vision2020
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

Re: The Evolution Debate




Rock On Mark!

Love

Daniel



On Sat, 22 Jun 2002, Mark Rounds wrote:

> Will you look what happens when you let real life interfere with your
> internet habit ;-)  This may be late but it is a series of points I think
> were salient to that discussion and I personally wanted to make and thought
> should be made.
>
> 1.      I'll say this again.  There is no Cabal of Darwinists trying to
> foist lies on an unsuspecting public.  The method in which science works is
> far too complex and there are way too many people involved for a conspiracy
> of that magnitude to be kept secret for long.  There are young turks in
> every field that can and do publish claims just to make the old guard squirm
> and rethink their standpoints.  When you do publish anything that is at all
> controversial, halh a dozen other labs start on the same work to see if they
> were wrong or if you were.  Sometimes they get it wrong, the emphasis put on
> the Bohr atom and the concept of wavicles are examples.  In each case
> though, it was torn down and replaced with something that was closer to the
> truth.  The same has occured in the field of Evolutionary Biology.  Claims
> have been made and either proven or torn down.  The system works.  There are
> flaws, for example the extreme competitiveness has led some to try and
> falsify data but every time it happens, its the ruination of a career as
> everyone tries to duplicate results and the truth comes out.
>
> 2.      The point was made if evolution is still going on, won't there be,
> at some point some uberman and unterman (Nazi terms chosen to keep this in
> context)?  The answer is no, not really.  Here is why.  For a species to
> branch off there have to be three things occur.  The first is that there has
> to be a small gene pool that is isolated from the rest of the population
> with very little cross breeding with the main population.  The second is
> that this small population has to be put under environmental stress.  THis
> can come from dwindling food sources, climatic change, competition, etc.....
> and finally, these pressure have to be strong enough to stress the gene pool
> without flat killing it off and have to remain in place for a long period of
> time.  This period is not tens of years, hundreds of years or even thousands
> of years, but in the category of hundreds of thousands of years.  Consider
> domesticated animals, the oldest domesticated animal can be argued to be the
> dog.  THey have certainly been hanging around eating from are garbage piles
> for just about as long as we can actually find garbage piles and yet they
> still interbreed quite handlily with wolves.
>
> For humans, we just move around too much for these populations to remain
> isolated long enough  for them to become separated.  In the hunter gather
> stage of culture ( what we have been for most all of human history) the
> family groupings wander, merge and split up very often.  Also vision quests
> are a staple of all primative cultures and while most of the young people
> who wander off, eventually come back home, some find greener pastures and
> settle far from home.  In may take tens of generations for a genetic
> characteristic to progress out of in area and into another but that is
> lighten fast in evolutionary terms.
>
> Secondly, humans, when stressed tend to change their environment rather than
> suffer.  We build huts and houses and fires to stay warm.  We plant crops,
> try new foods or just plain move when an area stresses us a great deal.
> With the exception of the very bottom of our societies, most humans (even in
> India, Bangladesh and Africa) are not stressed to a high enough degree to
> evolve quickly and they interbreed with the rest of the population so any
> edge they might get  transfers rapidly.
>
> We probably won't break off branches of our tree until we can get humans
> separated and not remixing for hundreds thousand years.  If the speed of
> light really is the speed limit of the universe (Dr. Forward and others
> think differently but that is another story) we might have enough distance
> in interstellar space to break off distinct gene pools.  MY personal opinion
> is that we will figure out a faster way to get around and that won't even
> work.
>
> 3.      I also mentioned in my last post it might be that Evolution is God's
> way.  Now, I don't propose to be the source of all wisdom but in my readings
> of the bible (several versions), it could very easily be that they are
> compatible.  Personally, I do believe that.  I think the purposes are many,
> some of which I can't fathom but an important one is to keep us humble.  One
> of mandkinds greatest strengths and our greatest failings in pride.  It
> allows us to tackle impossible projects and achieve them but when it grows
> out of that to hubris, it drives abominations like the Nazi's and their
> fellow travellers thoughout history.
>
> 4.      My last point and then I'll shut up.  A tactic used in too much of
> this discussion is the labeling of different factions with labels and then
> impuning certain beliefs or stands to them that may or may not be true.
> Back off and grow up!  If you don't like what I say, by all means, discuss
> it or poke holes in it.  That is how real intellectual synthesis takes
> place.  But please don't tell me to which group I belong and then say I
> believe things because of it.  That tends to make me crabby ;-)  It is also
> how real discrimination starts.
>
> Mark Rounds
>
> PS.  Daniel, in the old days of the internet we used to have .! parties.  .!
> was one of the first places where you could post things and carry on debates
> like this.  They were great fun.  This was before the tactics of the flame
> war though.
>
> PSS.  Ms. Joan Opyr, While I don't agree with everything you say, I
> certainly like the way you say it.  If we every do have the pot luck Daniel
> has suggested, may I buy you the first drink?  My wife has consented ;-)
>




Back to TOC