Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion General Science Discussion Forum Evolution

One of the hardest things to get from a true believer is an account of what evolution actually is, and how evolution occurs.

Everything that I observe in nature tells me that evolution does not occur. Take three examples of birds that were transplanted to the western hemisphere for sporting purposes: ringneck pheasants, gray partridges and chukar partridges. All have been successful pioneers on this new (to their species) continent, but only within the realm of their original habitat. They all look exactly like their ancestors, and none have "evolved" the ability to expand their range into apparently friendly habitats that border their range.

Why have these species not been able to adapt and expand into new range? What prevents their adaptation?

True believers? ROFL!

I can easily answer your questions by referring you to everything from the FACT that AIDS is evolving to the fact that everyone is worried that BIRD FLU may evolve. Apparently you flaming hypocrites only complain about evolution when it comes to humans.

Your fine with DNA mutating ... but not fine with the result of that DNA mutation might affect future generations.

What you think adaptation, in a very finite number of years, has to do with evolution is beyond my wildest imagination if I assume you are at least 15 years old and attended middle school in a first world country.

Open minds are rare when they are inside the skulls of the willfully and wantonly ignorant.

This is the sort of response I always get when I ask about evolution. Attacks on maturity, intelligence, education level, etc. are par for the course. Unfortunate.

Can I assume that you have no answers? I thought that perhaps on this forum, there might be a proclivity for open discussion.

I understand that micro-organisms mutate to a degree. But do they actually change from one species to another? I don't know, therefore I ask.

The genetic imperative is that if two parents of a given species mate, their offspring will be of the same species. So how does evolution occur? Most mutations do not help an individual organism to thrive, let alone survive. I'm not aware of any mutations occurring in captive populations of aquarium fish, for example, that would aid in their survival in the wild. Are mutations considered to be the principal cause of evolution? If not, what is?

Informative responses are honestly encouraged.

Pehaps this will answer your question:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060710/full/060710-11.html

meg, what you are ignoring with your diatribe is that

1)man has not allowed them to expand beyond a certain boundary

2) evolution takes time. it does not occur in one generation (save as the result of something like a major virus attack, which i don't believe has ever happen, or the intentional intervention of a scientist, which is likely still beyond their capacity), or even several. it takes dozens of generations for even small change to affect a large part of the population.

3) moving into a new area is not evolution. its territorial migrations. that usually only occurs when the old territory is too small for the population, which in this case hunters have seen to it not happening, or it becomes to dangerous to remain. since hunting only occurs during a small part of the year, and is only allowed for the hunting of males, its not felt to be that dangerous for the species.

Darwin's finches if you have patience, methacillin-resistant staphloccous-A if you don't. The French after Napoleon selectively killed tall aggressive Frenchmen while diddling with Moscow. Hand vasculature response to severe cold, Esquimos vs. Europeans. Thalassemia and sickle cell anemia vs. malarial resistance in Mediterranian Whites and Equatorial Blacks, respectively. Corn from teosinte. Melanotic forms' incidence and the Industrial Revolution,

Google
"industrial melanism" 28,300 hits

point being, if you have not noticed any sign of evolution in nature, then your not looking at nature.

Hi dehammer,
As you state. "Evolution takes time"
Surely that depends upon the form of life involved?

Simple life forms, such as Viruses seem to adapt rather quickly? Or would you say mutate? Or call it evolvement?
Evolvement to me - requires it to be a change into something better, and permanent?

Also the higher up the animal kingdom we go the slower the evolution. Is that true?
If it is, would you say that is because Nature has produced a more stable DNA in the higher life forms? Higher life forms are more perfected?
Since any mutation/evolvement would tend to be less than perfect, even detrimental?
With us Humans, I am really not sure what evolvement, for our long term (good), has ever occured since the beginning of our history?

In fact come to think of it, couples with large Victorian families, theoreticaly, should evolve
faster than couples with small families. Would you agree with that?
Then again, with all the mixings of the human races that is going on today, is'nt that actually preventing our Evolution, per se?
(I'm not considering our final brown/yellow color) Since, would'nt a complete mixing of the human races actually prevent (visible) Evolution?

You mentioned Viruses might cause evolvement.
Interesting. Do you mean we would become resistant to diseases? ie Plague, Ebola, Aids etc
I'd be interested re your comments. Tnx, Mike

Dehammer said:

Not the case at all. This sort of limitation would be impossible to effect. In fact, man has tried with limited success to greatly expand the range of all three species through introduction of both wild-caught and captive-raised individuals. The introductions are either successful or not, based on the ability of the species to adjust to local conditions. In no case has any of the three species been able to colonise territory that is dissimilar to their native range in the eastern hemisphere.

What, for instance, stops the gray (Hungarian) partridge from moving south into central/southern Nebraska and Kansas? For some reason, after dozens of generations, the species has been unable to expand southward. Why no adaptation?

Understood. However, all three species have been here (the western hemisphere) for dozens of generations. In the case of the ringneck, over 100 generations.

Right, but my point was that if these species are adapting (why wouldn't they in a world of evolution) why are they unable of themselves to colonize territory over that of their original territorial expansion?

What has happened in the case of all three is that, once released into acceptable habitat, they expand rather quickly to inhabit all of the contiguous territory that meets their habitat needs. Something of a population explosion. Then predation steps up to the challenge, "discovers" the new species, and the population dynamics of all concerned organisms adjust and adapt to the new situation. Eventually, population equilibrium is reached within a few generations, and the new species becomes subject to the regular population swings that we see in nature.

