ChatterBank1 min ago
Evolution - where do we go from here?
42 Answers
Assuming that human beings evolved from the neanderthal and have lost the elongated brow among other features, what do you think will happen to the human race in the future, assuming of course we don't obliterate each other first. I heard once that humans will eventually lose their mouths, but I'm not sure of the reasoning behind this. Maybe
because all food will be in tablet form by then and we will communicate by mindpower. Any theories floating about out there?
because all food will be in tablet form by then and we will communicate by mindpower. Any theories floating about out there?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by styley. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Waldo was actually paying you a compliment, Clanad, by assuming that you could not possibly be so ignorant of the very basic principles of evolution as not to know which phase is random and which is the very reverse of randomness. Ergo, you must have been stirring up mischief just for the sake of it.
Alas, it seems that you were serious and therefore still don't understand. In which case it ill-behoves you to wax sarcastic at Dawkins' expense when you have such a lot to learn from him.
Alas, it seems that you were serious and therefore still don't understand. In which case it ill-behoves you to wax sarcastic at Dawkins' expense when you have such a lot to learn from him.
Aha! Much clearer and to the point, Waldo, don't you agree?
So, there was a question mark in my post concerning evolution's direction that may have been overlooked. Can, by your definition, evolution have a quality determinedness in its outcome?
Additionally, and somwhat similarly, how do you address the fact of Historical Contingency? Evolutionists have nearly always been unable to accomodate repeatable evolution, due primarily, to the very view you have made more clear, of randomness, at least as far as the initial event
One of my favorite countrymen (sadly deceased) who expounded as only he could was Stephen Jay Gould... an evolutionist nonpareil, stated "... No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel..." (Source: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company).
Problem is, as I'm sure you are aware, evolutionary pardaigm requires belief that organisms that possess identical morphologies must share a common ancestry, yet since the advent of DNA testing to determine molecular systematics, instead of systematic morphologies to determine relatedness, there are an increasing number of challenges to the evolutionary classification with numerous examples of organisms that cluster together morphologically and yet are genetically distinct.
Contd.
So, there was a question mark in my post concerning evolution's direction that may have been overlooked. Can, by your definition, evolution have a quality determinedness in its outcome?
Additionally, and somwhat similarly, how do you address the fact of Historical Contingency? Evolutionists have nearly always been unable to accomodate repeatable evolution, due primarily, to the very view you have made more clear, of randomness, at least as far as the initial event
One of my favorite countrymen (sadly deceased) who expounded as only he could was Stephen Jay Gould... an evolutionist nonpareil, stated "... No finale can be specified at the start, none would ever occur a second time in the same way, because any pathway proceeds through thousands of improbable stages. Alter any early event, ever so slightly, and without apparent importance at the time, and evolution cascades into a radically different channel..." (Source: Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company).
Problem is, as I'm sure you are aware, evolutionary pardaigm requires belief that organisms that possess identical morphologies must share a common ancestry, yet since the advent of DNA testing to determine molecular systematics, instead of systematic morphologies to determine relatedness, there are an increasing number of challenges to the evolutionary classification with numerous examples of organisms that cluster together morphologically and yet are genetically distinct.
Contd.
Contd.
How can this be if the inertial guidance system of mutational change could only occur once in a just-so example of randomness?
Stated another way, morphologically identical organisms that are clearly shown by DNA to be non-related must have evolved independently of one another in a repeatable or contingent fashion. At the risk of beating the drum repeatedly (pun only slightly intended) chance governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level and the same outcome can not be expected at different times and different locations... but clearly is observed...
How can this be if the inertial guidance system of mutational change could only occur once in a just-so example of randomness?
Stated another way, morphologically identical organisms that are clearly shown by DNA to be non-related must have evolved independently of one another in a repeatable or contingent fashion. At the risk of beating the drum repeatedly (pun only slightly intended) chance governs the evolutionary process at its most fundamental level and the same outcome can not be expected at different times and different locations... but clearly is observed...
�Can, by your definition, evolution have a quality determinedness in its outcome?�
I don�t understand the question. What do you mean by �quality determinedness�? It rings no bells. I�ve Googled the term, but there�s no hits, so you need to explain what you mean before I can respond.
�[�]How can this be if the inertial guidance system of mutational change could only occur once in a just-so example of randomness? �
This is Fazale Rana�s �Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?� notion from the turn of the millennium, I believe? It appears to be a couple of disparate elements of evolution built up into �Frankenstein�s Strawman�. The elements are:
1) Misunderstanding of non-repeating evolution.
