Re: Science and Faith (Serious)


"Féachadóir" <Féach@d.óir> wrote in message
news:dlcok1h243sp8rvtcj8anesit0bgqbk7g7@xxxxxxxxxx
> Evolution is very simple. You don't look like your parents. You carry
> a few mutations. Probably half a dozen or so, if you're a typical
> member of our species. Some mutations will be harmful, and kill you
> before you get a chance to breed and pass them on. Some are neutral,
> they make no difference one way or the other. Some are beneficial,
> they make you a little bit taller, or smaller, or faster, or smarter,
> or less likely to catch a cold. It doesn't matter what it is, if it
> gives you an edge, your chances of survival increase, and you pass on
> your advantage to your descendants. That's evolution

Er nor quite. The "survival of the fittest" to give the mechanism
its most common name, only operates at the level of species. Not
on individuals within species,

Otherwise if we assume intelligence, strength, and cunning were
useful survival traits then you might assume all the weak stupid
people would have died out millions of years ago. This is the basis
of the wholly misconceived "Darwin Awards" awarded annually to people
who do stupid things. In fact, it's much more beneficial to have a high
degree of variabilty within species, in terms of almost every measurable
quality it's possible to imagine. For instance if all humans were
equally aggressive, then presumably they would have had killed one
another off years ago. Certainly if the most aggressive bred only
amongst themselves to breed super aggressive offspring

Similarly if they were all equally intelligent, then no one would be
prepared to take any orders. Social groups only require so many intelligent
people to function successfully, and require far more to be workers
or drones. Although scholteachers usually marry other schoolteachers
that doesn't necessarily produce more intelligent children - they just
have a better start in life with more books around etc.

All that the mixing of genes through sex does, isn't improve the breed
as such, but keep the gene pool well mixed, so that the species as a
whole is protected from any catastrophic diseases or whatever.

This applies equally to lions in the wild as well. Although its assumed
that its the strongest lion who controls the pride, and thus passes on
his agressive genes, this only last as few years, when a younger lion
comes along to take his place. And so mix up the gene pool again. As
there are too many lions to go around, this is as good a way as any,
of establishing a social order among the lions on the plains.

Selective breeding in animals is different again. This is done
deliberately to accentuate certain traits, but has no benefit
in terms of survival value, and without man's intervention the breed
soon reverts to the natural state within a few generations. While in
the case of thoroughbred racehorse, they haven't actualy got any faster
in the last 200 years, as at that point they'd reached their physical
limit. All that the breeders succeed in doing is create fashionable
bloodlines for while - in terms of success on the track - only to be
eclipsed by the next new stallion on the block within a few years.
But all the time keeping the gene pool well mixed, within the already
restricted pool of the thoroughbred.

As in the case of men getting taller and living longer over
the past 200 years, any further improvement is solely due to better
nutrition and medicine, the identification of deficiency diseases
etc. Or better training methods in the case of racehorses.



michael adams

....


>
>
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir


.

Loading