Hunters, by the way, account for a small fraction of the population in any given year. It is true that hunting is limited to males only for ringneck pheasants, but the partridges do not offer the degree of sexual dimorphism that would allow for quick sexual identity as required in a hunting situation. In addition, the partridges are generally monogamous, so hunting males exclusively would be counter-productive.

Uncle Al said:

[quote]Darwin's finches if you have patience, methacillin-resistant staphloccous-A if you don't. The French after Napoleon selectively killed tall aggressive Frenchmen while diddling with Moscow. Hand vasculature response to severe cold, Esquimos vs. Europeans. Thalassemia and sickle cell anemia vs. malarial resistance in Mediterranian Whites and Equatorial Blacks, respectively. Corn from teosinte. Melanotic forms' incidence and the Industrial Revolution [\quote]

So we're left with nothing but short, pacifistic Frenchmen? LOL!

I agree and fully acknowledge that there are some obvious examples of adaptation over generations (survival of the most capable). What I don't see is adaptation that results in new species. And, as in the gamebird example given above, an obvious inability of higher organisms to adapt in many situations.

" What I don't see is adaptation that results in new species."
And unless you are studying fruit flys or bacteria, you won't.
The theory is that the changes occur slowly.
You don't live long enough to see a species differentiate over many generations.
You can only look closely enough to see the 'tracks` of the process.

insufficent time, insuffient pressure, other reason, all the above.

dozens of generation is not enough for major changes. even a slightest reading of evolution will show you that the various species evolve due to a new variation giving it an advantage over the older variation. with sufficent food, and suffecient nesting places, and sufficent things to meet their other needs, what variation would give them and advantage and lead to them moving to another unknown area?

simple. what adaption would happen that would make them want to colonize another territory. to put it in simple terms, change occurs due to difficulty. man became a wonderer because the area that he was in before became cooler, and thus had less food, and it was harder to live there. as various groups expanded into different areas, they found different conditions that worked and over thousands of generation they adapted to those different conditions.

in the habatats those three species live in, there is plenty of food, plenty of everything they need. new variations would compete for the same food, etc., so would have to have to be better than the old one to show up quickly (100 generations is not that long esp in short lived species that the older generation does not compete for food with the younger one). a variation that would lead to the species changing its location would require that there be a reason for it to before it appeared. that has not happened.


this is very closed minded. open minded does not mean agreeing with just one person. perhaps you should be open minded and agree with others.

dehammer said:

Well, yeah! The sig line is of course tongue-in-cheek. I guess I'll remove it, since it's not understood.

"Everything that I observe in nature tells me that evolution does not occur. "

Try reading a book on the subject that has been written by actual scientists - scientists who are active and practicing in their fields and who have made significant contributions to their fields.

Avoid a reading diet consisting solely of creationist materials written by 4th and 5th tier "scientists" who write more for the religious magazines than for scientific journals.

There is plenty of information about how evolution occurs. The only way you could avoid seeing it is not to have looked.

Read a book?

What kind of commie pinko running dog paper tiger atheistic anti-christ kind of subversive are you? You monster.

They don't need to read books. They have the truth directly from the source ... the multi-millionaire preacher on TV.

I don't really want to get involved in this discussion, but I would like to get some things off my chest.
Please...I beg you...everyone, stop with the lame response "it takes a really long time". You all know this is an unacceptable response. Imagine if physicist said "we know the speed of light is finite but we can't figure out what it is cause it's just so damn fast". Please, there is nothing wrong with not knowing, just admit it, scientist do it all the time.

DA Morgan, AIDS does not evolve, it adapts. Evolution necessitates speciation.

Furthermore, I just can't ignore the fact that several thousand generations of fruit flys have yet to produce a single advantageous mutation.
?It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world?flies which produce a new generation every eleven days?they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.? Gordon Rattray Taylor (former Chief Science Advisor, BBC Television), The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper & Row, 1983), p. 48.

On a lighter but still baffling note. I find that pork challenges evolutionary theory. How could an animal evolve to be tastier.

what you don't seem to understand is that evolution does not simply occur in a vacuum. evolution occurs due to natural selection overcoming a problem. in order to breed something you have to give it the best environment. with no problems to overcome, there is nothing for a new species to prove its better at, thus being selected over a proven variety.

lets take homosapiens. we were better hunters than are predecessors, thus they died out while we populated the globe. why? because food became more scarce as the climate changed. our predecessors were geared to a wetter, warmer environment, where we were more adjustable.

if a fruit fly shows up that is faster than the others, but is not close enough to get to the food when there are thousands of others closer, it will not have an advantage in a closed environment. in an open environment it would. therefore, breeding them does not encourage evolution, but rather discourages it.

evolution only occurs when a species is no long comfortable in its environment.

DrBarr wrote: "Furthermore, I just can't ignore the fact that several thousand generations of fruit flys have yet to produce a single advantageous mutation."

The biggest impediment that people have with evolution is in understanding what the theory actually says. They spend a lot of time and effort refuting what evolution doesn't say. The second biggest impediment is a lack of clear logic.

Evolution does not guarantee that any specific adaptations will occur. We can attempt to try to alter the natural course, but nature is still smarter than we are. We've discussed this tangentially in another thread. "Advantageous" is highly nonspecific term.