Non-repeating evolution does not mean that a given feature cannot arise in separate populations. It means that if a feature disappears from a population, the probability of it re-appearing in that same genetic line is highly, highly unlikely. It does not suggest that convergent evolution between divergent lines cannot occur � this wouldn�t involve the repeating of genetic code, which is the improbable bit. Any given line can certainly develop its own phenotype based on its environmental niche. It�s entirely reasonable that similar niches might see the development of similar, convergent phenotypes and certainly not �repeat evolution�.
2) Misclassification from pre-DNA classification systems
Yup, we did used to classify things on the basis of morphological similarity, now we don�t. A classic case of science adapting its theories to fit the best available evidence and methodologies. Not only have we broken up some taxonomic groups as a consequence, but we�ve also added new members that we had no idea were part of the same clade until the advent of genetic comparison. However, since evolutionary scientists have no problem with convergent phenotypes, this is irrelevant to
I don�t understand the question. What do you mean by �quality determinedness�? It rings no bells. I�ve Googled the term, but there�s no hits, so you need to explain what you mean before I can respond.
�[�]How can this be if the inertial guidance system of mutational change could only occur once in a just-so example of randomness? �
This is Fazale Rana�s �Repeatable Evolution or Repeated Creation?� notion from the turn of the millennium, I believe? It appears to be a couple of disparate elements of evolution built up into �Frankenstein�s Strawman�. The elements are:
1) Misunderstanding of non-repeating evolution.
Non-repeating evolution does not mean that a given feature cannot arise in separate populations. It means that if a feature disappears from a population, the probability of it re-appearing in that same genetic line is highly, highly unlikely. It does not suggest that convergent evolution between divergent lines cannot occur � this wouldn�t involve the repeating of genetic code, which is the improbable bit. Any given line can certainly develop its own phenotype based on its environmental niche. It�s entirely reasonable that similar niches might see the development of similar, convergent phenotypes and certainly not �repeat evolution�.
2) Misclassification from pre-DNA classification systems
Yup, we did used to classify things on the basis of morphological similarity, now we don�t. A classic case of science adapting its theories to fit the best available evidence and methodologies. Not only have we broken up some taxonomic groups as a consequence, but we�ve also added new members that we had no idea were part of the same clade until the advent of genetic comparison. However, since evolutionary scientists have no problem with convergent phenotypes, this is irrelevant to
My turn for clarifiaction, Waldo... as I'm sure you are aware, there's a fairly large contingent of scientists, populated by significant numbers of biologists that are proposing that one of the strong attributeds of evolution is its direction... i.e.: determination of outcome. They seem to see a certain, defineable, possibly desired end-results. (Discussed here, for one:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleo logy.html )
My problem with the idea is the abandonment of the quality of randomness. If, given the belief that genetic mutation, the prime cause for diversity is entirely random (and it must be) how can there be any end goal?
Actually, the idea isn't new... just a new permutation. William Paley�s Natural Theology (1809) and a fore-runner of Darwin states: "...What does chance ever do for us? In the human body, for instance, chance, i.e. the
operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye. [Never was] an organized body of any kind, answering a valuable purpose
by a complicated mechanism, the effect of chance. In no assignable instance hath such a thing existed without intention somewhere."
Darwin wasn't far from the idea but soon came to his sense.. "At first Darwin assumed that environmental changes cause adaptively appropriate variations to arise in the offspring of affected organisms. But he soon came to the conclusion that most variations arise by �accident� or �chance,� i.e., by causes that are 1) complex and unknown and 2) in no way related to what would be useful for surviving and reproducing.
Contd.
My problem with the idea is the abandonment of the quality of randomness. If, given the belief that genetic mutation, the prime cause for diversity is entirely random (and it must be) how can there be any end goal?
Actually, the idea isn't new... just a new permutation. William Paley�s Natural Theology (1809) and a fore-runner of Darwin states: "...What does chance ever do for us? In the human body, for instance, chance, i.e. the
operation of causes without design, may produce a wen, a wart, a mole, a pimple, but never an eye. [Never was] an organized body of any kind, answering a valuable purpose
by a complicated mechanism, the effect of chance. In no assignable instance hath such a thing existed without intention somewhere."
Darwin wasn't far from the idea but soon came to his sense.. "At first Darwin assumed that environmental changes cause adaptively appropriate variations to arise in the offspring of affected organisms. But he soon came to the conclusion that most variations arise by �accident� or �chance,� i.e., by causes that are 1) complex and unknown and 2) in no way related to what would be useful for surviving and reproducing.
Contd.
Contd.
