The Problem with Evolution

Post Reply New Topic

Now, I acknowledge the theory of evolution as fact. I am a big fan of Darwin.

This is not a thread AGAINST Evolution in any way! It is, however, against the religious perception of evolution - as something with an end.

The universe formed, particles and gases form stars and planets, chemical interaction resulted in life over millions of years if situations supported it, and, apparently, "ended" with humanity.

Why do people think evolution has finished? It's a constant! It's not a design; it's a process!

You get a tan; THAT's evolution! You get fat, that's evolution. You live in the Northern or Southern hemisphere, your environment contributes to your evolution!

Forty thousand years ago, aboriginals where more asian in appearance. That's changed over generations in the sun. It's reflected in their genes. That is evolution.

Humanity, sentience, is not the "end result" of evolution - merely a bump in the road.
A devestating bump, causing cool twists and flips, possible an explosion, of anything else dumb enough to go too fast over, but, hey, not the road itself.
I suppose it's just human ego to take that view, but very anti-scientific.

Lamarckianism has been rather heavily discredited--more than a century ago.



Go back to junior high and ask a biology teacher about Lamarck.

My complaint about evolutionary theory is that I don't have wings. I WANT WINGS!! ! GRR.....

Lamarckism is about individual attributes contributing; not generations in a particular environment, situations, etc. - which was what I was stating.

Please do a little more research on Lamarckism before applying assosciations.

He didn't say anything about Lamarckian evolution. In a very sunny enviroment people with better protection against the sun are more likely to survive.

I don't see where you're getting Lamarckianism from. If you get a tan, you're at a higher risk of skin cancer, and if you're obese you're at a higher risk for obesity-related illnesses. This makes you less healthy and a less viable candidate for successful procreation. as much as a healthy person would be.

That depends on the circumstances. I know in ancient Egypt it was considered attractive to be paunchy, probably due to general food scarcity. That's why I laughed at the chiseled portrayal of Imhotep in The Mummy. That man was a little pot-bellied.

Not quite. Individuals don't evolve, species do.

Well, it really depends ... evolution requires mutation and selection ... if I get a tan and gain a few pounds, that really doesn't have much effect on evolution; it won't increase or decrease the number of offspring I have, or their genetic fitness.

It is true that evolution is ongoing - no reason to suppose we have 'arrived' when the planet continues to move through space.

This is what I get for thinking everyone here would be up-to-date on genetics.
I know individuals don't evolved; but contribute to the part of a species that does evolve - hence, branching off, etc.
Yeah, I know, I underexplain, use strange wording, it's a bad habit.
The psychological, cultural and environmental factors contribute to evolution.
Basically; fat parents, fatty lifestyle, fattier choldren, generations of that. What would the result be? Generations of travelling great distances in the sun, the present result would be vastly different. Where I said "your" - you control, for the most part, your breeding options and your immediate environmental factors. Individuals do contribute to evolution, it's an ongoing thing, but just not in the way Lamarck thought.

Can you write in one sentence what the supposed problem is?

The problem is the belief evolution ends with humanity, either the laymens misunderstanding of as faulty anti-evolution argument.

Yeah, evolution is just as random as chemical reactions.

You being a geneticist would hopefully have had some chemistry training, right? You know the percent yields, energy/number-of-molecules graphs, P/V graphs, experimental determination of the rate equation, use of Newton's method with the equilibria equations, et cetera?

Well, maybe not quite random, more like "controlled" random, in response to certain stimuli... At this stage; first life was closer to "true" random than so-called "controlled" random, yes.
Anybody who has even been through high scho (should) know chemistry.
Well, not at the highschool I went to... But, yes. I'm familiar with it. Why?
I don't think this argument should exclude those without intimate chemical knowledge: that would be most WP'ers!

I think he intended that to mean that by altering your body and health you're playing a part in evolution, not personally evolving.

Bingo! Got it in one!
...not my fault I have poor communication skills...