How many mutation would you require for you supposed criterion of
species change? How long should it take for one species to change or
branch into various other species? Are you criticizing slow evolution
or fast evolution? The article definitely looks biased. Whether I was
for or against evolution I would not base it upon such claimed
authority since the logic is wack jack.
So you claim there are mutations but they don't change anything,
strike one. You must claim that there is no such mutational process.
Then the article is to vague on the various situations that constitute
selection. Other animals, some thing in the environment that favors
some kinds of mutation. As for your implied idea that all it takes is
one mistake to refute an entire theory is not supported in nearly any
logical endeavor. Evolution is theoretical and inductive based upon
probability. You are creating a straw man distorted image of evolution
as all or nothing or deductive when really it is just the best
inductive theory, and you have no real competitor that explains as
much.
-----------------------------
Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction.
Differential mortality is the survival rate of individuals to their
reproductive age. Differential fertility is the total genetic
contribution to the next generation. Note that, whereas mutations and
genetic drift are random, natural selection is not, as it
preferentially selects for different mutations based on differential
fitnesses. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the
higher number on two rolled dice is not random. The central role of
natural selection in evolutionary theory has given rise to a strong
connection between that field and the study of ecology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Selection_and_adaptation
In my opinion the key to the emergence of civilization is hypertrophy,
the extreme growth of pre-existing structures. Like the teeth of the
baby elephant that lengthen into tusks, and the cranial bones of the
male elk that sprout into astonishing great antlers, the basic social
responses of the hunter-gatherers have metamorphosed from relatively
modest environmental adaptations into unexpectedly elaborate, even
monstrous forms in more advanced societies. Yet the directions this
change can take and its final products are constrained by the
genetically influenced behavioral predispositions that constituted the
earlier, simpler adaptations of preliterate human beings....
...Most and perhaps all of the other prevailing characteristics of
modern societies can be identified as hypertrophic modifications of
the biologically meaningful institutions of hunter-gatherer bands and
early tribal states. Nationalism and racism, to take two examples, are
the culturally nurtured outgrowths of simple tribalism....
On Human Nature - Edward O. Wilson 1978
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/067463442X/qid=1036537594/
Mind, a software peacock's tail?
The mind is an entertainment system, evolved only for the purpose of
stimulating other brains. (((A software peacock's tail.)))
Why the human mind evolved? Intelligence is not a by-product of
surplus brain size, it actively evolved, like the peacock's tail, for
courtship and mating, and thereby shaped human nature.
Why does our species tell jokes, build monuments, compose sonatas,
give to charity, compete in sports, follow fashion? Our endless
inventiveness, our elaborate culture, seem to defy Darwinian
explanation. They are our sexual ornaments, our peacocks' tails,
displaying our value to potential mates.
Consciousness, morality, creativity, language, and art: these are the
traits that make us human. Scientists have traditionally explained
these qualities as merely a side effect of surplus brain size, but
they are rally sexual attractors, not side effects. This argument is
based on Darwin's theory of sexual selection, which until now has
played second fiddle to Darwin's theory of natural selection, and
draws on ideas and research from a wide range of fields, including
psychology, economics, history, and pop culture.
Sexual selection theory rather than natural selection-- is a theory
about how the human mind has developed the sophistication of a
peacock's tail to encourage sexual choice and the refining of art,
morality, music, and literature. Mate choice, male or female may be
the reason we have art and possibly even the (self).
Why human brains have so much capacity for creativity, language, and
consciousness-- are not fully explained by Darwinian natural
selection, but sexual selection by mate choices for and by breeding
brutes. Sexual Selection, Darwin's 'other' theory, has finally come in
from the cold and is now one of the hottest topics in modern
Darwinism. The idea that the human mind evolved as a sort of software
peacock's tail has been mooted before, usually to be dismissed in
favor of some alternative theory.
That large personalities can be as sexually enticing as oversize
breasts or biceps may indeed prove comforting, but denuding sexual
chemistry can be a curiously unsexy business, akin to analyzing humor.
As a courting display of my own arogent intellectual plumage, though,
my ideas are an agent-provocateur an chest swelled with ideas and
articulate conjecture. While occasionally my magpie instinct may loot
fool's gold, overall it provides an accessible and attractive insight
into modern Darwinism and the survival of the sexiest. Join me now as
we go down in spectacular flames.
http://tinyurl.com/pwb6
http://tinyurl.com/pwbo
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/miller/miller_p2.html
http://tinyurl.com/pwd7
http://tinyurl.com/pwd9
LOL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VntFEWF8I8A