As Darwin expressed the first point, �No doubt each slight variation must have its efficient cause; but it is as hopeless an attempt to discover the cause of each, as to say why a chill or a poison affects one man differently from another� (1875, vol. 2, p. 282). (Source: Chance Variation and Evolutionary Contingency: Darwin, Simpson (The Simpsons) and Gould
John Beatty Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada).
Beatty continues "... In principle, evolution by natural selection could result in very different outcomes, even
starting with closely related and in all important respects identical species, inhabiting identical environments, depending on what variations happen to arise in each lineage, and in what order. Darwin set out to demonstrate the application of this principle in his book, On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects (1862). Are not these stalwarts in opposition to your description, especially focusing on natural selection?
So, my point is that randomness has, today and historically, including Darwin himself, played a premier role in explaining the evolutionary world view.
By the way, I've read Dr. Rana's works as well and I'm not nearly so dismissive as you are... but that's not news, no?
And, finally, (with an eye towards the pre-determinant character count) did not the advent of DNA classification and its supplanting of morphology not determine non-relatedness of previous supposedly related species, thereby supporting contingency?
I sincerely appreciate your contributions...
As Darwin expressed the first point, �No doubt each slight variation must have its efficient cause; but it is as hopeless an attempt to discover the cause of each, as to say why a chill or a poison affects one man differently from another� (1875, vol. 2, p. 282). (Source: Chance Variation and Evolutionary Contingency: Darwin, Simpson (The Simpsons) and Gould
John Beatty Department of Philosophy University of British Columbia Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1, Canada).
Beatty continues "... In principle, evolution by natural selection could result in very different outcomes, even
starting with closely related and in all important respects identical species, inhabiting identical environments, depending on what variations happen to arise in each lineage, and in what order. Darwin set out to demonstrate the application of this principle in his book, On the Various Contrivances by which British and Foreign Orchids are Fertilised by Insects (1862). Are not these stalwarts in opposition to your description, especially focusing on natural selection?
So, my point is that randomness has, today and historically, including Darwin himself, played a premier role in explaining the evolutionary world view.
By the way, I've read Dr. Rana's works as well and I'm not nearly so dismissive as you are... but that's not news, no?
And, finally, (with an eye towards the pre-determinant character count) did not the advent of DNA classification and its supplanting of morphology not determine non-relatedness of previous supposedly related species, thereby supporting contingency?
I sincerely appreciate your contributions...
Ignoring everyone else's replies to this, i personally believe that these supposed 'alien 'type beings are in fact US in the future.....
just consider it - if we ever reach a point were humans are able to transport as in 'Beam me up Scotty' there wont be a need for airports (where UFOs are mostly reported to be seen) etc, so obviously (well, maybe not obviously......but presumably then!!) 'we' will come back and observe places like that. I know i would, were it possible.
just consider it - if we ever reach a point were humans are able to transport as in 'Beam me up Scotty' there wont be a need for airports (where UFOs are mostly reported to be seen) etc, so obviously (well, maybe not obviously......but presumably then!!) 'we' will come back and observe places like that. I know i would, were it possible.
Clanad, as far as I can establish, this notion of 'determined outcome' evolution seems to be fringe thinking, and as that link you provided clearly expains when they're discussing teleological arguments they're using the word in some internal, functional sense, rather than suggesting there's some intelligent agent at work with an agenda.
At a quick glance, it seems unlikely to me but it's not hit my radar before (which doesn't necessarily prove anything but suggests to me this is not exactly a mainstream view) and I'd have to look into it more deeply. Based on what I have read, it doesn't seem to be a major issue or terribly credible.
As for the contingency aspect, yes, DNA classification did replace morphological classification, and yes, did throw up some surprises with previously thought to be related species turning out not to be.
This clearly supports evolution. That organisms can resemble each other at a phenotype level while having differing genetics is precisely what confirms that this is not the re-appearance of a trait but separate instances of adaptation to an environment. If it were genuinely repeated evolution, we would expect to see the same genes in both species.
At a quick glance, it seems unlikely to me but it's not hit my radar before (which doesn't necessarily prove anything but suggests to me this is not exactly a mainstream view) and I'd have to look into it more deeply. Based on what I have read, it doesn't seem to be a major issue or terribly credible.
As for the contingency aspect, yes, DNA classification did replace morphological classification, and yes, did throw up some surprises with previously thought to be related species turning out not to be.
This clearly supports evolution. That organisms can resemble each other at a phenotype level while having differing genetics is precisely what confirms that this is not the re-appearance of a trait but separate instances of adaptation to an environment. If it were genuinely repeated evolution, we would expect to see the same genes in both species.
