arndt@3106.DEC (04/22/85)
Ethan:
Thanks for your interesting reply. I will attempt to speak to it below.
I have been late in getting back to you because I also have to work, you
see. Ha. Anyway.
[You Posted]
Posted: Thu Apr 11 09:03:14 1985
[]
Ken,
I read your last article and emerged somewhat confused. You started out
making fun of an idea that is somewhat silly i.e. that organisms can,
in some mystical way, determine the course of evolution for their species.
You went on to identify this viewpoint with mainstream evolutionary thought,
which is unfair (but perhaps this is knife fight). You finish by proposing
that there are intrinsic limits to genetic variation, which seems like a
non sequitur. Maybe I've misunderstood you.
**** First, I am not in any knife fight. Just, however poorly,
trying to point up some concerns I have with some of the overly grand
statements made by 'scientists' in the evolution camp. Just to throw in
a little perspective to the whole evol/crea debate here on the net.
Glad you also think the idea is silly. Tell me, is
Jay Gould 'mainstream'???? If not then you are mistaken in your interpretation
of my posting, if he is, then 'mainstream' evolutionists theorize along these
lines and my highlighting it is correct!
The idea that genetic changes lead to 'dead ends' rather
than 'real' lasting changes in species is not new. And not out of sight
today! I fail to see that suggesting that genetic changes CAN impact
individual specimens of a species and even progeny of those individuals
so changed, without leading to an ultimate change in the species is a
non sequitur. By and large does not our experience with breeding of
whatever show us that the progney becomes sterile and tends to die out?
IS there evidence for the idea that 'nature' tends to have a 'gyroscope'
that brings species back to the origional pattern??? You tell me. I see
us having to FORCE nature to the change in the lab and continue to use
the force to keep it going. Look, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ABOUT A PROCESS
THAT HAPPENED LONG, LONG AGO AND FAR, FAR AWAY AND NOBODY EVER SAW IT, AND
IT HAPPENED, WE SPECULATE, UNDER PROCESSES NOT NOW HAPPENING - 'life'
arising from non-live in the great cosmic Cambell's soup kitchen.
[You posted]
Now, if you mean that there are limits to the kinds of mutations that
will emerge in any species I think that anyone would agree to this. Only
mutations that involve changing a few locations in a few DNA molecules
( or transposing whole strings which seems to be a more common method for
organisms with a lot of genetic material) are likely to happen. Mutations
that involve many simultaneous changes are so unlikely as to be impossible.
A mouse with a rubber skin is probably a good example of this. This is
not how evolution is thought to proceed. Instead one has the accumulation
of smaller changes, each one of which is easy to achieve. (Of course these
changes are not "willed". They just represent the preservation of
advantageous or neutral mutations.)
*** I agree that it seems too farfetched even for evolution
theory to say we 'will' changes. That's NOT what the 'behaviorists' I quoted
are saying. They are saying that BEHAVIOR results in anatomical evolution as
opposed to just genetic causes for anatomical evolution. Ergo, if my behavior
is to place my survival in doubt (sitting in the front seat without a seat
belt) then somehow?! (neat huh?, 'somehow', anything's ok in a theory, eh?)
my body responds with a 'fix' - that little lump on my hip. I could have
done a piece about picking your nose or masturbation but I'm trying to
improve my image.
Ahhhh. Inch worm, inch worm. Here a little, there a
little, and it all adds up. Ok, so small changes occur in individuals. Do
they add up to a 'gross' change in the individual??? Can that individual
pass them (the gross changes) on???? Or can a build up of little changes
passed on suddenly result in a 'gross' change in some individual down the
line?? You speak to this below.
[You post]
A gradualist would say that each change is separately selected for so that
speciation is accomplished over many many generations. A proponent of
evolutionary "jumps" would say that under extreme conditions a number of
neutral (or at least not terribly disadvantageous) mutations would combine
to produce an organism which could successfully compete against its cousins
(or possibly exploit some different ecological niche).
*** Gradualism is in trouble, no? I mean there doesn't seem
to be enough time. That's why the 'jumpers' came along when this was
realized. Enter Jay Gould and co. But it seems to me that the 'jumpers'
have yet to prove their case other than if evolution is true than this has
just about got to be a description of how it happened. We just don't see,
except 'forced' in the lab the changes happening today!!!! One can speculate
that a blind bull with no sense of smell mounted a horny paraplegic female
buffalo and hey presto nature makes a grand leap forward with a beeffalo!
But it's NOT A PROCESS WE OBSERVE TODAY, IS IT?? That's the major problem
with evolution. You have to accept it on 'faith'- meaning a degree of
evidence, which is just how one accepts ANYTHNG, no? Religious theories
as well. So what's more 'reasonable' to believe? That's the question.
Here's all this design, purpose, flow, simple to complex direction, direction
toward 'survival', whatever that really means, and how'd it get started?
What, dare I say who - of course not, personality must be neurons, right? -
kicked it off, not to mention maintains it?
[You post]
Both may be important. It's suggestive to note that homo erectus was
successful (and largely unchanged) for about 1.5 million years. About
100,000 years ago homo sapiens appeared with many archaic features.
About 50,000 years ago homo sapiens sapiens appeared and the breed became
standardized and (apparently) stable again.
"Don't argue with a fool. Ethan Vishniac
**** Oh dear. Better check the papers every morning
before using anthropology. THAT's a field up in the air! Lucy in the sky
indeed. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones! Especially using dates.
Well, I gotta go.
Regards,
Ken Arndtfriesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (04/26/85)
In article <1750@decwrl.UUCP> arndt@3106.DEC writes: > Look, EVOLUTION IS A THEORY ABOUT A PROCESS >THAT HAPPENED LONG, LONG AGO AND FAR, FAR AWAY AND NOBODY EVER SAW IT, AND >IT HAPPENED, WE SPECULATE, UNDER PROCESSES NOT NOW HAPPENING - 'life' >arising from non-live in the great cosmic Cambell's soup kitchen. > Hold on here!?!?! I have NEVER heard of any evolutionary scientist making this claim. In fact they would *all*, even the most extreme Puncuated Equilibrist, say that all aspects of evolutionary processes are occuring today just as they have in the past. You may be confusing origins theory with evolutionary theory. They are *not* the same, in fact they are not even particularly closely related, since they belong in different specialties. -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) {trwrb|allegra|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|aero!uscvax!akgua}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen or {ttdica|quad1|bellcore|scgvaxd}!psivax!friesen