That said, we have witnessed advantageous mutations in nature and there are plenty of references already on here that point to that fact.


On another topic, Gordon Rattray Taylor's comments are interesting and he has a right to say them, but he's not a scientist and while it's true that he "studied natural sciences," that's not the same thing as getting a degree in them, much less in practicing science.

His comments disagree with what I read at talkorigins
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Check out section 5.3.1 - a new species WAS formed in the lab and it was reported in
Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.

Mr Taylor is not a scientist, though, and so I guess we can forgive him for his ignorance.

db: "DA Morgan, AIDS does not evolve, it adapts. Evolution necessitates speciation."

No. Evolution does not "necessitate" speciation. Evolution causes speciation. Learn what evolution is. Then you can lecture, Mr. Morgan.

Dehammer, because there is no shortage of food and no predators, each line of fruit flies is preserved. So it seems to be ideal conditions for mutations to flourish and run their course.

Okay...60 years of breeding...offspring every 11 days...say 1000 different fruit fly ancestral lines being bred across the world (surely a huge underestimation)...gives us 1,968,000 generations. Human equivalent 20 years a generation gives us 39,720,000 years of evolution without a single detectable change. Okay, all very rough but still makes me wonder when I think about the total mutational changes needed to arrive at a creature as incredibly complex as a human.

Blacknad.

Your abosolutely right. Poor choice of words. But it has nothing to do with the point of my comment. Variation is not speciation and not evolution. There is no need to get nasty, I know what evolution proposes to be. Albeit, I am not a geneticist, I think I still have the right to post my opinion here. If not please let me know and I'll take my comments elswhere.

"Dehammer, because there is no shortage of food and no predators, each line of fruit flies is preserved. So it seems to be ideal conditions for mutations to flourish and run their course."

Dear Blacknad. These are EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE conditions conducive to evolution. Evolution occurs best where food is scarce and predatation is fierce - resulting in a strong selective pressure. The Amazon is well-known for 2 factors 1) its incredible biodiversity and 2) the poorness of its soil overall.

From http://library.thinkquest.org/21395/textonlyb/deforestation.html

"The Amazon, though it is host to millions of lifeforms, is not full of fertile soil."

"Variation is not speciation and not evolution. "

Variation is a precondition for selection. Variation and selection together constitute evolution. Evolution includes speciation, but it also includes - and even requires - smaller steps than speciation events.

I never said that you don't have the right to state your opinion. But other people have the right to criticize your opinion. It has been my experience after nearly 25 years of studying this subject and arguing about it on the internet that the creationists, parrotting the intellectual garbage they find at places like AiG and ApologeticsPress, take some comic book version of what science is and what evolutionary theory says and puth forth some preposterous, half-truth version of the actual science which "true evilution believers" are dared to defend.

Then they whine about how they're criticized for questioning evolution - which is a blatant lie, because they are criticized for making stupid assertions about evolution, not for "asking questions."

Another tactic is to look up some thing that they think is arcane and that no one will know about - and then start making stupid assertions about how it refutes evolution:

2nd law of thermo, woodpecker tongues, woodpecker necks, lima bean genes, string theory, information theory, and any other abstruse field then can glom onto where they can pretend their erroneous and frequently half-witted jabber can be miscronstrued as a deeply considered argument. But there's always the implicit, "Ah ... well, see here... if you can't answer THIS argument, then you don't understand anything at all! Because this HERE argument refutes all of evilution!"

If you're not going to start in on this sort of crap, then I do apologize to you - sincerely and profusely. If you have honest questions, I'll do what I can to answer them. There's a lot more that I don't know than that I do, so expect to get a lot of "I don't know."

I consider some of evolution to be counter-intuitive. It's only natural therefore that people would have questions about it. Assertions - in particular, false and misleading assertions - are not questions.

Dear TFF (as we appear to be on such cosy terms). I understand very well how this works in nature and if you are lumping me in with creationists then you don't have to - I am not one.

Are you saying that scarcity of resources and predation is the cause of mutation? Because I was talking about mutation and not selection. All I was saying was that with all of the unbroken lines of fruit flies bred in labs you would maybe expect to see some change. It would not have to be advantageous to survive - it only has to be non-fatal. I just thought that genetic changes were more likely to survive in labs where there is no predator or natural means of ending that strain.

It seems more ideal. How many mutations in the big bad world never saw the light of day because the carrier became food?

Blacknad.

"I understand very well how this works in nature and if you are lumping me in with creationists then you don't have to - I am not one."

Dear Blacknad, I don't know for sure whether you are creationist, but I specifically exclude you from the normal flow of creationists even if you are one.

"Are you saying that scarcity of resources and predation is the cause of mutation?"

I'm saying that evolution consists of two things, variation (which can be caused by mutation) and selection. The selection part of this produces more salient effects when the selection pressure is stronger. The selection pressure is stronger when there is a short supply of food and you can't defend yourself against predation.

"Because I was talking about mutation and not selection."

Ah, you *were* talking about mutation, but then you said to dehammer, "because there is no shortage of food and no predators, each line of fruit flies is preserved. So it seems to be ideal conditions for mutations to flourish and run their course."
Regardless of your intent, the food and predation issue mention takes you clearly into the selection part of the process.

"All I was saying was that with all of the unbroken lines of fruit flies bred in labs you would maybe expect to see some change. It would not have to be advantageous to survive - it only has to be non-fatal."

