Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to So where do the creationists lead us but backwards?
Even if we go with the modern synthesis, to support (or falsify) evolution as the cause of change in height we would need to demonstrate a corresponding change in allele frequency.
I'm not aware of any studies supporting that either in regards to this matter. Are you?
posted by
Giskard
on November 29, 2005 at 10:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Giskard -- where in this post did I mention Darwin's theory of evolution by
natural selection? This is today's commonly accepted definition of the word evolution when applied to a living organism "In the 1830s the word evolution was first applied to the historical transmutation of organisms; by the 1860s and 1870s it had come to refer to a general process of transmutation, which was widely assumed to be directional or progressive, today the term encompasses all changes in response to stimulae by living organisms."
Darwin outlined the theory....it has evolved since his time.
posted by
gomedome
on November 29, 2005 at 10:29 AM
| link to this | reply
I'm sorry but natural selection is not 'but one of a number of evolutionary processes'. You seem to be confusing the common usage of the term evolution, which basically just means change over time, for the biological theory of evolution, which is change as the result of differential success of reproduction (which is what natural selection is).
There are lots of processes of change. But change, in of itself, is not evolution. I've changed a great deal over the course of my life but I'm
not evolving.
No doubt the population has changed a great deal in the last two hundred years. But for that change to be due to evolution requires that change be the result of differential success of reproduction (natural selection).
That requirement makes predictions (as all good theories should). So we can test it. We can support it or falsify it right here, right now. I pointed out a couple of those predictions in my previous post. Either we can show that those statistical correlations exist, or we can't. If we can, then we've supported the hypothesis of change as the result of an evolutionary process which necessarily includes the differential success of reproduction (natural selection). If we can't then we can safely say that change, while real, is not the result of an evolutionary process.
If not, then the change must be due to some other process of change. Perhaps change in nutrition does not fully explain the change. But falsifying the 'nutrition hypothesis', either partly or fully, does not, by default, support evolution as the cause. The evolutionary hypothesis must stand or fall on its own predictions.
You speak of adaptive mutation. Mutation is one process of change that provides the raw material for selection to act upon. But if there is no selection acting upon it then, while it is still change, it is not evolutionary change.
posted by
Giskard
on November 29, 2005 at 10:08 AM
| link to this | reply
Gubby - exactly - consensus and a desire for it all to be true are the only
proof a believer can offer. Then of course there is the believer's handbook in the bible and we all know that every word of it is true.
posted by
gomedome
on November 29, 2005 at 8:52 AM
| link to this | reply
"No proof" actually makes me laugh. And when we ask for proof of their beliefs?
posted by
Gubby
on November 29, 2005 at 8:42 AM
| link to this | reply
Giskard - I can't agree that evolution has nothing to do with people being
taller. It is in the converse of a populace developing limited physical size due to food shortage, that we see this demonstrated as an evolutionary process. Becoming particularly obvious when subsequent generations of a specific people remain small even after the food shortage is no longer an issue. Natural selection is but one of a number of evolutionary processes. Adaptive mutation is also a process equally consistent with evolution.
posted by
gomedome
on November 29, 2005 at 5:53 AM
| link to this | reply
As far as I know, evolution has nothing to do with people today generally being taller today than they use to be. That is simply due to better childhood nutrition.
For there to be evolution there
must be some form of selection pressure involved. That's what Darwin discovered and why we still remember his name today: natural selection. Without selection there is no evolution, plain and simple.
This is one of attributes that distingish Evolution from pseudo-theories such as Intelligent Design. Evolution, and natural selection, are testable.
If a selection pressure was involved in selecting for taller people then there should be a demonstratable relationship between mortality and height. Excluding the extremes, I'm unaware of any such relationship in modern industrialized populations.
Another form of selection pressure is sexual selection. If it were involved in this phenomenon then there should be a demonstratable relationship between reproductive success and height. Again, excluding the extremes, I'm unaware of any such relationship in modern industrialized populations.
If no such relationships can be demonstated then Evolution can be excluded as an explanation.
Are you aware of any studies that demonstrate such relationships? If you are, I'd be interested in reading about them.
posted by
Giskard
on November 29, 2005 at 3:04 AM
| link to this | reply
Bud-Oracle - if you are speaking of the jazz sax player Danny Morreti,
my appreciation for such things came at a time much later than when I lived there in the late 60, early 70's.
posted by
gomedome
on November 28, 2005 at 6:49 PM
| link to this | reply
I have read the Bible 3x and love it for its prose and human truth.
I have gone through a personal change from revulsion to it, to a loving respect. I still don't think its the word of god, I believe there is no such thing, but get my wisdom from anywhere. Did You Know Danny Morreti of Thorold music fame?
posted by
Bud-Oracle
on November 28, 2005 at 4:14 PM
| link to this | reply
problem is, we have no impeerical evidence beyond what has been recorded -- times past are a huge dark area.
although archaeology, particularly in the Middle East, can tell us of the animals that people ate some thousands of years ago, thus their development.
it is interesting
about 17k years ago, more species of animals were used and eaten by humans in the area -- then as agriculture took hold, the species and varieties decreased.
an interesting aside that really intribued me when i learned of it --
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 28, 2005 at 2:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - and this just covers micro-evolution
We have no reference for long term evolution within our species whihc most certainly has occurred.
posted by
gomedome
on November 28, 2005 at 1:56 PM
| link to this | reply
tbgroucho - it's scary to think that there is an organized movement to
instill creationism as a science into our school systems. Like that will help. Feed the kids a load of crap before sending them out into the real world.
posted by
gomedome
on November 28, 2005 at 1:54 PM
| link to this | reply
here here!
I am still stunned that people believe the earth is only 6000 years old... i thought the religous types -- even the fanatical ones -- understood time as at least partly metaphoric in the Bible! Sheesh.
You forgot to mention more steriods and other growth hormones in the population -- not the crap jocks inject but the crap they give to the livestock and even grain. That's making us bigger, and apparently more irritable too!
posted by
tbgroucho
on November 28, 2005 at 1:48 PM
| link to this | reply
so true
look at certain other peoples -- Asian, for instance -- their smaller size fitted them for scarce food resources
when resources are plentiful, then the bodies grow bigger, as you noted.
but with scarcity of food, the bigger body is more of a hindrance and the smaller necessary.
posted by
Xeno-x
on November 28, 2005 at 1:44 PM
| link to this | reply