Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,602 Year: 4,859/9,624 Month: 207/427 Week: 17/103 Day: 6/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   THE END OF EVOLUTION?
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 284 (491706)
12-20-2008 3:49 AM


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."

Source
The 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2008 10:52 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 10:59 AM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2008 11:08 AM LucyTheApe has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 284 (491718)
12-20-2008 10:27 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 3 of 284 (491720)
12-20-2008 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:49 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3725 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 4 of 284 (491721)
12-20-2008 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:49 AM


Ok, I've read the article in Time...
The second law of thermodynamics in action. Convergence.
My question is; does evolution comply? And to what end?.
...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'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:49 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2188 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 5 of 284 (491723)
12-20-2008 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:49 AM


Evolution ended? Not!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:49 AM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 2:20 PM Coyote has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 284 (491735)
12-20-2008 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Coyote
12-20-2008 11:08 AM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
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?
Coyote writes:
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2008 11:08 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 2:31 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 2:36 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2008 2:49 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 23 by Taz, posted 12-21-2008 2:10 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 284 (491737)
12-20-2008 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
LTA writes:
The second law requires a system to converge to an equilibrium at some time. Has human evolution reached this equilibrium?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 2:20 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:05 PM Buzsaw has replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3725 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 8 of 284 (491738)
12-20-2008 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
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.
No, it isn't a response, careless or otherwise. It merely mentions their decision as it was recent news that involved evolution
or is it accelerating at 100 times it's previous rate (which we've been told lately)
By whom?
The second law requires a system to converge to an equilibrium at some time.
An isolated system will do so (though I have to ask - an equilibrium of what?) To what isolated system are you referring?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 2:20 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:27 PM cavediver has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


Message 9 of 284 (491739)
12-20-2008 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 2:20 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Hi Lucy,
The authors suggest that human evolution has stalled due to the effect of technology.
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.
Evolution is not like every other scientific theory that can be expressed mathematically, so we have no way of checking it's status.
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?
Instead we have to rely on the experts in the field.
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.
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).
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?
Or do you make it up as you go along?
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?
The second law requires a system to converge to an equilibrium at some time.
No it doesn't. Only in a closed system. I can't believe you guys keep claiming this. It's just so silly.
Has human evolution reached this equilibrium?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 2:20 PM LucyTheApe has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 12-20-2008 4:11 PM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 15 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 5:01 PM Granny Magda has replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 284 (491740)
12-20-2008 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Buzsaw
12-20-2008 2:31 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Buz writes:
Equalizing what to what? What is A and what is B?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 2:31 PM Buzsaw has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2008 3:27 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 14 by Buzsaw, posted 12-20-2008 4:29 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17838
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 11 of 284 (491743)
12-20-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Would you like to explain how your sand actually relates to evolution ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:05 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 284 (491744)
12-20-2008 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by cavediver
12-20-2008 2:36 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
I writes:
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.
Cavediver writes:
No, it isn't a response, careless or otherwise. It merely mentions their decision as it was recent news that involved evolution
It is possible that I may be over cynical when assessing the motivation of articles by popular magazines such as Time and NG.
I writes:
or is it accelerating at 100 times it's previous rate (which we've been told lately)
Cavediver writes:
By whom?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 2:36 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 12-21-2008 8:08 AM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 31 by caffeine, posted 03-13-2009 12:18 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 13 of 284 (491749)
12-20-2008 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Granny Magda
12-20-2008 2:49 PM


Allopatric Speciation
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2008 2:49 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 284 (491751)
12-20-2008 4:29 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by LucyTheApe
12-20-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
LTA writes:
The sand in the jar has reached equilibrium, no matter what you do to the jar now, any little bit of organization you may get by shaking the jar is offset by another shaking of the jar.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by LucyTheApe, posted 12-20-2008 3:05 PM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
LucyTheApe
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 284 (491752)
12-20-2008 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Granny Magda
12-20-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Evolution ended? Not!
Hi Granny.
Granny writes:
They are speculating.
Yes I understand that they are speculating.
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.
Lack of facts has never been an obstacle to the evolutionary theorists from forging ahead with their theory.
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?
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.
Why not take a degree course and gain some expertise of your own?
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.
No it doesn't. Only in a closed system. I can't believe you guys keep claiming this. It's just so silly.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2008 2:49 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 12-20-2008 5:33 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 12-20-2008 5:40 PM LucyTheApe has replied
 Message 18 by onifre, posted 12-20-2008 5:58 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 19 by Granny Magda, posted 12-20-2008 6:56 PM LucyTheApe has not replied
 Message 27 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 12-23-2008 9:04 AM LucyTheApe has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024