---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
I recommend Richard Dawkins' book on evolution if anyone wants to get a better handle on what it actually is than we can remember from biology class. When I read it I found that I had some odd perspectives that needed adjusting. We are by nature drawn to teleological perspectives (ones that presuppose a goal) because we are order loving and pattern seeking creatures. The statistics of evolution are extra sensory in scale and counter-intuitive. It turns out that the genes can do different things to men and women and some genes prospered in certain environments that we don't live in now. Think of how many humans got whacked by the most recent ice age. So we are left with a gene set that survived that condition that may hurt us today. Non reproducing individuals are no surprise if the gene does something else over the population that leads to more people with that gene. Again we suck at statistics so we see one person and draw bogus conclusions before we can blink. Perversely we think we are good at this inductive reasoning. We equate our feelings of certainty with the probability it is true. Dawkins' book was humbling because there was so much about the theory that I didn't understand. This is the grand theory that is the basis for understanding all life on earth. It has been successful in prediction, before we had the fossil record to back it up. It has given us a coherent perspective on how life evolved on earth and no fossil record has contradicted it. I suspect that if you gave the theory a chance by reading something in depth about it, you would find your need for any "intervention" along the way unnecessary. Rather than needing to postulate intervention, you may see how often the mechanics of evolution by removal of maladaptive mutations, and an abundance of mutations through unimaginable periods of time, makes it look as if a goal was predetermined. Which one of RD's did you read Curtis? I often recommend his stuff on here because he is such a clear communicator and it's obvious he is as knocked out about the whole life thing as I am. I can honestly say that The Blind Watchmaker changed my life in teaching me how to think about evolution properly, how complexity grows, we get an idea about how it works from school but that often leaves a lot to be desired. All of his science books are worth reading, a favourite of mine is The Ancestors Tale which tracks human evolution backwards through our known common ancestors. A great story and also good as a "dip in anywhere" bedside book. People here might like Unweaving the Rainbow which takes a lot of new age myths and beliefs about crystals and suchlike and explains the actual science behind them, which is of course, a lot more interesting. The Selfish Gene underlines how different a way of thinking you need to really get to grips with evolution. Life is a series of mistakes, if DNA was perfect at it's job (making copies of itself) life on Earth would be just a sea of identical cells. Far out. The only one of his I haven't read is The God Delusion as he was preaching to the converted. I bought a copy for my Dad in an amusingly ironic "suggested books for Christmas" sale at a local shop. The conversation about what memes society should have predominating is a good one but I think he's better off sharing his enthusiasm and wisdom about his favourite subject. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : Now, that is a question worthy of consideration. I find it hard to be a strict evolutionist. I tend to believe there has been some kind of intervention, somewhere along the way, or at various times. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : But a more serious objection to Darwin's natural selection hypothesis (beautifully simple and powerful as the idea is) than weird monsters from our prehistoric past is the prevalence of homosexuality (in humans if not our animal cousins). How can behaviour that is sterile possibly have evolved according to a theory that claims Nature favours acts that increase an organism's chances of sexual reproduction? Anyone want to attempt an answer? A gay man or woman is walking, talking proof that natural selection is either wrong or (more likely) radically incomplete as an explanation of how we got to be the way we are. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <s3raphita@...> wrote : Survival of the fittest? This is what the original looked like of that fossil just found in China (the Zhenyuanlong suni - a cousin of the better known Velociraptor). But it couldn't fly so those wings are surely (as the tired old cliché has it) about as much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest. Let's see those neo-Darwinians explain this one! Hmm, maybe they were originally for keeping warm and became useful for catching insects or mating displays. Or maybe they just helped it run faster? Feathers are deformed scales so they must have had some sort of advantage early on or they wouldn't have got very far. Don't suppose you'd accept enhanced cuteness as an explanation? If I had a time machine this is the sort of problem I would work on... http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h View on tinyurl.com http://tinyurl.com/p8kf48h Preview by Yahoo