I think you know, Waldo that there are a huge cadre of non-Creationist scientists that disagree with that position. They are puzzled by the .fact that the fossil record indicates that most genera appear suddenly, remain relatively unchanged (stasis) and disappear. Microevolution has never, to my knowledge (except among Young Earth Creationists (YEC)) been challenged other than the nomenclature. By that, I mean it appears that many proponents of Evolution (big "E") would like the fact of microevolution to be proof positive of macroevolution or speciation. Even you, I suspect (because, at heart you seem to be a reasonable proponent) would concede that, as I attempted to discuss on another thread, even the definition of species is not something easily agreed upon. A random genetic change caused by environmental considerations in a population of beetle, for example, produces a new species, according to the believers in Peripatric Speciation. But, while we agree there may be genetic variation, the resultant offspring are still, well, beetles. whose form and/or function may have altered, but a reasonable observer would still view them as beetles, no?
There are at least 10 different definitions, and the holders of each one (all evolutionists) will threaten great harm to those (evolutionists) who dare believe differently. How can that be?
Contd.
There are at least 10 different definitions, and the holders of each one (all evolutionists) will threaten great harm to those (evolutionists) who dare believe differently. How can that be?
Contd.
Contd.
Even so seeminlgly simple a term as "gene" should be settled in the scientific community, wouldn't one think? However, even Dawkins seems to have problems with it. Dr. Larry Moran, a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto (a commited, confirmed evolutionist) observes "... Part of the confusion (about the definition of gene) is due to popular science writers who don't get it right. For example, Richard Dawkins does some serious handwaving in The Selfish Gene and he compounds it in The Extended Phenotype.
Dawkins knows that his defintion of "gene"... is unusual so he returns to the subject in The Extended Phenotype in his discussion of the selfish replicator. Dawkins is forced to concede that his use of the word "gene" is incorrect. That's why he says,
'I am happy to replace 'gene' with 'genetic replicator where there is any doubt.'
Nevertheless, he tries very hard to defend his point of view by claiming that geneticists and molecular biologists can't come up with a good definition of gene either. This leads him to make some very silly statements about genes and cistrons..."
So, while there is a great divide seperating Old Earth Creationists (OEC) and evolutionists, (much less YEC, with whom I disagree) it would not be nearly as unconquerable, in my view, if both sides could just agree on terms that define one another... You, can (and I'm sure will) point out equally mystifing disagreements on our side of the gunwale...
Even so seeminlgly simple a term as "gene" should be settled in the scientific community, wouldn't one think? However, even Dawkins seems to have problems with it. Dr. Larry Moran, a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto (a commited, confirmed evolutionist) observes "... Part of the confusion (about the definition of gene) is due to popular science writers who don't get it right. For example, Richard Dawkins does some serious handwaving in The Selfish Gene and he compounds it in The Extended Phenotype.
Dawkins knows that his defintion of "gene"... is unusual so he returns to the subject in The Extended Phenotype in his discussion of the selfish replicator. Dawkins is forced to concede that his use of the word "gene" is incorrect. That's why he says,
'I am happy to replace 'gene' with 'genetic replicator where there is any doubt.'
Nevertheless, he tries very hard to defend his point of view by claiming that geneticists and molecular biologists can't come up with a good definition of gene either. This leads him to make some very silly statements about genes and cistrons..."
So, while there is a great divide seperating Old Earth Creationists (OEC) and evolutionists, (much less YEC, with whom I disagree) it would not be nearly as unconquerable, in my view, if both sides could just agree on terms that define one another... You, can (and I'm sure will) point out equally mystifing disagreements on our side of the gunwale...
I don't have time to answer this now, but I would like to observe that you often cite 'large numbers' of scientists in opposition to evolutionary theory, yet my own reading indicates that if these 'large numbers' are faced off against those who disagree, they're actually paltry. I would also note that it's an established obsfuscation technique by creationists to claim large numbers whilst never actually backing these figures up with any sort of serious evidence.
Fair or unfair?
Fair or unfair?
Your statement may be fair,Waldo but with a caveat. While it may be difficult to find a list or poll of such scientists, I think you probably know that any Google question containing the words "speciation", "scientists" and perhaps "alternate views" or "against" will produce a series of documents such as this except from a book review of Niles Eldrige's Reinventing Darwin. The Great Evolutionary Debate.. Eldrige a co-author of the late Sephen Jay Gould is certainly solidly in the evolutionist camp:
"Eldridge is a critic of neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a 'gene-centered and essentially reductionist approach to evolutionary explanation' and a 'distortedly oversimplified view of the natural world' (page 4). Next we encounter a criticism well-known to creationists: the unjustified extrapolation from generation-by-generation change to change on a geological time-scale. Neo-Darwinism is OK in its proper domain, but when extrapolated outside its proper domain things go wrong. Ultra-Darwinians transform natural selection from a filter to a creative force that shapes organic form. Naturalists however take the existence of large-scale ecosystems seriously. They can't be reduced to changes in gene-frequency.