And you are right, but you're missing an important element. There has to be some way of preferring one descendant over the others, i.e. the selection pressure. It doesn't mean that one set of genes is always selected over the others - just that, on average, it has a preferred chance of being selected. Without selection pressure, you just have everybody interbreeding and mixing genes and new variation gets lost in the shuffle or is lost altogether.

And this is EXACTLY what has happened. Contrary to what creationists parrot, fruit fly experiments have produced a new species of fruit fly. I gave a reference to this in my last post to drbarr / anyman.

"I just thought that genetic changes were more likely to survive in labs where there is no predator or natural means of ending that strain."
I understood what you meant. The problem is that unless there is some kind of selection (in this case artificial selection) that variation can become lost.


"It seems more ideal. How many mutations in the big bad world never saw the light of day because the carrier became food?"

No doubt, many. But the selection pressure is favors the guy who is best adapted to find food wear others can't or more likely evade the person trying to eat him.

save for one thing. the biggest obsticle to a new line, is the choising of a mate. if food and lack of preditors does not create the pressure to change, the mating cycle will remain the same. this means that if there is nothing that will give a new line an advantage, say in numbers of male survivors to reach the female when she is laying eggs ect, then there has to be something that enables them to reach the female faster or catch her attension faster depending on how that species makes the choise. the old proven species would normally have the advantage, unless the new one gains some new form of advantage. in the wild, the old one cant compete for food, as well so there is more of the new one than the old one that can mate. or the new one would have to be faster at reaching the female, or it would have to be able to attract her better. on the other hand if it were the female that had changed, she would have to attract the males over the other females better.

the simpler the organism, the faster it lives and the slower it changes, due to having fewer things to change.

that is the point of evolution. if it gives and advantage, it would not become food, most likely.

let me illustrate the point with a joke i heard.

two hikers were walking thought the plains of africa, when they spotted a single lion on the prowl. it also spotted them, and charged. one hiker began running, while the other stopped and tied his running shoes.

the first holler over his sholders, "you cant think that will make it possible for you to our run the lion do you?"

the second replied, "i dont have to out run HIM."

two variation of a speices are in the field when they are chased by a preditor. the best does not have to be able to our run the preditor. which ever does leaves his mark on the genes pool by reaching the female alive first. if there are no preditors, there is no race. old tried and true will win the race.

you've got the right and it's our pleasure to have...need more of the same

don't mind these guys; they try to run anyone off that doesn't go with the flow (w/ regard to the evolutionary paradigm)

no major prob...they've got a whole lot more bark and decidedly less bite

stick around...join the fun

more soon :-)

"they try to run anyone off that doesn't go with the flow"

Yet another asinine assertion. He isn't being run off. He's being corrected. What you guys want is the right to make foolish assertions without being criticized in return.

"One of the hardest things to get from a true believer is an account of what evolution actually is, and how evolution occurs."

It can be described in several ways, but change in a population's gene pool through time is as good a definition as any. It occurs through mutation and natural selection.

Why is that a hard thing to get? You could have gotten it from a variety of biology-related websites, and many, many books.

"Everything that I observe in nature tells me that evolution does not occur. Take three examples of birds that were transplanted to the western hemisphere for sporting purposes: ringneck pheasants, gray partridges and chukar partridges. All have been successful pioneers on this new (to their species) continent, but only within the realm of their original habitat."

What pressure is on them to change? And since you didn't have a working definition of evolution in the first place (because it's "hard to get"), how did you decide it doesn't occur?

"They all look exactly like their ancestors, and none have "evolved" the ability to expand their range into apparently friendly habitats that border their range."

Mutations don't proceed with purpose. You have Lamarkian ideas regarding evolution.

1st off, your absolutely right. you have the right to state your opinions here and to state your opinions about other peoples comments.

2ndly, no one has gotten nasty here yet. they have stated their opinions which are contrary to yours. if you cant accept other people making comments that dont agree with you, you might not want to post here. i hope you continue to post though, as you do have some interesting comments. just dont start insulting people who disagree with you and everyone will be fine.

New fruit fly species HAVE arisen in laboratories, without any sort of genetic engineering, and even without human intent.

I'd look at articles and books published by people who didn't die 25 years ago, for more up-to-date information. Not that fruit fly speciation hadn't been observed before Taylor's death.

See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

for more information on cases of observed speciation.

I believe in evolution.I mean,even looking at my own 12 year old niece makes me think.She's 6"3 at 12 years old.Evolution has to play some part in that.People are bigger,faster,smarter,and stronger than they were 100 years ago.You even see it on tv.Any olympics fans here?Every olympics someone breaks a record.How is it that athletes have no limits,and is contantly making new records?In my opinion,that is evolution.

So what's the selective pressure? Who's eating short people?

This is more about diet and better sports science.

Blacknad

competition. stereo types. hiring practices. in other words we are. society rewards the people that are faster, taller, smarter, or in some other form, better than the average. this means they get better rewards, meaning better lives and the shorter, dumber slower people end up with less. its causing more of a stratifying social order than most people realise. you'd be surprised at how many of them don't have children or die young due to depression, drugs, suicide, etc. because they don't fit the idea society has said they need to be. i read somewhere (don't ask for references, I've slept since then and it was not that interesting) that the average person to die from drug over does is under 5'5". the average age for gang related deaths is something like 15 and their average IQ is below 100. that is not to say they all are. just the average is below societies norm. this is a form of selective breading. unintended, but still selecive. the faster, richer, more successful male reaches and attracts the best females. the best looking, most successfull female attracts the most males, thus having the best selection. the best looking most successfull looking worker gets the best jobs, while the ones that are slower, and less successfull seeming, succeed less often. we are driving our own evolution to be even faster than normal.

