Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
jady wrote:For example you have probably heard the theory that humanity is "de-evolving" because of a rampant increase in sexual relations, and those that are likely to bear children are, shall we say, less "evolved" than those that are less likely.
In my opinion, anyone who believes this is arrogant and ignorant.
This is not "de-evolution" it is "evolution" because evolution can only move forward. If we evolve into peons, it is because selective pressure has rewarded the fastest breeder, who happen to be less intelligent, but MORE "evolved". I should preface this with the point that I have no idea if this is happening or not.
Let us turn the question. If we decided to begin selective breeding, as was attempted by some groups in the past, and only mated the so-called best and brightest, most physically-fit specimens of the human species. Is it still evolution?
So essentially, what your really saying here is that evolution predicts nothing, since survival doesn't do anything to the organsim in terms complexity etc...there really is no evolving species or process of adding structure or functional mechanism in that sense.[/quote]
The structure may be added, or it may be removed. In general, yes, life has generally gotten more complex, but that doesn't imply a purpose or a goal, only a trend. If, in fact, we found that life started very complex but got simpler and simpler over time, it woul dstill be just as easy for someone to conlclude that there is a "goal."
If beginning from what was possible as a beginning (a single cell) there is only but one direction to go. If, over time, mutations lead to advantageous adaptations, they were more complex as it wasn't really viable to be simpler. Fast forward to the point where eyes, legs, brains are developed, all of which lead to advantages....only an extreme shift in environment would lead a species to evolve to become simpler (I believe the manatee or the sea cow actually DID move from land to sea....so there's an example). If the addition of legs allow a species to thrive, why would it ever lose them?
Also note the argument above of vestigal organs. Is that not a simplification?
One thing to keep in mind, and this is where it gets lost on some people, eveolution does not "want"......it just does. Stuff happens. If it works, it stays. If not, it goes.
quote]
Let us turn the question. If we decided to begin selective breeding, as was attempted by some groups in the past, and only mated the so-called best and brightest, most physically-fit specimens of the human species. Is it still evolution? [/quote]
Yes. In fact that very process occurs in many mamals. Herd animals in particular only allow breeding with the alpha male. In the case of wolves, breeding only occurs between the alpha male and the alpha female. No ther wolves breed.
If whatever process you use leads to an adaptive change, then it is evolution.
Banky wrote:Yes. In fact that very process occurs in many mamals. Herd animals in particular only allow breeding with the alpha male. In the case of wolves, breeding only occurs between the alpha male and the alpha female. No ther wolves breed.
If whatever process you use leads to an adaptive change, then it is evolution.
I wondering if there are observed cases of selective breeding or "unnatural" selection yielding a new bonafide species, and if not, does it not suggest that something other than selection results in speciation?
I wondering if there are observed cases of selective breeding or "unnatural" selection yielding a new bonafide species, and if not, does it not suggest that something other than selection results in speciation?
New "species?" I doubt it, considering how long it takes (in theory) for a species to diverge.
Ah, but we can accelerate the genetic choices such that one would expect to see different species, especially in species such as fruit flies that have such short life spans. There is one experiment I do know of where a researcher was able to breed fruit flies such that one group preferred to mate with others that were fed certain medium. Even this shows only a preference, not true reproductive isolation. They can still interbreed.
Most creationists have no problem with microevolution and many have no problem with limited speciation events. The Hebrew word for kind does not translate directly into species. The problem, though, is the leap in concluding that macroevolution did happen and then dismissing the lack of repeatable controleld evidence due to the lack of time involved.