'Ultra-Darwinians are strangely silent about why adaptive change occurs when it does and why adaptive change does not seem to occur' (p6). If evolutionary change is inevitable, why do 'living fossils', like Limulus, stay unchanged for 200 million years ? Naturalists suggest as a possible explanation in some of such cases 'habitat tracking', that is species move to a suitable environment, in stead off changing their anatomy..." The reviewer is Gert Korthof, a frequent contirbutor to various evolution centered publications. (Source: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm ).
Contd
"Eldridge is a critic of neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is a 'gene-centered and essentially reductionist approach to evolutionary explanation' and a 'distortedly oversimplified view of the natural world' (page 4). Next we encounter a criticism well-known to creationists: the unjustified extrapolation from generation-by-generation change to change on a geological time-scale. Neo-Darwinism is OK in its proper domain, but when extrapolated outside its proper domain things go wrong. Ultra-Darwinians transform natural selection from a filter to a creative force that shapes organic form. Naturalists however take the existence of large-scale ecosystems seriously. They can't be reduced to changes in gene-frequency.
'Ultra-Darwinians are strangely silent about why adaptive change occurs when it does and why adaptive change does not seem to occur' (p6). If evolutionary change is inevitable, why do 'living fossils', like Limulus, stay unchanged for 200 million years ? Naturalists suggest as a possible explanation in some of such cases 'habitat tracking', that is species move to a suitable environment, in stead off changing their anatomy..." The reviewer is Gert Korthof, a frequent contirbutor to various evolution centered publications. (Source: http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/index.htm ).
Contd
Contd.
Then, there's this, from an article authored by James Mallet, Galton Laboratory, University College
London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK. He appears to be a well respected scientist and research fellow according to his biography:
"I predict the years 1990�2010 will be seen as a revolution
in the study of speciation. One person's punctuated
equilibrium is another's gradual change, and the current
revolution is in any case paltry compared with Darwin's
own. Even so, many previously accepted beliefs about
speciation are now doubted, and features of a classic
scientific revolution are evident..."
He continues with a list including these:
"Reality of species is now doubted by many"... "Today, an essentialist species `reality' strongly contadicts with our understanding of gradual speciation, and is no longer accepted at all generally (Bachmann, 1998; Kliman et al., 2000; Mallet, 2001)."
Reproductive isolation is no longer generally recognized
as the best definition of species." One does not need to
take sides to realize that we are in an intense period of
navel-gazing about what species are, and therefore what
speciation itself is. Some have argued that the confusion
is caused by unruly scientists each promoting their own,
hair-splittingly different species concept."
Speciation does not require allopatry." The idea that
speciation can occur only in allopatry had been accepted
generally since the 1940s (Coyne, 1994), whereas the
idea that parapatric and sympatric speciation are also
probable is completely acceptable today (Gavrilets et al.,
2000;..."
The References section of his discourse then contains along list of published tomes and authors... nary a creationist among them.
Contd.
Then, there's this, from an article authored by James Mallet, Galton Laboratory, University College
London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HE, UK. He appears to be a well respected scientist and research fellow according to his biography:
"I predict the years 1990�2010 will be seen as a revolution
in the study of speciation. One person's punctuated
equilibrium is another's gradual change, and the current
revolution is in any case paltry compared with Darwin's
own. Even so, many previously accepted beliefs about
speciation are now doubted, and features of a classic
scientific revolution are evident..."
He continues with a list including these:
"Reality of species is now doubted by many"... "Today, an essentialist species `reality' strongly contadicts with our understanding of gradual speciation, and is no longer accepted at all generally (Bachmann, 1998; Kliman et al., 2000; Mallet, 2001)."
Reproductive isolation is no longer generally recognized
as the best definition of species." One does not need to
take sides to realize that we are in an intense period of
navel-gazing about what species are, and therefore what
speciation itself is. Some have argued that the confusion
is caused by unruly scientists each promoting their own,
hair-splittingly different species concept."
Speciation does not require allopatry." The idea that
speciation can occur only in allopatry had been accepted
generally since the 1940s (Coyne, 1994), whereas the
idea that parapatric and sympatric speciation are also
probable is completely acceptable today (Gavrilets et al.,
2000;..."
The References section of his discourse then contains along list of published tomes and authors... nary a creationist among them.
Contd.
