Some Thoughts on Evolution
Obviously, the natural selection process would favor the most adaptable, most intelligent, and most symbiotic species. Evolution would tend to favor these characteristics. For example, we love and care for dogs and they would sacrifice their lives for us.
It is well known that pets aid mental health. Dogs also possess a greater sense of smell and hearing than we possess. Such symbiosis aids both species.
This reasoning and the article ‘Ancient DNA reveals new branches of the Denisovan family tree‘
seems to support two (2) recent and very controversial concepts in biology and evolution:
seems to support two (2) recent and very controversial concepts in biology and evolution:
1) The human genome is the natural culmination of evolution. That is, the DNA of humans are the “central line” of evolution. Other species evolved away from the “central line” as sub-optimizations. Dead ends, if you will.
2) Since humanity is the most favored outcome, the logical extension of the “central line” is the concept of “multi regional origins”. That is, humans evolved in separate locations to a point which allowed them to interbreed. Such processes explain how multiple sub-hominid remains have been found around the world — seeming to be simultaneous.
We observe this feature in the near simultaneous development of the bow and arrow as well as varying monkey species scattered in locations which are inaccessible from one another — i.e. monkeys in South America, Africa, and Indonesia.
The Ice Ages also separated humans since water was locked into the glaciers of the Northern Hemisphere and so humanity was separated, to evolve as conditions required. On this, please read ‘Defining ‘White Privilege.’’
Finally, the “multi-regional origins” concept offers a logical explanation for racial differences.
The furthest extension of this musing leads us to a number of species on similar “Class M” planets who are much as humans and we can even interbreed. After all, look at the bar scene. Humans will couple up with any mammalian creature.
Holy Star Trek, Batman !
Heh. Heh. Heh.
****
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone:
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
tom0mason
| #
“Obviously, the natural selection process would favor the most adaptable, most intelligent, and most symbiotic species. Evolution would tend to favor these characteristics. For example, we love and care for dogs and they would sacrifice their lives for us.”
No! NO! and thrice NO!
The usual BS propagated by those who never look a mm beyond what they’ve been told or believe.
Natural selection allows the ‘best species’ for the niche environment they are in, to proliferate and flourish. This ‘best species’ may, or may not, be very adaptable! The natural selection process does not care about any bacteria’s/animal’s/plant’s adaptability. It could just be very talented specialist that is/was LUCKY enough to find itself in niche environment where it could use its very SPECIALIZED talents to its advantage over the competition. And as DARWIN had pointed out this was the origin of the species differentiation.
SPECIALIZATION and LUCK!
Now most species are good specialist but poor adapters, that is why 99% of all species that have ever lived are extinct! As the environment changed particular specialist got wiped out, and are continuing to be wiped out. That is the essence of nature. And it matters not whether the environmental change is caused by the proliferation of a particular species type, or the chaotic environmental jumps that happen quite naturally.
Humans are a little different, unusual, not like most the others. Humans are remarkably good adapters, and for some task reasonable specialists. Add to this our (well some members) ability to learn (remember and reason), communicate, to store communications, to teach/train others, and train other species to do our bidding, and we see why we have achieved such evolutionary success.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Another critical advantage for man is the ability to alter the environment to his preferences rather than having to adapt to changes or hibernate. Heating and air conditioning of local spaces allows men to perform at optimal efficiency despite external conditions.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Many animals also alter the environment to suit their needs.
Many things form ants and termites to birds scattering seed (from the fruits they prefer, etc. Humans are not unique in changing their environment.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Tomomason,
You didn’t mention beavers which is an example which is hard to beat. But relative to the idea of evolution. I have written this essay and sent it to my friends. And I consider it has nothing to do with any religion but everything to do with good science.
Darwin’s Idea (Evolution) About The Origin Of Life
Is A Wrong Scientific Idea
Jerry L Krause 2018
You are a human being if you are reading this. As a human being reading this, I am reasonably sure you know that you were born perfectly helpless. This, not because you remember being born this way but because you have observed other newly born babies. Most of us were nurtured by our parents during this early helpless period of our lives and if not by parents, by another human, or humans, who were ‘older’ and no longer helpless.
For the objective of this essay is to establish with a video
2018).
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein
However, I have been long aware that Darwin’s evolutionary idea about the origin of life, first published in On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,1859, immediately challenged the idea of creation which was written about on the first page of The Holy Bible. This idea of creation is believed by both Jews and Christians, to be the inspired words of the Creator God as written by various humans of old. About the last day of God’s creations, the 6th, one can read: “And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kinds.” And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creators that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:24-27 NIV)
But until I did some literature search for this essay, I had not read (https://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/): “Darwin wrote, “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” [1] Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [2] Footnotes:
Charles Darwin, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life,” 1859, p. 162.
Ibid. p. 158.”
