Forum: Darwnist Ideology

Syamsu,I have long sensed that teaching evolution resulted in lower fitness in the students taught: lowered reproductive potential, increased arrogant and dogmatic opinionation, decreased rational thinking. I suspect that it also lowers the faith levels, which have been shown to be correlated with health and happiness. This relationship intriqued me because I was studying deception and fitness in birds, mostly finding that competitors who wished to lower the fitness in those with whom they were competing might do so by deceiving them. When the deceived believed something that wasn't true, their fitness declined. I kept wondering, if evolution is true, why doesn't understanding it increase, rather than lower fitness?Anyway, this note by you: rung a bell, and I wonder if you could direct me to where I might review it? I thought I had read something about Popper's critigue, but couldn't remember.I haven't read all of your debate here, but thought you might enjoy an old preacher's proverb:"If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, it's the one that's hit that hollars."You are on to something. Hope you get it.Stephen

Crashfrog,You ask, Fitness (W) is defined as reproducing offspring. It equals 1 (maintainence) for two offspring in a sexual species, for four grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren, etc. You have to have more than these figures to have a selective advantage. Genotypes which on average have lower figures than these, if the trend persists long enough, will go extinct. Genotypes with higher figures will increase in frequency, and eventually dominate the population.There is no known genetic difference between those who choose to understand and believe evolution, and those who choose to believe in creation. But, generally, phenotypes, including behaviorial choices, are thought to probably have genetic bases. Your mother's interest in the matter reflects her desire to have grandchildren, perhaps, through you. Her fitness is to some degree dependent on yours, and she is likely genetically disposed to care, because that would selectively advantageous. (See Diamond's Why is Sex Fun?)Fornication could produce higher fitness, if it produces reproducing offspring. However, in web-sites devoted to self-destructive behaviors, fornication (promiscuity), is on the list of associated behaviors. Most fornicators I have known have few children, and fewer grandchildren.I wish there were data to this point, scientific studies. All I have are impressions gathered over the years, talking to people about their beliefs about evolution, creation, and child-bearing. The Plain People, Amish, Mennonites, have the highest recorded fitness, almost 4, (eight offspring that have eight offspring, each generation). Home Educators also have high values, but they haven't been around long enough to know if their great-great-grandchildren will stay with the program.Gossip had it back in the seventies that there was a Harvard evolutionist who noted this problem, and decided that to avoid being a hypocrite, needed to reproduce. Robert Trivers. Just remembered the name. He supposedly went to some Caribean Island, got a fertile wife, and had a bunch of babies. Don't really know the truth of this story, or how it might have turned out. But it made me respect Trivers a lot more.The creationist hypothesis, that evolutionists are demonized and hence deceived, carries out in the evolutionist's sexual behavior. Lots of sexual activity, but little or no fitness, classical deception. They don't need a genetic connection. But the rest of us wonder if there is any genetic, physiologic difference that underlies the behavioral differences we see in human sub-groups. I'm especially interested in dietary requirements and belief systems. Do, for example, tryptophan or vitamin C requirements, which are known to vary in humans, probably due to genetic differences, play a role in behavioral choices?We probably agree, in wishing we knew more about all this.Stephen

Quetzal,Just an anecdote, but for years Chris Smith and I argued over the questions: why are species formed (or behave) as the are (do.), versus, Why are species distributed and have the abundance that they do? Chris always argued that these were the same question, and that evolution provided the answer, while I said that one was an evolutionary question (the "Why" questions), while the other was ecological. I went on, motivated no doubt by Chris's stubborness, to develope with Oksanen the theory of food chain dynamics, that said, given the phenotypes we have, how will populations be distributed, and what pressures will these distributions have on directional selection in the species? When we last left it, I could take my food chain dynamics, and predict various morphological/geographic patterns (e.g. prey species are adapted to be smaller in body size as predator pressure increases.) I left Chris trying to predict variations in the population dynamics based on evolutionary patterns. Well, we did agree that the skewed distribution of population sizes on islands was related to the increased variability of sizes. But which was cause, and which was effect? Probably some of both. I was even prouder of the population dynamic theory on distributions and competition (MacArthur-Levins models) for small-large versus middle size or jack of all trades species. This also showed population dynamics and competition setting up the adaptive landscape over which selection pressures would make species evolve.So, I proposed a "central theory of ecology" to compete with "evolution." It's coming into its own, and I believe will at least balance evolutionary thinking, if not overshadow it.Stephen

Quetzal,I really want to pursue this, but my time for posting here is getting tighter and tighter, and will end for a season soon. It's been fun, though, thinking of how I would proceed, in preparing to start such a thread. Thanks for the question.I leave you with this note: the widespread, commonplace diving ducks are all middle-sized, with canvasbacks and ruddies found only where species diversity is high. But, the widespread dabbling ducks are all small (teal) or large (mallard, pintail), where the middle sized dabblers mainly occur in regions with lots of species.Stephen