THE END OF EVOLUTION?

THE END OF EVOLUTION?

quote:

---

The development of symbolic thought and complex communication did
nothing less than alter human evolution. For one thing, high-tech transportation means that the world, though ethnically diverse, now really consists of a single, huge population. "Everything we know about evolution suggests that to get true innovation, you need small, isolated populations," says Tattersall, "which is now unthinkable."

---

SourceThe second law of thermodynamics in action. Convergence.
My question is; does evolution comply? And to what end?.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

The article suggests the human evolution has come to an end because human populations are no longer genetically isolated and because technology reduces the impact of natural selection.Given this I have to ask you to explain what you mean and what you are asking:

quote:

---

The second law of thermodynamics in action. Convergence.
My question is; does evolution comply? And to what end?.

---

What does the article have to do with the Second Law of Thermodynamics ? What "Convergence" are you talking about. What is it that evolution "might or might not "comply" with ? And why does the question of purpose arise at all

Ok, I've read the article in Time... ...and I have to ask, WTF? Did you read the same article? Just what the hell are you talking about?If your question is simply 'does evolution comply with the 2LoT?' then the answer is equally simply 'yes'.

Evolution works through populations. The world population has just become larger, and is becoming less diverse. Where formerly numerous small populations could take a new mutation and let it develop in relative isolation, now those mutations will have to develop and spread in the population as a whole.Why should that cause evolution to stop? This is especially true as evolution takes place on the micro level, within the genome, and the size of the population makes no difference there. A change will still spread downward through the generations.It would help if you had included a source for that quotation so we could see what the context of the sentence was.And what all of this has to do with the second law of thermodynamics escapes me. Unless you are just repeating the totally discredited creationist nonsense that the second law somehow prohibits evolution.Edited by Coyote, : Speelling

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

The article in Time is a rather careless response to the Kansas School
Board's decision to remove evolution from the school curriculum in 1999. The source was included.The authors suggest that human evolution has stalled due to the effect of technology. Evolution is not like every other scientific theory that can be expressed mathematically, so we have no way of checking it's status. Instead we have to rely on the experts in the field.So what is the situation. Has human evolution stopped or is it accelerating at 100 times it's previous rate (which we've been told lately).Or do you make it up as you go along? The second law requires a system to converge to an equilibrium at some time. Has human evolution reached this equilibrium?

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Equalizing what to what? What is A and what is B?

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

No, it isn't a response, careless or otherwise. It merely mentions their decision as it was recent news that involved evolution By whom? An isolated system will do so (though I have to ask - an equilibrium of what?) To what isolated system are you referring?

Hi Lucy, Yes, they suggest it. They are speculating. The source you cite is not a scientific paper. It was written not for a peer-reviewed journal, but for Time. It is interesting speculation, but nothing more. What a bizarre statement. Of course evolution can be described mathematically. Where there is hard data, based upon observation, it can be described mathematically. As things stand, we do not have every conceivable bit of data describing the entire history of evolution on Earth, nor will we ever have such data. This is no different to, say, geology.The way to study evolution's status is by observing the distribution of alleles in living populations. That, after all, is what evolution is. Where is the problem? That is another interesting statement, considering that you have never shown any inclination to "rely on the experts".As it happens, you are not required to rely on anyone. Nothing is stopping you from educating yourself on the subject. Why not take a degree course and gain some expertise of your own? Study the evidence for yourself, nothing is stopping you. Buggered if I know. I don't suppose that anybody really knows. The only way your likely to even get close to an answer though, is by looking at some serious studies, rather than just journalistic reports.Do you have a peer-reviewed study that says that evolution has stopped? Do you have a peer-reviewed study that says that evolution has speeded up by 100 times? Or do you only have speculation? Speculation? Sure, why not? The only problem would be if someone were to mistake your speculation for a claim to genuine knowledge. Of course, you're not doing that, are you? No it doesn't. Only in a closed system. I can't believe you guys keep claiming this. It's just so silly. No, because as long as our sun keeps burning, there is no equilibrium to reach.Mutate and Survive.

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Okay, using a analogy, you have a jar, quarter fill the jar with white sand and then another quarter with black sand on top. That is state 'A' in human evolution at some time in the past.Now give the jar a good shake until the sand is mixed through, state 'B' in human evolution.The sand in the jar has reached equilibrium, no matter what you do to the jar now, any little bit of organisation you may get by shaking the jar is offset by another shaking of the jar.Are we at this stage in human evolution?

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

Would you like to explain how your sand actually relates to evolution ?

It is possible that I may be over cynical when assessing the motivation of articles by popular magazines such as Time and NG. By the National Academy of Science for one.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

The only point in the article is that with the current mix of human populations allopatric speciation will be difficult. This only suggests that humans splitting into new, separate subspecies will be more difficult.However, we have had other information posted on EvC showing that evolution of humans is faster than ever. This isn't speciation just a greater range of diversity in the one species that we are. It is only speciation that the article is suggesting may not happen so easily. That is not all of evolution.Since there are other ways for speciation to occur it is not true that it can no longer happen.The article is also wrong is saying that natural selection is no longer happening. It is just different now.The article is ok really. Just too simplistic but the topic is too big to cover in a few pages.

Your jar model appears to be the opposite of evolution, which has been from disorganization to organization. Edited by Buzsaw, : spelling oversight

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi Granny. Yes I understand that they are speculating. Lack of facts has never been an obstacle to the evolutionary theorists from forging ahead with their theory. Well one of the problems is that the meaning of the TOE changes every other day. Its a bit hard to get a grip of what it does actually means. I have an interest in science, always have. I have two degrees. But I can guarantee that I wouldn't last through an hours lecture on Biology or Geology. I don't consider disciplines that are based on unsupported assumptions science. There is no such thing as a closed system. And there is no requirement that a system be closed to reach equilibrium. ALL systems reach equilibrium. That's a law of nature.The temperature of a pot of boiling water will reach equilibrium at 100⁰C irrespective of how much energy you put into the system. The earth is another. Evolution MUST reach equilibrium at some point. When is the question.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal