I bow to the opinions of the better-educated (than I) - Alex, Andy, and Art.
Please note I didn't say you were more intelligent - just have more
education. ;-)
 
Andy - I learned a great deal from your kind explanation.
 
As for my personal opinions, I think of the word "fitness" in the context of
ability to survive.  This includes adaptability.  Andy, I personally don't
think natural disasters enter into the equation.
 
Another personal opinion - I think it is a mistake to go to extremes now to
extend lives.  If anything, this to me would contribute to extinction.  Art,
I too, would not be one of the survivors were it not for modern medicine,
but I don't presume to think I have contributed that much to the gene pool.
But you, now, whatever would we do without your amazing wit?!
 
As for religious beliefs - my personal philosophy is that evolution is not
in conflict with the King James version of the Bible.  I think the Bible was
written by men to the best ability and in a language that the people could
understand at that period in history.  In its simplest form, I believe in a
"first cause" and a hereafter.  I am not particularly concerned about the
hereafter part - I am too busy contributing all I can while I am on this
planet.
 
Thanks for educating me.  I will try to pass on the knowledge I learned to
others.
 
Sylvia
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew K. Rindsberg <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 1999 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: [CONCH-L] Rebuttal to "Do Truly Rare Species Exist?"
 
 
> Sylvia Edwards wrote,
> "I really don't want to start an argument about evolution ..."
>
> Let's not, and say we did.  ;-)
>
> Sylvia, please don't worry about nature being cruel. Nature is not cruel,
> though it is also pitiless. People are cruel, sometimes.
>
> <sigh> If we're going to talk about evolution, we may as well get the
facts
> straight first. I had to look it up years ago before debating Duane Gish,
> author of "Evolution: The Fossils Say NO". I will never dignify his views
> by doing that again. One of the high points, for me, happened when Dr.
Gish
> displayed a doctored drawing of Archaeopteryx, the bird-reptile link, from
> which the reptilian features had been removed. Of course, he claimed that
> it was just another bird, not an evolutionary link at all. Ron McDowell,
> then a grad student, shouted from the back of the audience, "What about
the
> TEETH?" What, indeed.
>
> The basics of the theory of evolution can be stated in a few words:
>
> 1. All plant and animal species are, at least in principle, capable of
> increasing their numbers beyond the ability of the environment to sustain
> the population. Therefore, some young (and old) individuals die without
> reproducing first.
>
> 2. All species show some genetic variation among individuals, and new
> variations show up occasionally.
>
> 3. Therefore, given enough time and generations (and freedom from events
> that are so stressful that they wipe out the species, e.g.,  an asteroid
> impact), species will tend to change to become better suited to their
> environment--more "fit", if you will.
>
> In the 1850's, Darwin didn't know about Mendelian genetics, mutations in
> DNA, or asteroid impacts, so I've had to update his statements a bit. A
lot
> has happened in the last 150 years.
>
> The concept of "fitness" turns out to be difficult to pin down, and deep
> thinkers have pointed out that the concept has to be phrased very
carefully
> (more carefully than I have done) if the statements are not to fall into
> circular reasoning. "The survivors survived, so they must have been more
> fit"--What can the word "fit" mean, if every individual of every species
> currently living on the planet is descended from an unbroken chain of
> successful ancestors? It's easy to be glib, not so easy to be logical. In
> fact, some species seem to evolve into dead ends. Their forms and behavior
> are so specialized that even a tiny change in the environment can wipe
them
> out. Every generation succeeded in reproducing, and they changed along
with
> their environment, but they did not necessarily become more "fit" to meet
> every new circumstance.
>
> Example: Think of the dodo, big as a turkey, fat and sassy on the island
of
> Mauritius, the largest land animal there, afraid of nothing. Wingless.
> Stupid. (They may have looked like pigeons when they first arrived on the
> island. For generations, birds without wings reproduced better than birds
> with wings. Wings take up a lot of body weight and energy; why have them
if
> you don't use them? Lots of island birds are wingless. The same goes for
> extra brain mass.) Enter European sailors, who leave dogs, rats, and pigs
> on the island after gleefully clubbing a lot of birds for food. The
sailors
> didn't kill them all. But the dodos nested on the ground, and they
couldn't
> keep the new, non-native animals from eating their eggs and young. End of
> reproduction, and soon, end of dodo, as surely as if an asteroid hit. A
few
> survived on an offshore islet for a while before succumbing. Not a
pleasant
> story, but more unfortunate than cruel, with the notable exception of the
> sailors, whose cheerful attitude toward killing is a matter of record.
> Anyway, the dodo was certainly well suited to its environment for many
> generations, but failed to adjust to a drastic change around it. So what
> does "fit" mean when applied to the dodo? The answer depends on when you
> look: before or after the sailors arrived.
>
> Obligatory shell example of evolutionary "fitness": The common edible
> garden snails of California mate by spearing each other in the foot with
> darts and then reeling each other in for a bout of hermaphroditic sex.
This
> would be grossly immoral behavior for humans, but it works for the snails,
> which end up having twice the number of eggs that would otherwise be laid.
> Any gardener in California can attest to how effectively the little pests
> reproduce. Since the behavior, however cruel and bizarre, does contribute
> magnificently to the perpetuation of this species, there is no reason for
> the snails to change. A biologist would say that there is no "selective
> pressure" to change this behavior, but I've been trying to avoid the
> jargon.
>
> Does evolution act to better the world? This is not a trivial question,
but
> the theory of evolution is not very helpful in answering it. The theory of
> evolution is ethically neutral; it does not say anything about the
> survivors who reproduce being morally superior to those who die without
> reproducing. Dodos who died under new circumstances beyond their control
> were not morally inferior to their dodo ancestors. The theory is morally
> neutral even when applied to the human species, though people like the
> Nazis have certainly tried to say that one group or another is more "fit"
> and therefore deserves more land and property. This is called "social
> Darwinism", though Darwin did not originate it and he would probably have
> been as dismayed by the idea as St. Paul would by the holy wars of
> Catholics and Protestants.
>
> Most of the larger Christian denominations in the United States regard
> evolution and the "billions and billions of years" idea as compatible with
> faith, including Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Episcopalian, at least
one
> Methodist sect, two of the three Lutheran sects, and one of the two
> Presbyterian sects. I'm not sure about the Latter-Day Saints, Disciples of
> Christ, and Southern Baptists, but I do know devout individuals of these
> sects who see no contradiction. But evolution is a problem for sects that
> believe in the literal reading of the Bible, rather than allegorical
> interpretation, because the Book of Genesis states that the world was
> created in six days. It's also a problem for people who are offended by
the
> idea that they may be better than their remote ancestors were. Oddly
> enough, the same idea gives me hope for humanity's future.
>
> Andrew K. Rindsberg
>