"I believe in evolution.I mean,even looking at my own 12 year old niece makes me think.She's 6"3 at 12 years old.Evolution has to play some part in that."

That might be an actual problem. I don't know. I hope she gets regular check ups.

"People are bigger,faster,smarter,and stronger than they were 100 years ago."

Better diet. Better living conditions. I don't think this is an example of evolution.

"How is it that athletes have no limits,and is contantly making new records?In my opinion,that is evolution."

Maybe. But it might also be improved understanding of biomechanics and how diet affects body chemistry, as well as improved training techniques.

Exactly,changing and finding new ways.Change is what evolution is all about,isn't it?And I don't think great athletes become great because of gatorade or their so called improved training.People 1000 years ago would perhaps even see us today as "unlike" them.But my point is training and diet I think has limits.And new world records in athletics are constantly being made.

"... finding new ways.Change is what evolution is all about,isn't it?"

Evolution is about change in genetic populations, not physical changes in individuals.

"And I don't think great athletes become great because of gatorade or their so called improved training."
I think you underestimate the importance of diet and training. It's not just that athletes train hard. Athletes have always trained hard. It's that they are training scientifically. We actually know a lot more about how to exercise now. Specific exercise programs can target specific muscles that are used for strength or for fine motor control.

I used to think that Personal Trainers were a waste of money. That was till I actually tried one. I got a membership at the county rec center and got to meet with a trainer for free. It was amazing the experience and insight I was getting from this guy. I'm now a big believer in PTs. (Unfortunately, not all of them are equally good.)

"But my point is training and diet I think has limits. And new world records in athletics are constantly being made."

It's a good point. Training and diet *do* have limits, but our understanding of these has improved dramatically over the last 50 years - and it looks like it will continue to improve for another decade or so. I doubt we have yet seen the limits that diet and training can produce.

KryptonianKnight,

These are the 100M Sprint World Records for the last 100 years or so.

Asafa POWELL........9.77....2006
Justin GATLIN.........9.77....2006
Asafa POWELL........9.77....2005
Maurice GREENE......9.79....1999
Donovan BAILEY......9.84....1996
Leroy BURRELL........9.85....1994
Carl LEWIS.............9.86....1991
Leroy BURRELL........9.90....1991
Carl LEWIS.............9.92....1988
Calvin SMITH..........9.93....1983
Jim HINES..............9.95....1968
Jim HINES..............9.9.....1968
Armin HARY............10.0....1960
Willie WILLIAMS......10.1....1956
Jesse OWENS.........10.2....1936
Percy WILLIAMS......10.3....1930
Charles PADDOCK.....10.4....1921
Donald LIPPINCOTT..10.6....1912
Frank JARVIS..........10.8....1900
Tom BURKE.............11.8....1896

Some of the technological improvements such as running spikes, starting blocks, and all weather polyurethane tracks etc. account for better times.

You can see that times were reduced by large margins at the start of the last century when technology first started to impact the sport. Now we are down to miniscule increases which can easily be explained by improved diet, training techniques and a greater understanding of the type of lifestyle needed to look after and hone the body.

Evolution is playing no part whatsoever. It just cannot have an impact on a hundred year timescale in anything as complex as a human. Or are you willing to say that evolution affected a change over a ten year period, allowing over .1 of a seconds reduction (1991 - 1999)? If not, then why think evolution is the cause for any of the changes?

Blacknad.

There is a mish-mash of ideas here. The fact is that in the developed world, successful people sire less progeny than do the lower social orders. Career people put off having children and are far more likely to have a single child.

The number of American women who have only one child has doubled over the last two decades

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/story?id=2178396&page=1

In the UK, professional people seem to mostly have single children. Anecdotally - at my daughter's nursery almost all of the children have zero siblings. If you want to see who is breeding, then you have to look to those on welfare. Look at council estates where girls start having children at 14 - 16 and just carry on. Some neighbours of my parents are long term claimants of sickness benefit. They have eight children and are expecting another. People who don't work are the only ones who can afford children. At $1189 per month for my three year old's nursery fees I am in no hurry to have another.

So if, as you say, the beautiful people are getting hired, they will probably be the ones contributing less to the gene pool.

Society does not reward the faster, taller or smarter. They are the ones that will pay through their noses to bring their children up (if they do have any at all), whilst those who cannot or will not work can pop them out one after another and the state will pick up the tab.

It's something, but it's certainly not survival of the fittest.

Blacknad.

so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family. at least in america. just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them. just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids. it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters. it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

So speed skaters,sprinters,high jumpers,etc became so good through that new bo flex machine or some kind of super science potion?What is the difference if they bench press a tree log or use one of those new exercise machines?Our ancesters may have trained even harder than people today.And on some level great athletes are born with these gifts.And if it is because of sports science and training,to me that is some what evolution it self.As I said before,people get smarter and smarter.Our ancestors may have even seen us as "God like" with the things we can do today.In my opinion any kind of change is a part of evolution,even if it is through science.

so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family. at least in america. just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them. just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids. it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters. it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

Hi Dehammer.

so the average family from a successfull type person is still close to 2.5 kids per family.

