The Republic of Heaven

I've always thought of Darwinism as a widely accepted theory, even by some of the ecclesiastic authority. I never thought that there were faults or flaws. But then the other day a friend explained to me something about it.

From: bweb
Sent: Aug 11th, 2005 12:50:30 pm
Subject: RE: Evolution
Alright, it works like this. Evolution tells us that what works survives and what doesn't work dies. Well, if you follow evolution from start to finish, we evolved from single celled organisms at the bottom of the ocean that subsisted off of Carbon Dioxide.
However, to covert to oxygen breathing, we had to evolve. But more importantly, to develop complex systems like eyesight, respiration, circulation, and reproduction from two multi-celled organisms, all those systems had to work right the first time, or life would have died out altogether.

I haven't done much research into the area. I was hoping to get some opinions here.

Not an expert - does me 'ead in. I can see a big scrap ensuing. I'm more into social evolution. Not a biologist, although I got me 'O' level. Richard Dawkins, lovely fella, seen speak 'couple of times.

I read on the BBC site about a big row in the RC church about it has found it's way into The Tablet. Apparently one or two are now accepting the full whack, not just evolution by design.

Sorry folks, I'm rambling been on the Super tonight

To develop complex systems like eyesight, respiration, circulation, and reproduction from two multi-celled organisms, all those systems had to work right the first time, or life would have died out altogether.

Darwin himself stated uncertainties about evolution because of things like the eye. But scientists have since suggested that they could have started out as simple things, such as sensitivity to light, developed bit by bit.

And, evolution isn't really as black and white as "what works survives and what doesn't work dies". I think, on the whole, it's a more general thing.

Perhaps "what works best survives" would be more appropriate. Perhaps evolution senses the potential for progress in future incarnations of a species (although that presents evolution as some sort of deity, which would be a dodgy area to run into). Blah blah blah. Lots of speculation.

And, for the sake of pretentiousness, maybe it did just work first time...

Well i understand the "human evolution" but there are still aspects of other evolution that don't quite get: I mean almost every living organism has evoled from somthing but was it supposed to be that birds have been around from prehistortic times and still haven't changed?

I've been in love with the idea of evlution since I first learned of it. It's the most logical explanation we have with the most proof behind it and until I recieve alot of evidence to the otherwise and not just small inconsistencies I will continue to believe in it.

Remember its a theory

Benedict tells me I've to say that

Not an expert - does me 'ead in. I can see a big scrap ensuing. I'm more into social evolution. Not a biologist, although I got me 'O' level. Richard Dawkins, lovely fella, seen speak 'couple of times.

ooer, my sister got me the ancestor's tale[/], but i've only read the introduction so far, it's huge.

On the advice of his late colleague Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins refuses to participate in debates with creationists because doing so would give them the "oxygen of respectability" that they want with the public; Dawkins argued that creationists "don't mind being beaten in an argument. What matters is that we give them recognition by bothering to argue with them in public." (A Devil's Chaplain, p. 256)

Alright, it works like this. Evolution tells us that what works survives and what doesn't work dies. Well, if you follow evolution from start to finish, we evolved from single celled organisms at the bottom of the ocean that subsisted off of Carbon Dioxide.
However, to covert to oxygen breathing, we had to evolve. But more importantly, to develop complex systems like eyesight, respiration, circulation, and reproduction from two multi-celled organisms, all those systems had to work right the first time, or life would have died out altogether.

Why? Generations of beings don't evolve simultaneously and identically. Animals usually only evolve something if that was given them an advantage over the rest of its species. For example, an animal from a species which generally has no eyes may have one simple fragment of an eye meaning they have limited vision. This would mean that, while other members of their species will not be able to sense an iminent attack effectively, the eyed-creature may escape danger, while some of its friends are killed. Then, the eyed creatures offspring will have inherited that eye from its parent. If a creature has evolved something by chance which is actually detrimental to their survival, then they will just die, and the rest of their species may eventually evolve in a more effective way.

Well i understand the "human evolution" but there are still aspects of other evolution that don't quite get: I mean almost every living organism has evoled from somthing but was it supposed to be that birds have been around from prehistortic times and still haven't changed?

The phrase "prehistoric" is incredible vague. But, yes, birds have been around for a very long time, not necessarily unchanged, though - they will have evolved a huge amount (the "bird" classification encompasses a large range of capabilities, so just because they were technically birds back then does not make them identical to the birds alive today).

My knowledge of this is rather shaky, mind you. I could be talking out of an orifice ill-suited for speech.

You realise when the world was one big continent ,pangaea or something like that, we were all black. but as we moved to places with less exposure to sun we lost our dark skin

Psst.. it's "morituri"

Oh...ah...typo.

Aw, don't be sad!

