16th April 2009, 2:01 PM
I'm not sure what you mean there. Bacteria are very impressive, but perfect they ain't. The first problem is you haven't defined what you mean by perfection. What attributes would make an organism perfect for you?
Further, "know what they want" is a bit misleading.
When I said "film student" all I was trying to get across is you've never done a bit of experimentation yourself. Nothing about working in film makes you wrong, I'm not committing the genetic fallacy here, I'm just saying that you've got to establish yourself as right through evidence. Failing that, what grounds do you have to make any claims about how evolution works? Also, what controversy are you talking about? If you've got some specific experimental results you've found that support your odd interpretation of it, I'd like to see them. It's a put up or shut up situation here. I've posted numerous web sites in the past from various experiments that show above all that evolution is a blind process that only thinks in the short term. Heck as another example, if you water many trees too much, their roots will stay shallow and not grow deep. They've evolved to get their roots where the water is, which in most situations is deeper so they are rooted in place. They did not evolve to intentionally go deep knowing that it roots them in place though. They used the best "tool" available that gets the job done, which was "seek water". Humans can short circuit this, and trees aren't capable of realizing the mistake they make by not continuing to grow their roots deeper, causing them to fall over more easily in high wind. Cells just aren't aware enough to think ahead. Some species can evolve into a dead end in the same way. Think of crabs with the utterly massive claw. That's been shown to have the selection pressure of mating. At one point in the past, female crabs that selected for slightly bigger claws had a better chance of producing succesful offspring that ones that selected smaller claws, and that alone meant that future females inherited that trait. In the past, this would be because those bigger claws meant the males were better at feeding themselves or just were stronger. However, because the genes to select bigger claws dominated the population, it created a runaway effect where the only males that reproduced were ones with larger claws, so they kept being selected for, and females that started selecting for smaller claws would have offspring that were NOT selected by the majority of females, so that would be selected against. As a result, males now have ridiculously large claws on one side that more often than not get in the way, but they have to have them because the females select for it, and females have to select for it because otherwise their male descendants would be selected against. They don't think about this, mutated genes for smaller claws and selecting for smaller claws still show up, but they don't get the prize of reproduction. The only stopping point is basic game theory, where the claws become so huge that the cost of having that massive arm offsets the reward of better chance of reproduction (such as being immobilized by the claw). These sort of mating game catch 22's occur numerous times in the animal kingdom, and they serve as an excellent example of the blind nature of natural selection. There's an entire chapter on this in "The Selfish Gene" if you'd care to read it.
Oh, by the way, as for "children being better swimmers if their parents swim well", you first need to show studies confirming this is an evolutionary result, and not a cultural one. Do you think that MAYBE these kids are better swimmers because their parents, swimming all the time, perhaps TAUGHT them to swim at a young age and they themselves have had to swim their entire life? To test for this, you'd need a wide sampling of kids who's parents were great swimmers but who ended up being raised without being taught to swim (such as adoption or just having moved to a place where they didn't need to swim and their parents didn't bother). Get kids with parents who aren't good swimmers who have that same no swimming background, then compare their ability to swim. Do you have such experimental evidence?
The thing is, I've got way more cause to be embaressed than you, as I was once a creationist fool with an even bigger misunderstanding of evolution. I educated myself and realized my mistake. The key is that you should do the same. There's plenty of resources out there. The only real shame is in sticking with an idea out of conviction that you may be onto something rather than going with the evidence and changing whatever you think is so to fit that evidence.
Further, "know what they want" is a bit misleading.
When I said "film student" all I was trying to get across is you've never done a bit of experimentation yourself. Nothing about working in film makes you wrong, I'm not committing the genetic fallacy here, I'm just saying that you've got to establish yourself as right through evidence. Failing that, what grounds do you have to make any claims about how evolution works? Also, what controversy are you talking about? If you've got some specific experimental results you've found that support your odd interpretation of it, I'd like to see them. It's a put up or shut up situation here. I've posted numerous web sites in the past from various experiments that show above all that evolution is a blind process that only thinks in the short term. Heck as another example, if you water many trees too much, their roots will stay shallow and not grow deep. They've evolved to get their roots where the water is, which in most situations is deeper so they are rooted in place. They did not evolve to intentionally go deep knowing that it roots them in place though. They used the best "tool" available that gets the job done, which was "seek water". Humans can short circuit this, and trees aren't capable of realizing the mistake they make by not continuing to grow their roots deeper, causing them to fall over more easily in high wind. Cells just aren't aware enough to think ahead. Some species can evolve into a dead end in the same way. Think of crabs with the utterly massive claw. That's been shown to have the selection pressure of mating. At one point in the past, female crabs that selected for slightly bigger claws had a better chance of producing succesful offspring that ones that selected smaller claws, and that alone meant that future females inherited that trait. In the past, this would be because those bigger claws meant the males were better at feeding themselves or just were stronger. However, because the genes to select bigger claws dominated the population, it created a runaway effect where the only males that reproduced were ones with larger claws, so they kept being selected for, and females that started selecting for smaller claws would have offspring that were NOT selected by the majority of females, so that would be selected against. As a result, males now have ridiculously large claws on one side that more often than not get in the way, but they have to have them because the females select for it, and females have to select for it because otherwise their male descendants would be selected against. They don't think about this, mutated genes for smaller claws and selecting for smaller claws still show up, but they don't get the prize of reproduction. The only stopping point is basic game theory, where the claws become so huge that the cost of having that massive arm offsets the reward of better chance of reproduction (such as being immobilized by the claw). These sort of mating game catch 22's occur numerous times in the animal kingdom, and they serve as an excellent example of the blind nature of natural selection. There's an entire chapter on this in "The Selfish Gene" if you'd care to read it.
Oh, by the way, as for "children being better swimmers if their parents swim well", you first need to show studies confirming this is an evolutionary result, and not a cultural one. Do you think that MAYBE these kids are better swimmers because their parents, swimming all the time, perhaps TAUGHT them to swim at a young age and they themselves have had to swim their entire life? To test for this, you'd need a wide sampling of kids who's parents were great swimmers but who ended up being raised without being taught to swim (such as adoption or just having moved to a place where they didn't need to swim and their parents didn't bother). Get kids with parents who aren't good swimmers who have that same no swimming background, then compare their ability to swim. Do you have such experimental evidence?
The thing is, I've got way more cause to be embaressed than you, as I was once a creationist fool with an even bigger misunderstanding of evolution. I educated myself and realized my mistake. The key is that you should do the same. There's plenty of resources out there. The only real shame is in sticking with an idea out of conviction that you may be onto something rather than going with the evidence and changing whatever you think is so to fit that evidence.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)