Where did you get this figure? The Population Resource Centre says...

"Non-Hispanic whites have the lowest fertility rate of 1.8, about 14 percent below the "replacement rate" of 2.1."

http://www.prcdc.org/summaries/uspopperspec/uspopperspec.html

Are you saying that even though it is so low, successful families are managing 2.5, because as a whole you are managing only 2.1 which is just at the replacement rate? This is bucking a trend in developed nations due to your very high rate of teenage pregnancies (teenagers who become pregnant are much more likely to come from poor families) and your high religious population...

"There are several explanations for this. Much higher fertility among immigrant populations accounts for a large part of the difference. America's religious makeup limits participation in modern sex education and abortion and encourages a family-centered lifestyle. Statistically almost all of the difference between the United States and Europe can be explained by the US's higher rate of teenage pregnancy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

just because they wait to later to have them does not mean they dont have them.

The whole point is that because they leave it so late they often don't have time for a second. Hence the sentence in the ABC News article...

- "People are having children later, which leaves less time for having the second child."

(Meaning they are less likely to have another child).

just because some only have one does not mean the family size is smaller, becuase there are a large number that have 3 or more kids.

Where do these figures come from? Are you sure this balances out? I am saying that educated career people are having less children (by far) than the uneducated. It is very easy to see in Britain - I wouldn't expect it to be so different in America.

it matters less how many the people with the fewest have, its the average that matters.

Yes - and the average fertility amongst career people is lower than that from poorer families.

it also matters their life expectance is longer. poorer families are more likely to lose children early, or for them to die from violence or drugs than richer successfull families. they are more likely to die of diseases before having children.

You make it sound as if you live in Calcutta. The simple fact is that smart people are having less children than other people. They are a diminishing population. As a whole Western Civilisation is probably regressing as opposed to evolving.

Blacknad.

are you saying that only non hispanic whites are successful.

the reality is that there is a lot of successful non whites and hispanic whites that are successful and the are from a part of society that still pushes large families.

you dont have to live in calcutta to see that, all you have to do is live in or near the poor part of any large city any where in the world. every been to the south side of inner Houston Texas. I have. maybe not as bad as calcutta, but there are children that live on the street that will be very lucky if they live long enough to vote. most people dont want to see the runaways, the drug addicts, the 12 year old street walkers. they are there. most people dont every see them. many have been kicked out of homes because their parents could not take care of them or choise to drink instead of feeding another helpless mouth. or perhaps the money for their childrens cloths went to the drug dealer instead. these children are from families too poor to get any attension from the politicians and the bleeding hearts only show up every once in a while. just long enough to make themselves feel good. the people that are there to help are streached too thinly and dont have the resourses to really help everyone. so its a real victory when they can help anyone. the fact is that most of the kids are too scared to get help or too hooked on drugs their pimps got them hooked on too get the help that is available.
from what ive heard Houston does not have near the problem that other cities have.

KK wrote "to me that is some what evolution it self"

Words have many meanings. There is the popular usage and understanding of a word. There is the meaning of a word in a particular community. There is what the word means to individuals.

Your personal understanding of evolution corresponds to the popular notion of the word. When I talk about it, I'm talking about biological evolution.

In lay terms, what you have mentioned is certainly evolution. But in scientific terms, I don't think there's any reason to think that biological evolution accounts for any of it.

Different words than I'd have used Falliable but a very accurate expression of reality. I don't know what dehammer is thinking when commenting on science.

did that have anything to do with the topic or just something nonsensical to get your name on the topic. i didnt see anything. topic is evolution. got an opinion on it, post it. otherwise dont bother wasting space.

I was complimenting IFF for well chosen words.

BTW dehammer. You might want to run your tag line through a spell checker.

what does that have to do with complementing IFF for anything?

and you might want to look up the word to see if there are multiple spellings. weve already been though this. guess you were off line those days.

dehammer,
did you understand what I wrote about definitions?

Fallible,
I sincerely hope this isn't one of the issues that torque you off, but I would love to hear your opinion/theory. How could altruism have evolved? The only thing I can think of that fits with the natural selection mechanism, is that it arose out of the nature to protect one's offspring. But it still seems to me that putting yourself at risk to protect someone else would quickly be dissolved in the evolutionary train ride.

yes, i did. i did not have any trouble with that, only with the fact that da does little more than attack everything. only on rare occasions does he add something to the discussion. actually i agree with what you said about definitions too.

DrBarr asks:
"How could altruism have evolved?"

Altruism, at its root is self serving. Those species that engage in altruistic behaviour are more successful.

Keep in mind that our history is tribal. All of the members of the tribe were very closely related genetically and thus helping a member of the tribe helped the survival of the tribe's DNA. Consider this in light of the willingness to commit genocide when dealing with members of another tribe. A male lion protects its own offspring and willingly murders the offspring of another male not part of the pride.

Our species success relates directly to how individuals define the breathe and scope of the tribe. Some think the tribe is literally their tribe. Others think it is their nation and yet others their religion and yet others those of their culture or skin color.

Some of us consider our tribe to be every person on the planet and are horrified by their behaviour toward other members of "the tribe."

Drbarr,

This is not something that torques me off. You asked a question - a real question and you said you didn't understand how this could be.

