Re: OT Evolution was Re: Is C close to the machine?

William Clodius wrote:
ChrisQ <meru@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<snip>
If you accept Darwin's theories and add to that millions of years of adaptation and optimisation based simply on how usefull an incremental
change is to a organism, you would have a hard job arguing that the present layout isn't in some way optimum for the task.
<snip>

While I have not read Darwin your description is compatible with the
popular description of his theory, but incompatible with the current
view of genetics. Yes there are some characteristics that show near
continuum behavior that can rresult in incremental changes. but there
are certianly many genes that make dramatic changes. Examples include
dwarfism, sickle cell anemia, anw white and purple coloring in garden
peas. Even if such traits are not immediately favorable when they are
created by mutation or gene sharing, if they have no detrimental
effect, are recessive with minimal effect when unpaired, or are blocked
by a gene that turns them off, they can persist in the genetic pool
untill favorable circumstances arise. It is difficult (at least for me)
to see how such things as multicellular organisms, bones (or
exoskeletons), lungs (or gills), fingers (or the pands's thumb), could
evolve except by such non-incremental changes (or the fortuitous
ccombination of such changes).

Antievolutionist often use Darwin's concept of incremental evolution as
a strawman, and avoid addressing the dramatiic effect that Mendelian
genecitcs has had on how our conception of the topic has evoved.


I know less than nothing about genetics and have only a general knowledge of Darwin, but one must either choose intelligent design or evolution over millions of years to get to where we are now. As I can't accept the former and have no time in general for cults of personality, only the latter remains.

Evolution has had millions of years to do it's stuff and that doesn't preclude dramatic changes, but the theory goes that they will only work long term if usefull in terms of survival and adaptability. Changes, both minor and major, happen in the context of very large timescales, which act as a long time constant filter to any spikes above the noise.

One of the things about modern society and advances in medicine is that babies that would have died naturally or have been smothered at birth by the midwife (this was quite common years ago in country areas, if the baby looked a bit off) are now able to live, even if the quality of life is degraded. I don't want to get into the ethics of this, but it must work against natural evolutionary processes.

I considered deleting the last paragraph, but let it stand :-)...

Regards,

Chris

.

Quantcast