have proof in the form of several anecdotes. I'll share just one.

My brother noticed one day that his chickens where disappearing. He assumed it was a fox or a weasel, but he could never catch the culprit. Till one day he looked out on his "yard" and saw a hawk attacking a chicken. I seriously doubt a nerve impulse made it from his brain to his legs before he ran out and caught the hawk by the head and broke its neck. My brother makes wolverine look like a pansy.

My brother DID play the part of Jesus in a play (unitarian church - does that count?). Not making that up.

However, I've come to the conclusion that we don't have the same brother. My brother is no longer living off the land, he's just living off others.

Now my cousin on the other hand, living in West Virginia, could also play the part of Jesus, lives off the land, built his own house & refuses to have any indoor plumbing. They sound like the same people.

There's no point in debating this issue. No one's mind will change. Just because we don't argue the point doesn't make your assumptions correct.

It is a shame with your incredible grasp of large numbers you didn't do more with it, like... mapping DNA to find cures... or developing cleaner energy sources.

You aren't the only one with a brilliant mind. There are many even smarter who studied and accepted the process of evolution. I don't know what's wrong with them... probably some kind of bizarre mutation.

Maybe evolution has reached a peak? Not enough variety to move as quickly... or maybe there is TOO much variety. Mutations are killed off faster due to specialized adaptations for survival. It's all conjecture. Flowers open and close in a very short time... we can't see that actually happen with out stop motion photography.

I live near my parents and see them everyday. My siblings say they look so old now... I haven't noticed the change. It is all a matter of perspective. Do we see the grand canyon getting deeper? Do we notice the shift in the earth's rotation? These things are happening whether we can see it or not and on the same scale.

The evidence as it stands points towards evolution through mutation. No one knows how those mutations manifest. Maybe they happen faster than we think. Maybe like climate change they happen in "spurts"... slow down for a while... speed up... depending on the environment? If man has caused recent global warming why wouldn't our actions effect evolution as well? Who knows. Even the creationists believe that the speed of light has changed DRAMATICALLY since the creation of the universe, thus explaining the short age of the earth and the distance of other objects in space. Apparently light was much faster back then... or slower... I can't remember.

-vern

That didn't take long. I "won" again. This game is getting dull. New "Best of Martin's Minutes" coming up next week - hopefully, one without the religious connotations, (and I don't mean the creationists).

I have a sneaking suspicion that evolution happens over a bell curve. ie.. you get lots of mutations that manifest toward the good of the organism up front along with some bad ones, but over time the organism becomes so damaged evolution slows and perhaps even stops and then the organism gets nothing but damaging mutations.

A year or two back I read an article talking about how the Y chromosone for some reason can't fix its mutations. And that it is perhaps the most jam packed chromosone in the human Genome when it comes to aberrations. The article even speculated that eventually the male chromosone might stop working, and men would exist no more.

So in the end perhaps women will inherit the Earth and finally it will become one big garden of Eden with no wars, no global warming and lots of happy girls ;-)

Seeing as how Martin's already won, and I don't have to enter into an argument (too lazy to be disputatious), what about The Puddle Theory put forward by Douglas Adams in his "man as creator of god"? This states that when water arrives in a hole, it takes the exact shape of the hole, so the puddle thinks that because it fits so perfectly, the hole must been made for it.

Applying this to evolution, perhaps we have reached a stage where evolution is not necessary because we exactly fit this environment. A plateau on the evolutionary graph. But when the next asteroid hits we and other species will have to evolve to fit that new environment. So species only evolve when there is a gap that needs to be filled.

What is that? some kind of pyrrhic victory?
You make illogical statements, ignore the people who point out your fallacy, then wait until some one implies that you AREN'T the smartest man who ever lived--at which point you dance around and do a victory dance!??

What is your purpose?

Caroline,
The Puddle Theory sounds intriguing. I'd be interested in finding out more about it.
On the surface though it would seem to address environment but not evolution or intelligence.

Does the Puddle Theory address how the hole got there in the first place?
Where the water came from?
How the puddle and the water came to question their existence?

I doubt that it does.


(I see Will posted again as I was typing. Your post was directed at Martin so disregard this as you see necessary).

Will,
I assume Martin responds to Vern's words:

or maybe it was Colin's words that ignited the dance?



Concession.


These are the same as conceding the debate.
For everyone? Heck no. But a concession is a concession so there goes Martin again celebrating the win.

You said:


You give Martin more reason for reassurance. (Watch out. He's gettin ready to dance)

Illogical statements still need to be pointed out. They haven't.
No fallacy has been demonstrated. (You've misunderstood or misapplied the fallacy of 'call to authority' to support your argument as if stating something makes it true. It doesn't.) Dance Martin... dance!

With every post here in the forum Martin seems to get more embolden in his assurance.
From my perspective Martin has good reason to claim new victories.

Not that its very satisfying I'd guess.
Its a rather hollow victory when you dance alone.
There is little joy in winning a debate where the opposition still has no interest in seeing error in their own refutation.
Still... I'd guess a victory is a victory and I'd guess you have to take them as you can.

If taken at face value, Martin may be the first real skeptic I've encountered.
Someone that should be for the opposition but understands enough of the facts and the opposition to know better.
If not just playin' at this he's a rare breed.

of course, this is the problem here: this is a pseudo-scientific debate that is actually a battle of faiths -- beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven.

the theory of evolution does not address the creation of life, or the origins of the universe, it's just that most folks on either side of the confrontation presume it does.

i didn't hate the rants forum because of the opinions of others, i hated it because it was a waste of my effort that was virtually guaranteed to be without merit or effect.

has anyone learned anything or otherwise benefited from this game?

anyone?

-jon

Jon... It's funny reading. I think it fits perfectly with the essence of "Martin's Minutes:" the pomposity, the sanctimony, the hubris, the irony... My goodness, I love this stuff.

p.s. See the newly posted "Best of MM" for an analogical response. (I had to search for this one.)