Surely an eagle pair (male and female) are a ‘complex organ’. A common question which commonly leads to endless debate is: Which came first: the chicken or the egg? As you view the video and observe the extreme care with which this eagle pair incubates their eggs, the answer should be obvious and seemingly undebatable. This demonstrates the power of the common observation in science which is so commonly overlooked. Do I need to ask: Who programmed these eagle parents before they actually became parents?
Addendum: (https://www.nationaleaglecenter.org/eagle-nesting-young/)
Who incubates the egg?
After it is laid, the egg must be constantly kept warm, or incubated, and protected from predators. Both males and females share incubation responsibilities but the female typically spends more time on the nest than the male. Males leave the nest to hunt, often providing food for the female. However, the female will sometimes leave the nest to hunt for herself, at which times the male will be called upon to remain at the nest.
How do eagles keep the eggs and young eaglets warm?
The body heat of the parent keeps the developing egg warm. Like most birds, eagles develop a brood patch, or bare spot on their belly, to better facilitate heat transfer to the egg during incubation. Both male and female eagles develop a brood patch.
Reply
Sophie
| #
Creationist and intelligent design nonsense.
Reply
Alex
| #
Quite right, Sophie, creationist and intelligent design nonsense.
tom0mason
| #
Lets try again…
“Another critical advantage for man is the ability to alter the environment to his preferences rather than having to adapt to changes or hibernate. ”
AFAIK humans have never hibernated, it is not part of their physiology.
Altering the local environment is not a unique trait to humans, many animals also alter the environment to suit their needs …
Many things from ants, wasps, beetles, and termites to birds scattering seed (from the fruits they prefer, etc. ). Beaver, badgers also change their local environments to better suit their need.
In fact nearly all social animals perform this trick (of altering the environment) for their own selfish benefit. Bacteria certainly do.
So the idea of changing the local environment to suit is probably as old as life itself.
What make humans unique is that they are the only animal to survive and to some degree flourish from just outside the poles to the equator. However it is historically only luck that we are here at all (like just about all currently surviving life).
No my argument with this article is that statement about “the natural selection process would favor the most adaptable”. NO!
Natural selection favors whatever is LUCKY enough to continue to survive — Nothing more.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi TomOmason,
Now, that I better understand your point: LUCK; I have to disagree for that is Darwin’s explanation for his theory of evolution which I consider that the Eagles at Smith Rock prove to be wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Cheers Jerry,
While I don’t take Darwin’s view as perfect and complete, he is useful. This observation is I feel quite insightful —
“Within the same large group, the later and more highly perfected sub-groups, from branching out and seizing on many new places in the polity of Nature, will constantly tend to supplant and destroy the earlier and less improved sub-groups. Small and broken groups and sub-groups will finally tend to disappear. Looking to the future, we can predict that the groups of organic beings which are now large and triumphant, and which are least broken up, that is, which as yet have suffered least extinction, will for a long period continue to increase. But which groups will ultimately prevail, no man can predict; for we well know that many groups, formerly most extensively developed, have now become extinct. …”
So we may reach the pinnacle of our evolutionary domain (we may be already there), adapting as we go, but a swift change by nature to something (I don’t know what) and suddenly humanity is on a run to extinction.
We may be very adaptable but we are messy buggers while doing it (compared to a lot of nature) and maybe that will be our undoing.
Or may be it’ll be those other things we appear to be ill prepared for, like the next Carrington Event, or swift change to global cooling, or …
jerry krause
| #
Hi TomOmason,
I consider we are have a good conversation and I want to keep it going. I had written a long comment and then decided it was an overkill. But in rereading your comment I found the following which you wrote: “So we may reach the pinnacle of our evolutionary domain (we may be already there), adapting as we go, but a swift change by nature to something (I don’t know what) and suddenly humanity is on a run to extinction.”
Of course most people know of Stonehenge (started maybe 5,000 years ago) but it seems still a mystery to many what it originally was. I have read most book published about Stonehenge and as usual it seems I see what others have not yet seen. It seems there was one huge erratic boulder left, when the glacier melted, near where it now stands, slanting as an gnomon which casts a shadow. For I consider that watching shadows is best way to simply, quantitatively, measure the motions of the sun and moon. But what first caught my attention when I turned my attentions to Stonehenge to study ancient astronomy was that 56, nearly equally space, holes had been dug in a fairly precise circle and that the spacing was close to 16.5 feet. Most of the land in the USA was surveyed using the English rod (16.5 feet). Which is a couple of inches more than 5km.
I also almost immediately asked why divide the circle into 56 equal spaces rather than 48 because I know the radius of a circle divided the circle into 6ths and a perpendicular bisector could than divide the circle into 12ths, 24ths, and 48ths. But 56 spaces required that the circle be divided into 7ths, which I did not know how to do. But then I read that the tides near the end of the Bristol Channel (about an easy 2day prehistoric hike from Stonehenge) had an approximate semidiurnal spring tidal range of about 40 feet. And another 2 day hike from Stonehenge was the English Channel with its tides. And I read that commonly there are 56 of these almost semidiurnal tides each lunar phase cycle. So I concluded the 56 holes were a tide table worked by moving a marker at sunrise and sunset. But I also saw that the 56 holes could also be a compass card if there were two opposing holes which defined the north-south cardinal directions and two opposing holes which defined the east-west cardinal directions.