There has been a lot of research done into this very area with social insects, especially regarding bees, for example.

Evolution does not work at the level of the individual . It works at the level of the population. If some members of a group put themselves at risk for the tribe, they are increasing the chances of success for the group - and also for the chance of passing on SOME of their own genes, those which they share with their siblings and other close relatives.

Dr Barr:

There's a thread here called "Evolution of Altruism" which was a short discussion of this news release:

http://currents.ucsc.edu/05-06/05-08/lizards.asp

This same article was posted here some time back. I'm sure the thread is still available.

Amaranth

Natural selection does work at the level of the individual. Altruism, or apparent altruism can only evolve if the gene or genes which produce the altruistic behaviour are favoured over genes which don't produce the behaviour. Individuals which have the genes would produce more surviving offspring and the gene would increase in frequency in the population.

RE: dougalbod ... exactly!

If you are the saber toothed kitty cats breakfast your genetic complement ends there.

If your genes lead to behaviours that protect you, either personally or through the tribal dynamic, your DNA gets another shot.

"Natural selection does work at the level of the individual. Altruism, or apparent altruism can only evolve if the gene or genes which produce the altruistic behaviour are favoured over genes which don't produce the behaviour. Individuals which have the genes would produce more surviving offspring and the gene would increase in frequency in the population."

I don't think so. A honey bee that dies for the hive is not passing on the genes from her own body, but those of her mother in the hive and those of her sisters who become queens.

The queen, of course, has those genes, but the queen is not dying for the hive. The bees that die are indeed passing on their genes, but not directly; rather, indirectly.

A honey bee is doing what a honey bee is programmed to do. As you acknowledge her genes are her mother's ... the queen: Her queen. Of course the queen doesn't die for the hive. Do you see elder statesmen picking up swords? If the queen dies for the workers the ability to produce another generation dies with her.

Lets take another example IFF. The cooperative behaviour of schooling fish.

When a tuna approaches ... they knot themselves into a ball: Why? They could all just flee in entirely separate directions and decreasing the density of the apparent food source. Is it altruism? Is it self-destructive? Is it a successful strategy? Millions of years of evolution can't be wrong.

Dan,

I don't disagree with anything you said. Of course altruism exists. Of course, it is explainable by evolution.

My problem is semantic. The other fellow asserts that Natural Selection works at the level of the individual. He is not alone, as I have heard many others assert the same thing. In fact, I also would agree with that statement in most cases. However, I'm not sure that is a correct characterization of what's happening in the case of the development and propagation of altruism.

I'm not sure the schooling of fish is an example of altruism. This balling probably tends to shock and confuse predators. Individuals who survive will be able to transmit genes through their own gametes and not through a tribal proxy.

Natural selection does work on the level of the individual, but evolution does not equal natural selection.

Individuals don't evolve (biologically). Populations evolve.

IFF ... Soilguy said it better than I could.

The individual is the smallest unit of measure.
The population evolves.

This may be a terrible analogy ... but a single grain of sand on a beach is the smallest unit of measure. Moving the grain of sand does not move the beach. Move the beach and the grains of sand will be in a different location.

I understand that natural selection is not the same thing as evolution.

I understand that individuals do not evolve.

I understand that populations do evolve.

I even understand how - in general - we say that selection operates on the individual.

What I don't understand is how correct it is to say that evolution of altruism occurs via selection on individuals.

It could be that if I cogitate on this for a while, it will come to me. Maybe it will be one of those "aha! why didn't I get that before!" type moments. But right now, I'm just not getting it.

When we talk about altruism in evolutionary terms are we talking about only the first definition?

1. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

2. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

One seems to be an instinctive action, the other is a conscious action.

Am I wrong in thinking there is a difference for the purposes of this debate?

Blacknad.

Blacknad,

I think definition 1 is what we're talking about.

Thanks TFF.

Is there no link between the two? Is my ability to act with self disinterest or even self sacrificially, on a conscious level, in any way an extention of zoological altruism?

Or is it an emergent property? I only ask because elsewhere there was a debate that seemed to decide that guilt had its origins in the evolutionary process.

Blacknad.

Blacknad,

I just don't know.

TFF states:
"What I don't understand is how correct it is to say that evolution of altruism occurs via selection on individuals."

I'm not sure I agree with the above sentence. Altruism is an inherited trait in humans just as schooling is in fish.

Those that have that trait are more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Those that don't are more likely to be someone else's dinner.

I can't pretend that I know, but I think we tend to justify some of our instincts intellectually. Fear of snakes is one example of that.

In the case of the altruistic lizards, the lizards behave altruistically toward other lizards that are naturally marked as having an altruistic tendency. Humans don't have such markings, but I think we have a tendency to be more altruistic toward other people we view as altruistic, and less altruistic to selfish assholes, which is a highly technical term used by social scientists.

I tend to be altruistic toward all children -- without thought. When I do think about it, it makes sense: kids helped through altruism may be more likley to behave altruistically from then on. However, I have not thought about this until very recently. Weighing the pros and cons of whether I should behave altruistically in a situation does not generally occur -- except in the case of a proven selfish asshole. In those cases, I might consciously stop myself from lending an SA a hand, unless it were a matter of life and death.

If one of those SA's needed a bone marrow transplant and you were the only match for a possible donor, would you donate?

How far does your altruism go?