Remember its a theory

I wrote this to the NSS a couple of weeks ago:

Steve Chase's admission that evolution "is a theory still, unless someone has found the missing link and proofs to put it to bed once and for all" shows the ignorance typical of someone determined not to consider evolution as scientifically viable. The very nature of a scientific theory is that it is unprovable. (Einstein himself said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong".) And deconstructing the word "theory" as a route to suggesting unreliability is uncommendable: all scientific assertions are theories; it would be no more rational to start teaching alternative suggestions to the theory of gravity for why we stay rooted to the ground.

But of course, God never argued with rationality on that one.

I haven't done much research into the area. I was hoping to get some opinions here.

I refer my honourable friend to The Blind Watchmaker by Dr Richard Dawkins. A man, by the way, who had some influence on HDM.

Also, there was an interesting aricle by Karen Armstrong in yesterday's Guardian in which she makes the very relevant point that the literal interpretation of scriptures and other reportage is a recent phenomenon. Even the most zealous in the days before the Industrial Revolution accepted the scriptures as allegory.

Much as Dawkins' books interest me, there are times when I would like to beat him senseless to the hum of bees. Plus, the article would be all the more interesting if I could get it to load. From what you said, it concurs with my suspicion that literalism arose as an attempt to marry the cosmology of the Bible with empiricism and the emerging rational sciences (Bishop Ussher lived in the 17th century).

Complex systems don't just appear overnight. Evolution is really slow, so the respiratory system for instance would have developed gradually, from a very primitive system to a more complex one.

Small changes can take place quite quickly though. What is it - that superbug that appeared not long ago - MRSA? And it was immune to conventional drugs, which makes it really hard to get rid of. The point is that as soon as humans invent a medicine to kill off a certain type of bacteria, a few of them are naturally immune. So they survive and reproduce, and hey, you've got a new strain of the same bacteria and then you have to find another antidote to kill it. That's an example of evolution, so it's evidence which supports the theory. Of course, no scientific theory is cast-iron...

The eye analogy used by anti-evolutionists is really quite ridiculous. They usually crow "what use is half an eye?" when it's so obviously worth a hell of a lot if you don't want to be eaten. I honestly don't see how anyone can have a scientific objection to evolution at all..

You realise when the world was one big continent ,pangaea or something like that, we were all black. but as we moved to places with less exposure to sun we lost our dark skin

We were rodents then, so no.

There are some fish in the darkest areas of the ocean who become blind, if that's relevant...

Ah yes, Richard Dawkins, really quite a swell guy. I remember him for his numerous acerbic criticsms of religion. We could all stand to learn a thing or two from him.

I know that (due to amounting evidence) evolution is probably the viable explanation, but there are people who pose faults in the theory (religious zealots perhaps). What's got me wondering as of the moment is if there is in fact any hardstanding argument against evolution.

Such as the eye analogy here;

Darwin himself stated uncertainties about evolution because of things like the eye. But scientists have since suggested that they could have started out as simple things, such as sensitivity to light, developed bit by bit.

The eye analogy used by anti-evolutionists is really quite ridiculous. They usually crow "what use is half an eye?" when it's so obviously worth a hell of a lot if you don't want to be eaten. I honestly don't see how anyone can have a scientific objection to evolution at all..

According to this, people pose the eye as a fault, but scientists have countered that by such sayings as it "started out as simple things, such as sensitivity to light." Is there others?

Ah yes, Richard Dawkins, really quite a swell guy. I remember him for his numerous acerbic criticsms of religion.

In a quasi-religious style.

We could all stand to learn a thing or two from him.

Such as why a zoologist should avoid trotting out dogmatic diatribes which make him little different from Bible-bashers? He's very good orator, and can bang on about neo-Darwinism but sees no irony in his near religious devotion to it, nor even its limitations.

You realise when the world was one big continent ,pangaea or something like that, we were all black.

Protection against UV radiation is *one* effect of melanin; possibly even an advantageous side-effect. Native populations in fiendishly hot areas, such as Central America, aren't too black. Melanin is produced by skin cells not exposed to sunlight, such as in the nostrils or rectum. Various theories have been positted for this, such as how "sticky" a molecule it is thus soaking up pathogens and toxins which abound in tropical regions. The blackest of the black humans are Australian Aborigines, which also represent some of the oldest populations of modern humans.

but as we moved to places with less exposure to sun we lost our dark skin

Again, that is simplistic. A healthy diet can often provide more than enough Vitamin D. Cases of rickets became notorious in dank industrial towns where white-skinned people were not exposed to the sun, or subsisted on a crap diet. They have also been reported in deep Alpine valleys. Also, there's a lot to suggest that melanin makes bones highly dense (this is often apparent when X-raying Africans!).

It's been suggested that the presense of melanin also makes one susceptable to the effects of cold, which migrating humans would have experienced in the hyperboreal north. Consider the image of "frost-bitten" Senegalese in WWI.

Why was LJ banned?