Try resistance to various diseases and lactose tolerance as evidence for human evolution. Read here: www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#Q2 The diseases mentioned are sickle-cell, atherosclerosis and HIV. Since I’m lactose INtolerant, I guess I’m not a mutant. 
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
You’re not evolved.
Can you help with this? I searched GQ, Columns, and GD for Stephen Jay Gould and of all the topics only a couple mentioned any disparagement of Gould. One briefly mentioned the disagreement with Dawkins, and the other was a thread where a poster claimed Gould wasn’t worth reading because Gould was a Marxist and politically-marxist-correct.
rocks
Hi RM Mentock! I posted the “halo” comment when I could not get the search function to work (too very slow) so you probably found the ones I had read.
The article that was savaged by Tooby and
Cosmides has not been discussed in SDMB to my knowledge.
I was also thinking of Dawkins’ “Climbing Mount Improbable” (Paperback) pp. 105-106,
where Eldredge and Gould “are rightly annoyed at the use of their ideas by creationists…” and then goes on to say that Dr Gould would lessen the risk of misunderstandings if he would…"
Again–halo slipping, no more.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
Hey Jois
I guess I don’t mind waiting. It is incredible though, ain’t it? A search engine can search 24% of the world wide web in seconds, and it takes minutes to search SDMB. There must be some ponderous shit there.
Gould apparently criticized Dawkins et al. (I’m not sure who fired the first shot), and they are shooting back. Tooby and Cosmides found one of their articles referenced as typical of a genre that Gould was criticizing, and tore back into him. It’s tough to read–who else would use “panglossian panadaptionists”–but I think they’re being a little hypocritical since they seem to engage in the same behavior that they severely criticize in Gould.
Anyway, Gould is in the same trap that Sagan found himself in–the more you communicate to the general public, the less time you have to spend on hard research, and your professional reputation suffers. That can be magnified when others become jealous. Even Einstein suffered from that–but his work was so incredibly brilliant that he wasn’t dragged into the mire.
<font color=#ECECEC>----------------
rocks</font>
Creationists have long capitalized on the professional debates that rage within the scientific community to convet the message that since there is no concensus among the experts, therefore it’s all opinion and therefere their voices should be included. There will always be professional debates (and there are always egos involved, so they become personal as well), but Gould’s name was invoked to refute my claim that the term “natural Selection” was NOT synonymous with “Survival of the fittest” and shouldn’t be discussed as such, especially by someone who is trying to give “The Straight Dope” on something." While it is often helpful to cite the xperts, the merits of an argument should always be more important that the credentials of those who support it (or refute it, for that matter). Creationsist have traditionally been attuned to that, since they couldn’t care less how many degrees a person has as long as their message makes sense to them, although lately they have been trying to rely upon credentials as well.
Hi Again, RM Mentock,
Sounds right that becoming a public figure from one of the sciences probably erodes the time spent on research.
Also, I think you might get tempted to venture in areas that are not your specialty or areas that you might not otherwise even bother with (visiters from outerspace) when wearing your professional attire.
Personally I think a lot gets lost between what you know as a expert and what you have to use for language to reach the popular press or books.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
No, my cite wasn’t to refute that. It was to refute your statement in number 3) “Virtually all of the introductory textbooks on evolution begin by debunking [survival of the fittest]”. I just offered one textbook that didn’t. Is there an opposing cite? The only other intro text I have seems to not mention the phrase (which, now that I think of it, is additional evidence against your claim–that book is Biological Science by William T. Keeton and James L. Gould (no relation)).
We did refute some of your other arguments, but with very little appeal to authority. Even your reference, the talk.origins FAQ, said “Sexual selection is natural selection…”
I really do think you owe an apology to Cecil. He did a pretty good job in 600 words or less.
<font color=#ECECEC>----------------
rocks</font>
healym, I’m glad you decided to join us. Upon re-reading your OP, I see that you must be a “long-time reader, first-time poster.”
That said, I think you need to realize that Cecil is allowed only a certain anmount of space per column, and this means he must occasionally leave things out. If one peruses other columns, you’ll see that he knows more about evolution than he mentioned in this column. Consider the following quote from the column that was re-posted today, entitled “How Do They Grow More Seedless Fruit:”
I think, that, in a nutshell, adequately covers all the things you mentioned in your OP.
If you already know this, consider it a message for those who don’t know.
>< DARWIN >
__L___L
Quote:“No, my cite wasn’t to refute that. It was to refute your statement in number 3) “Virtually all of the introductory textbooks on evolution begin by debunking [survival of the fittest]”. I just offered one textbook that didn’t. Is there an opposing cite? The only other intro text I have seems to not mention the phrase (which, now that I think of it, is additional evidence against your claim–that book is Biological Science by William T. Keeton and James L. Gould (no relation)).”
Is there an opposing cite? I gave one.
Maybe you mean a high school text, I don’t have one of those, just the college “Biology” by Curtis & Barnes.
In it main genetics chapter, " The Genetic Basis of Evolution" it give a side bar sort of thing on “Survival of the Fittest” I quoted most of it above a few posts ago.
Is more needed? I can ask around for owners of other biology text, but I think they would all be college level.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
<font color=#FF30c0>jois</font>
Sorry. I didn’t recognize that post as a quote. You mean the post (02-13-2000 05:23 PM), right? Is all of it (including the footnote) a quotation? The textbooks I cited were also college textbooks, so if Curtis & Barnes is a college text, that’s fine.
