Why should evolution be accepted on authority?

This is one of the cornerstones underlying the evolutionary process. With imperfect replication and a selective pressure evolution has to happen. It would be interesting for someone showing that it can be avoided.By the way the difference of the baby from it's parents is not that it is mix of the parents characteristics. The additional difference is in the errors/mutations/changes that it has.

Yes, I know of the case. We've had a whole thread or so on it here. Peppered Moths is what you might want to google with an advanced search restricted to this site. (that seems to work better than the internal search here).This is only a demonstartion of the effect of selection. As I understand it the moth populations have both light and dark varieties all the time (I don't know the details of the genetics involved with this or what maintains the population variety but there are lots of examples where this can happen).The changes in the environment produce selective pressures on the populations that means one or the other variety predominates just as one would expect.

By George! I thnk you've got it.

Which is one reason for being here even if you think you already know-it-all.

Opps that should have read "...is that it is only a mix...". The long term evolutionarily important part is the completely new stuff introduced by mutations etc. In the short term 10's, maybe 100's, of generations I would suggest that you're right. In the longer term the added genetic variance is important.(Though when I think of it a bit I might well be blowing smoke with that statement)This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2004 06:00 PM

I don't think that was called for at all.Where did that come from? Robin is using her/his time here to learn things and doing a better job than mose. I'd say it was less fucking around than most of us are doing.In fact, that answer "there isn't time" is a very true and meaningful one.We all have limited resources. We therefore, to a very great extent do a lot of accepting on authority.The discussion has included a bit of how you decide when to do that, when not to and how you can make the descision as to which authority.Give that the "why" has been thrashed out a fair bit and Robin has underlined it succinctly perhaps we can focuss more on the how to you decide question.

I think you have a very simplified picture of what actually goes on.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-20-2004 10:06 PM

I do agree but now we move on to how one would determine which "authorities" to trust. That can't be just on more authorities.

This seems to be stuck on the idea that observing means seeing and touching for onesself. I disagree with that statement.For example, I can draw my own logical conclusions. Does the idea that imperfect replicators subject to selection changing the nature of the population of them make sense logically? To me it does, given the description of the process it seems impossible for evolution not to take place. To me that is a personal "observation".Can I look at various fossils? Sure I can. Can I discern subtle differences by myself? No, but I can see some of them if pointed out. I sure as hell can tell the differences that have happened over deep time.Can I go out an look at geological formations? I have done so.Eventually, in fact pretty quick, I do have to decide to take what I'm told at face value. But the fact that I could, in principle, check up on a lot of things makes me more inclinded to accept that what I'm told has been checked out.I also use all sorts of personal filters to pick and choose what I accept. THat is, does it 'sound right' and 'hang together' for me? Does it fit in with other things I know more about?My personal view of things is built up a bit like the body of knowledge taht we have aquired as a species. It is added to bit by bit. It is plugged into the overall framework and needs to fit there.As a minor example:Do I believe in 'psychics'? No! Why? A whole bunch of reasons. One might be that I know something about humans. None of these show up as being rich by using this extra knowledge. (they might get richish by selling books and bilking people) They don't appear as the big stockholder in companies they bought before it became a hit. They don't seem to be avoiding plane crashes more than others. There is nothing that sticks out from the background. What they claim they can do requires something for which there is no other reason to think exists. All these things pile up and I come to a conclusion (somewhat tentative to rather firm depending on the nature of the claim -- e.g., pretty tentative for or against acupuncture, very firm against 'healing touch') that it just ain't real.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 12-24-2004 03:28 PM

Merry Christmas!We have some pockets here in Canada Robin.The valley just east of Vancouver has some Christian schools. The prairies (especially Alberta) elects some politicians who are fundies.However, those politicians can be publicly laughed at here they are in a minority. There is much, much less political influence of that kind of thing here. That is why we are about to legalize same sex marriage across the country (though it almost is on a province by province basis as it is). A politician who put his beliefs ahead of others gets in trouble here.There are also Muslim fundies as well so I would expect pockets there as well. I do know (from here) that there is a bit in England but not a lot.

Interesting that you used the word "pressure" as I didn't. However, "selection pressure" is a phrase I've seen used.The pressure is natural selection. It has an pressure like affect in that it biases the way in which the population changes so it is not a random walk.Let my try to simplify this as it really isn't as complicated as I made it at first.We have a population of animals, each with some genetic differences. The environment is such that not all can survive and reproduce. Each individual born is different in some minor or not so minor way. A few of the differences happen to have some affect on the chances of the individual reproducing successfully. Thus we have "imperfect replicators" and we have "selection" of them.Now, if the enviroment stays approximately as it is and the population is not perfectly suited to it, is it possible for the population to stay the same over time?If a part of the population is moved to a sufficiently different environment is it possible for that population to stay the same as the original one?If one thinks it is possible I would have to see them explain how that is so.Evolution, under all most all real world circumstances MUST happen.

Did I mention sex? Nevermind what I was thinking. I meant mutations actually, since we are different from our parents both because of the mixing up due to sex but also because we all carry a few mutations as well.I don't know for sure but in the short term sex may well supply more of the variation but in the long term it would be the mutations of one sort or another.I'm not sure that "driving force" is best used at this point. I think if you were to use that then it would best refer to selection. I think, at first glance, that makes sense. However, the little beggers though not divided into genders still manage the equivalent of sex in a way. They exchange genetic material which I think can even cross species boundaries.

I think that is a misapprehension of what evolution is about. As long as there are traits that afffect the reproductive success then selection can take place.Somewhere, who knows where, I read that humans may have become somewhat domesticated over the last 10,000 years. We may be more docile and smaller brained than we were.We may know be selected for keeping our cool and not getting killed due to road rage, we may be selecting for intelligence and detailed manual manipulation over strength and speed. Any selection that may be going on is not going to be easy to see lost in the many, many things which influence our lives and behavior. But I would be rather surprised if no selection is going on.

The challenge is, Crash, how do you get the farmer to sit and listen.He has invested 100's of hours in listening in Church. He is used to getting very simplistic answers to things.He has a fear that listening to you will send him to eternal torment.Where do you start?