But as usual when I tried to share what I had read or seen, no one seemed particularly interested. But I studied drawing circles and right lines as Newton had written in the preface of his book as a student of geometry should learn to do as accurately as possible before beginning to study geometry. I quickly (a day or two) discovered how to divide a circle into sevenths but have worked for years to discover how to divide it into fifths. And doing this exercise one quickly discovers the uncertainty of drawing lines and circles (arcs) as you divide a circle into elevenths (a prime number).
I have rambled and rambled because you (TomOmason) consider these prehistoric people were just lucky to have survived and to begin to raise and breed specific livestock to feed themselves. And then there were abundant fish and there is evidence of stone weirs placed in tide waters where fish would come in on a high tide and become trapped behind the weirs as the tide drained toward the low.
This prehistoric people support your idea that humans can adapt. But how many ‘more intelligent’ moderns could survive if you placed them in a wilderness environment like that when the first people landed on the coast of the BIs. And you need to ask: From where did these people come?
So I ask: Might have the people at Stonehenge have reached the pinnacle of our evolutionary domain? Especially in the arena of fundamental natural science of which it seems many are not yet aware.
Have a good day, Jerry
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Yes lots of different animals modify their environment to provide an advantage but they do not modify it enough to allow them the same level of activity (liking breeding) throughout the year despite the conditions. This gives man an advantage in survival and expanding the area where he can successfully exploit for his habitat.
I wonder do other species trade objects they have for objects they need allowing for the expansion of their habitat? One could always just take what they need by force but this would not provide for a continuing supply.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
About two years ago I embarked on a quest to understand the Science of Darwinian Biology. In my pursuit I read three books, the order of each read is as follows:
” DARWIN Day in America” by John G West, subtitle: “How our politics and culture have been dehumanized in the name of Science”.
“DARWIN’S DOUBT’ by Dr. Steven C. Meyer, subtitle: ” The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design”.
“Debating Darwin’s Doubt” edited by David Klinghoffer a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and editor of ” Evolution News & Views”. With 10 chapters written by Dr. Steven Meyer.
I submit to you that Evolution and its Neo-Darwinism cannot stand up to any scientific scrutiny. The evidence is clearly exhibited in these three books and is a prerequisite for any intellectual comment on the matter. I suggest the author of this article engage his mind into a thorough exercise of critical thinking.
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carbon Bigfoot,
You caused me to reread Richard’s article. Why did he conclude the article: “Holy Star Trek, Batman ! Heh. Heh. Heh.”? My answer: His article was mocking those who believe what he wrote. It is called: Sarcasm. But I could be wrong.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Thanks for the clarification. What is normally is used is a (sarc) tag. At seventy five I still need education.
Always appreciate your articles and candor. As a retired Professional Chemical Engineer it rekindles by appreciation of chemistry
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Carbon Bigfoot,
Thank you for your encouraging words.
I did not read what Galileo had written, what Newton had written, what Lane Cooper, a professor of the English language, had shared about how Louis Agassiz had taught students to see at Harvard until I was about half a century old. I had read Feynman’s lectures before this time but because I had not read these three books I did not see (grasp) what I did read in his book about lectures And if you haven’t read Feynman’s popular best sellers, I suggest them. Particularly the two essays at the end of these two books.
I am three years your senior, so keep plugging along. Its never too late until it is actually over.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Ackerman
| #
So for the normal Conservatives and for normal Liberals, they are one for two on the truth or lie of us being a creation or on the truth or lie of global warming. American Conservatives are largely Christian in the belief we are a creation by God as it is stated in Genesis. Liberals are largely secular, believing in evolution with 84% of atheist voting for the Democrats. That’s weird. Can Liberals who get the global warming ’emergency’ so very, very wrong have it right on evolution without any input by God while the Conservatives have it so right global warming by CO2 is a farce but have it wrong about God of the Bible? Do you really think there is a one for two…a .500 batting average…between the two camps? Amazing. Which camp has the best chance of being two for two and the other is 0 for 2?
Let me tell you something. ‘Evolution’ is a misunderstanding of aspects of epigenetics and gene regulation along with aspects of genome degeneration. Evolutionary scientist uses the effects of degeneration as ‘evidence’ for the generation of assumed macroevolution progression. Totally absurd sleight of hand.
The global warming-loving political party likes it because of the political science benefits it gives them and the voting block supporting them. Likewise, the theory of evolution gives them political science benefits and a mariad of voting blocks it gives by putting society 180 degress out of phase and resulting in fracturing in people, not enjoining them. My fellow Conservatives…the decades of propaganda of evolution has affected exactly as it is understood it would.
Reply