However, rereading that post, it doesn’t dispute what it calls the “doctrine of
‘survival of the fittest’” (emphasis mine), it just mentions that it was misused by social darwinism. Even <font color=#FF30c0>Healym</font> quotes the talk.orgins faq as saying “The phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ is often used synonymously with natural selection” (again, emphasis mine).
That Cecil was wrong to use it (in a parenthetical aside!) is unsupported. It is not a “gross misrepresentation.” The term “natural selection” is probably misunderstood and misused just as often–perhaps because they’re often used synonymously.
<font color=#FF30c0>Healym</font>
No, it doesn’t. Sexual selection is a subset of natural selection, but not the other way around. You should reconsider this point. And admitting that “his account is not at variance…” is a good first step to realizing that his column wasn’t as bad as you said it was. It lacked some details, but then so does this 1200 page textbook that I have in front of me.
<font color=#ECECEC>----------------
rocks</font>
At the risk of exposing all of my typing skills, here we go again:
Survival of the Fittest
"The phrase “survival of the fittest” is often used indescribing he Darwinian theory. In the ealy twentieth century, the doctrine of survival of the fittest in natural populations was used by some individuals to defend gross social inequalities and ruthless competitive tactics in industry on the grounds that theywere merely in accord with the “laws of nature.” (I’m adding a paragraph separation for easier reading.)
Thsi philosophywas referred to by some as social Darwinism. However, in fact, very little evolutionary change fits the concept of “nature red in tooth and claw.” One fuchia plant with flowers a little brighter than those of its neighbors and so better able to catch theattention of a passing hummingbird is a more pertinent model of the struggle for survival. Fitness, as measured by population geneticists, is determined solely by the relative number of descendants of an individual in a future population."
I added the footnote to define population genetics and the text remains the same, the page is 975 of the 5th edition.
The whole quote does say it more clearly, doesn’t it.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
<font color=#FF30c0>Jois</font>
But, in reading that passage, all I see is criticism of “social Darwinism,” but no criticism per se of what it calls the “doctrine” of the survival of the fittest. Perhaps there’s more?
<font color=#ECECEC>----------------
rocks</font>
Now, I know you’re kidding, and I’m telling.
Have you been following “Neanderthal + Cro Magnon = Children?” in General Questions?
It’s made me think of the junk DNA again and how it has evolved from pure junk to something that might be important.
Jois
Umm…if I might attempt to get things back on track? To my knowledge, Darwin did not say “Survival of the fittest.” He talked about “Survival of the fit.” Big difference! By ‘fit,’ we mean reproductively fit - can a creature live long enought to breed, and can its children breed. That’s all. Fit does not equal rich, smart, or pretty; just fit enough to pass its pathetic chromosomes on to future generations. Which indicates, to me, that we are certainly still evolving. Think about nearsightedness. 4000 years ago, a young man who couldn’t see a dear at 50 yards was pretty unfit. However, farsightedness was no big problem, as an old man who couldn’t read the newspaper at arm’s length did not suffer any reproductive losses. By most accounts, the incidence of adolescent and adult myopia has been increasing fairly rapidly lately - guys who wear glasses make babies just fine, thank you, and make good livings, too. Please remember that any species will generate lots o’ mutations. If the mutation doesn’t harm your reproductive success, it will trickle in to the gene pool. That’s all. Explains hillbilly culture, doesn’t it?
Hey, first-time poster here.
>Can you all say ‘appendix’?
Alright, now that I have that stupidity off my chest, real business.
When the Earth has changed in the past, humans and their de-volved forms have adapted.
What gave most Africans dark skin?
What gave most Eurasian people a protective pad of fat for their eyes?
Changes.
I’ll leave you with that thought.
—InFlammie16
Hi InFlammie16!
Welcome to SDMB.
Those things you mentioned are really and truly very recent evolutionary changes.
Oh, I’m gonna keep using these #%@&* codes 'til I get 'em right.
I finally found a reference to Stephen Jay Gould and why he is not the frosting on the cake right now - New Yorker magazine Dec 99. Sorry it is not on the net but it’s worth a trip to the library. It also mentions the “survival of the fittest” and Social Darwinism.
Are you driving with your eyes open or are you using The Force? - A. Foley
BigPoppa raises a very interesting point. Will technological adaptation lead to the diminishment of evolution in our species? For example:
There is no longer an evolutionary/survival need for eyesight to improve in humans, as we have corrective lenses and laser surgery to correct the problem.
Both men and women who are unable to produce offspring naturally are assisted in doing so through artificial methods such as fertility drugs or surgical intervention, allowing them to procreate.
These are two very different things, but both are examples of how technology is potentially changing the “natural selection” path.
People speculate a lot on this issue. Some people think that we are weakening our species by relying on after-the-fact corrections, such as fertility aids and glasses as mentioned. The best solution for the species is correcting the problems in the genetic code.
Others speculate about where technology is taking us, and think that either through biogenetic means, or by cybernetic means, or some combination of the two, humanity is on the verge of stepping beyond the limitations of our biology and creating alternate bodies in whatever form we wish. The ultimate in utility.
I think that is still a step off, but our best bets lie in unraveling the genetic code (HGP) and finding ways to correct the “problems” at the source, so to speak.
My 2cents.
Jois
Until I can get my local branch to carry the New Yorker, or I steal a peek at the newstand (there are fewer newstands than libraries, it seems), could we see the gist of the article? Thanks.
rocks