Thank you, Art.
 
Marlo
Florida
 
Andrew K. Rindsberg wrote:
 
> 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
 
 
 
--
Marlo
Merritt Island, Florida
[log in to unmask]