Slashdot Mirror
Is Evolution Over In Humans?
BrianGa writes: "Is evolution over? Are current humans the final version? This
article presents a number of interesting theories, including the theory that
'Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable
of changing.' Professor Steve Jones believes this, in part, because
'human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a
blending that blocks evolutionary change.'"
Someone should take this 'perfesser' idiot out back and put him out of his misery.
:wq
Sir; your posting advocating creationist veiws is offensively incorrect; and I intend to dismantle it thoroughly.
Please pardon me, but the first oder of business is to cool my blood with an ad hominem attack on you: You sir are either a poor deluded idiot completely under the sway of mind-rotting creationist hogwash as to be beneath contempt and beyond all hope, or you are a ruthless cad - one for whom spreading poorly constructed anti-science propaganda is the last resort in a world increasing able to see through the horse shit you depend upon to dupe people into your endless collection of scams. In either case, I cannot really expect a lucid response; but here goes.
Secondly: you are shocked at the responses you have received: people pointing out the fact that the ICR is inherently and openly biased, that perhaps you should consult actual biology texts (and no, not the ones on the ICR "properly censored and distorted" errrm.. "approved" list), or that you advance actual evidence in favor of (or perhaps just a clear, unambiguous statement of) the creationist or scientific-creationist "theory".
Thirdly: I did look up the definition of "science" in "Webster's Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language" copyright 1994 Gramercy Books, a division of dilitium Press, Ltd. 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world.
A poor definition to be sure, but even the most obtuse might see that science deals only with the NATURAL world - not the SUPER-natural world. The moment any 'theory' starts invoking some spiritual / metaphysical / supernatural / religious dogma mumbo-jumbo, it stops being science. Exit all flavors of creationism.
Fourthly: your jibe about 'both are unverifiable' is sadly distorted, untrue, and IRRELEVANT. To be considered science, a theory must - among other things - offer plausible natural explanations for all creditably observed phenomina, and provide test whereby the mechanisms it proposes may be observed / measured / verified or shown to be in error. Yet again, exit all flavors of creationism; Evolution proposes natural selection, which has been repeatedly tested, observed, measured, and verified. Evolution predicts that any fossil record of the past must fit a progression consistent with natural selection, and yet again the test of the fossil record obseves / measures / verifies the mechanisms proposed in evolution.
Science must be able to provide such test upon itself, because a scientific theory must be able to discard those portions of itself which are found to be inaccurate in favor of new principles or mechanisms which better explain the cretiably observed phenomina. Once again, exit all flavors of creationism - "God did it" can NEVER be replaced with ANY other mechanism. Indeed, all of the ancient, decrepit, long discredited (read: tested and FAILED) creationist arguments get trotted out again and again, only to be knocked down again by the very same evidence that they couldn't dispute or explain away the first time - evidence that creationists deliberately 'forget' and 'accidently' (or perhaps conveniently) fail to mention whenever they try to hawk their tired wares to the ignorant.
Fifthly: the "Problem" you present in your post regarding acid spit in elephants is a "straw man" a deliberatley distorted and badly flawed mis-representation of your opponents veiws; built simply so that you can SEEM to knock those veiws down. It is an elementary fallacy, and one you should be embarassed to be caught committing - especially since it is exactly that sort of distortion and misrepresentation which has so deeply marked all of the most distasteful creationist propaganda.
To conclude with a few tests for you - if species extant today are simply "Microevolutionary" (your misuse of jargon, not mine...) descendants of exactly only TWO original ancestors - does the genetic clock evidence support this sort of bottlenecking? For all species? Do they ALL provide the same date for this bottleneck? If ALL genetic variation was contained in exactly TWO individuals - and the genetic maps for the parents were the same structure as their descendants - how do you explain loci with more than four possible alleles? And remember - your answers must fit ALL certifiable phenomina BETTER than any alternatives, no so funny stuff or double talk with the genetic clocks....
I have no Sig.