With respect to an SA ... I would suddenly become religious and deduce that their plight was the works of a higher being providing a just and well deserved lesson in humility.

I would then not be so presumptuous as to come between the SA and his or her maker?

Spoken like a true hypocrite!

Precisely! I do hope the sarcasm came through.

If not ... please mentally include <SARCASM> tags around my previous post. I didn't do it there so as to, hopefully, provide the full impact.

It's a common misconception, but natural selection and evolution has nothing to do with 'the survival of the species'.

Natural selection and evolution is an entirely passive process. It's worth remembering that of all the species that have ever existed, virtually all of them have become extinct. Only a tiny fraction of species survive. Don't be fooled into thinking that natural selection is a beneficial process!

Altruistic behaviour, that is behaviour which is beneficial to others but has no benefit or is detrimental to the individual displaying the behaviour, can only evolve through natural selection if the individuals which benefit pass on genes which cause the behaviour.

Doug

Huh? Evolution is beneficial for sustaining life. Keep in mind that a number of "extinct" species represent ancestral chronospecies of currently living species.

If life failed to adapt to changing environments, would you consider that beneficial?

I would, because I would feel lots of guilt if I did not.

Now if the person was beyond an SA, and I considered him/her evil, that would be a different story. (Take, for instance, an FA.)

F ... I presume stands for Flaming. ;-)

Next question ... are you registered with a bone marrow donor program?

If not ...
http://www.marrow.org/

Time to step up to the plate and be counted. Not knowing you could save someone's life (ignorance) is not immunization.

There are a lot of people in need of transplants where no matches can be found. And this is not directed just at soilguy. Everyone ... here's an opportunity to show what you really are.

Actually no. I've got an organ donor card, but I never thought about this one.

They seem to want $52 along with a swab. I guess that helps weed out the SAs.

From where I sit ... any pro-life prosletyzer that isn't carrying a donor card and hasn't signed up as a marrow donor (~12 latte's at Starbucks) is just a FH.

And I measure them by their deeds ... not their words.

[/QB][/QUOTE]
Not been following this post, been busy, but I am not sure you are right about that Dan.

The reason that a school of fish 'ball'
Is enrirely due to a group of Dolphin that swim very fast around the fish in ever tighter circles.
The Dolphin also release streams of bubbles, further frightening the fish. When corralled into a tight ball. A single Dolphin to enters the ball and grabs a mouthful of fish. The Dolphins take turns at this.
Now thats evolutionary intelligence.

I think the dolphins are taking advantage of the normal tendency of the fish to school, seeing as they do it when approached by tuna, not able to blow bubbles or do other things. The balling of the school of fish is a general respone to any threat, not just dolphins. As a behavior it must have survival value, if it has persisted so long in fish. Maybe the predator becomes confused and can't single out any one fish to grab, somewhat like zebras on the plains of Africa. While it is true that fish ball up in the face of dolphins, the dolphins are not the sole cause of the behavior.

dougalbod wrote:
[/QUOTE] Altruistic behaviour, that is behaviour which is beneficial to others but has no benefit or is detrimental to the individual displaying the behaviour, can only evolve through natural selection if the individuals which benefit pass on genes which cause the behaviour. [QUOTE]
_______________________________________________

Donating organs, giving blood, helping the poor, going to the aid of another - are in no way examples of altruistic behaviour, as they are instead examples of selfishness.

Unlike other animals, human consciousness makes us value the individual self over the tribe. We may agree, or disagree with the mores and morals of the tribe we belong to - either way, the choices we make are wholly dependent on our own egotism.

For example: Soilguy wrote, ?Kids helped through altruism may be more likely to behave altruistically from then on?. Which is the same as saying, ?If I help in any way, or am kind and friendly to this kid, he or she may be less inclined to bash and rob others in the future ? especially not me?. So even though we may feel that our good deeds are purely altruistic, that feeling is actually just part of our own egotism.

Obviously, the concept of altruism, though not true, has been a useful tool in our evolutionary progress, as it has assisted our ability to cooperate in large groups.

-
Sue

Sue,

Can you point to something that confirms what you write? I not, then it is just philosophy and I'm free to disagree.

Are you really saying there is no such thing as an altruistic act and that all actions are mercenery?

Just because there is always a reward for altruistic actions (a positive feeling, for example) it does not automatically follow that the act was self serving.

Is it not possible that we can simply come to a reasoned decision that acting in another's interest is simply the right thing to do?

Are you saying we would not act altruistically if there was no reward for us? I feel that even if there was no reward whatsoever (no gooey feeling etc.) then I could still act in another's interest, even at cost to myself.

At one stroke you rid humans of altruism, goodness, kindness and nobility, and make them all calculated acts designed to do nothing else but benefit the supposed altruist.

I don't go for it - we are better than that.

Blacknad.

And again the two following definitions of altruism are being used interchangeably:

1. Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental to the individual but contributes to the survival of the species.

2. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.

Blacknad.

Blacknad wrote:
"The reason that a school of fish 'ball'
Is enrirely due to a group of Dolphin that swim very fast around the fish in ever tighter circles."

Read my example again and you will see that my reference was to tuna: "When a tuna approaches." Tuna don't strategize.

But you do bring up one fascinating aspect of evolution. If the smaller fish didn't form a ball the dolphins would use a different strategy. The reason they do it, and the reason it works, is that the dolphin's understand, and can predict, the behaviour of schooling fishes.