Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Old Darwinists may generously offer to father children with young women

arroba Email

   In a new spin to the “Random Mutations and Natural Selection produces all the wonderful things we see around us” belief system, mature aged geneticist (of “I’ve spent a long time working on snails, although I have now moved into slugs” fame) Steve Jones of England seems to harp back to the days when old men like him could get a young girl, and half the children died in their youth. Social Darwinism comes out with another great contribution to the welfare of our society.

If human evolution has been driven by fathers being over 35, there would have been little or no evolution during times when life expectancy was under 35.  The science community generally believes life expectancy for most of human history was pretty short – less than 35 years. Thus human evolution should only have occurred when social conditions improved enough to support longer lifespans. Doesn’t that push evolution into the period of recorded history?  A period when no human evolution has been observed?

In fact, are not older fathers much more likely, because of mutations, to produce children that suffer defects producing children that are less fit?

Frost112585, "I want to say finally… how do Darwinists- evolutionists- materialists- scientologists - whatever- deal with the fact that human beings being a product of evolution indeed do have the power to behave and make choices “against” what so called natural selection is said to do?" I think the only way they can deal with it involves making an admission that is anathema to the philosophical project of many of them. Humans, in way after way, act, develop, and evolve in ways that are remarkably singular in comparison to every other creature in the animal kingdom. The only way this can be admitted is with equivocation - 'Well, fruit flies are really unique if you look at them from the right point of view.' Even Dawkins stumbles over this 'awareness of evolution' and what it means both for humans and the sciences. The moment it's admitted that human evolution needs to be handled and considered in a markedly different way from any other animal, a whole lot of the philosophical project dies. The science can thrive as well as ever before, but the science alone was never the interest for many. What good is the science, even if it's successful, if it leads to the conclusion that humans are not just a unique development in the evolutionary process, but one that confounds the very processes that would have led to their existence to begin with? Especially if the difference is fundamentally related to intelligence, direct or indirect. nullasalus
I want to say finally... how do Darwinists- evolutionists- materialists- scientologists - whatever- deal with the fact that human beings being a product of evolution indeed do have the power to behave and make choices "against" what so called natural selection is said to do? In other words we have the ability to forward inferior species if we decide to do randomly or for moral reasons- What I am talking about is what happens when evolution becomes aware of itself? Cant it at that point point begin to contradict itself? If it cannot and in fact evolution has no possible contradictory position to contrast it with then isn’t it NONFALSIFIABLE? Materialistic Darwinian Evolution on epistemic grounds clearly fails Popper's falsification criteria for legitimate theories. Frost122585
Jerry, Nice note on common descent being from the original gene pool, rather than adding to the gene pool. Ever wonder if apes could have devolved from us, rather then us from them? I don't necessarily believe it, but I've entertained the idea, and it is more plausible then Darwinian evolution. It's kind of humorous... lol Domoman
I mean really, what's the difference between a modern biologist saying "have sex with me to save your genes" and a medieval priest saying "have sex with me to save your soul"? angryoldfatman
Steve Jones: I, an outstanding biologist, have come up with a new FACT about evolution! Joe Sixpack: :rolleyes: What's that? Steve Jones: It is a known FACT that evolution has stopped in humans, and needs to be restarted to SAVE THE HUMAN RACE! Joe Sixpack: Really now? Steve Jones: Yes! The reason why it has stopped is because hot babes are not having enough wild monkey sex with men over 35! These chicas must begin doing the nasty with these men IMMEDIATELY! TO SAVE HUMANITY AND THE WOOOORLD! Joe Sixpack: Uhh, are you over 35? Steve Jones: Why YES! YES I AM! But why do you ask? Joe Sixpack: Oh no reason, no reason at all... angryoldfatman
"Sexual reproduction pretty much put an end to evolution- that is universal common descent." I don't believe this is true. Go outside and look around you, walk in the woods or snorkel on a tropical island and you will see a massive variety of life that progresses by sexual reproduction. Common descent is essentially a downward march but different species do emerge occasionally and over tens of millions of years this produces a lot of variants and new species. Common descent is not the upward progression imagined by Darwin but a branching out downward once the original gene pool arrived. What it doesn't produce is new complex functional capabilities but not all evolution is that. Micro evolution is everywhere (through Darwinian processes) and thank the one who designed it because without it, we would live in a really dull world. jerry
Jones notes a massive difference between his expectations of animal behavior (evolution) and actual human behavior:
Decreasing randomness is another contributing factor. “Humans are 10,000 times more common than we should be, according to the rules of the animal kingdom, and we have agriculture to thank for that. Without farming, the world population would probably have reached half a million by now – about the size of the population of Glasgow.
Could Intelligent Design be an explanation to such contra evolutionary behavior? DLH
Sexual reproduction pretty much put an end to evolution- that is universal common descent. That is because with sexual reproduction 1/2 of the nucleic genome of each pertner gets thrown out. IOW there isn't any guarantee that any beneficial mutation will get passed on.
Sexuality has brought joy to the world, to the world of the wild beasts, and to the world of flowers, but it has brought an end to evolution. In the lineages of living beings, whenever absent-minded Venus has taken the upper hand, forms have forgotten to make progress. It is only the husbandman that has improved strains, and he has done so by bullying, enslaving, and segregating. All these methods, of course, have made for sad, alienated animals, but they have not resulted in new species. Left to themselves, domesticated breeds would either die out or revert to the wild state—scarcely a commendable model for nature’s progress.
(snip a few paragraphs on peppered moths)
Natural Selection, which indeed occurs in nature (as Bishop Wilberforce, too, was perfectly aware), mainly has the effect of maintaining equilibrium and stability. It eliminates all those that dare depart from the type—the eccentrics and the adventurers and the marginal sort. It is ever adjusting populations, but it does so in each case by bringing them back to the norm. We read in the textbooks that, when environmental conditions change, the selection process may produce a shift in a population’s mean values, by a process known as adaptation. If the climate turns very cold, the cold-adapted beings are favored relative to others.; if it becomes windy, the wind blows away those that are most exposed; if an illness breaks out, those in questionable health will be lost. But all these artful guiles serve their purpose only until the clouds blow away. The species, in fact, is an organic entity, a typical form, which may deviate only to return to the furrow of its destiny; it may wander from the band only to find its proper place by returning to the gang. Everything that disassembles, upsets proportions or becomes distorted in any way is sooner or later brought back to the type. There has been a tendency to confuse fleeting adjustments with grand destinies, minor shrewdness with signs of the times. It is true that species may lose something on the way—the mole its eyes, say, and the succulent plant its leaves, never to recover them again. But here we are dealing with unhappy, mutilated species, at the margins of their area of distribution—the extreme and the specialized. These are species with no future; they are not pioneers, but prisoners in nature’s penitentiary.—geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti in “Why is a Fly Not a Horse?”
In fact, are not older fathers much more likely, because of mutations, to produce children that suffer defects producing children that are less fit?-idnet Only if the mutations are harmful. And then only if the gamete(s) with those harmful mutations makes it to the goal- reproduction. BTW it could also be that those extra mutations (because of the age) are somehow beneficial. Joseph
Eugenics, the ultimate conclusion of Darwinism. It sickens me. The legalisation of abortion bill has just been passed in the parliament of Victoria, Australia today. A very sad day. May God have mercy. mad doc

Leave a Reply