# Are Humans Still Evolving?



## Graff (Jul 30, 2005)

*Are Humans Still Evolving? 

By: Graff*

If you’ve ever wondered, “Are we still evolving?”, this article is for you. Before assigning an answer to that question, we must look at the history of evolution, and of course, Charles Darwin. 
	Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, suggests that “as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival. These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation.” A simple and perfect explanation for evolution. Traits inherited that improve chances of survival are passed on to the generation for this reason. 
	Now that we understand the main reason for evolution in all species, we can take a look at humans, and answer our first question. 
	Human kind has become obsessed with safety. It is a natural trait, the instinct to survive. But have we gone too far? If you look closely, you will see that this obsession has practically destroyed our chances of evolving further. No human dies when they inherit a non-beneficial trait anymore. When we were living in caves, and ones athleticism could save his life, then we were evolving. The ones that survived, passed on the beneficial traits. But now, it doesn’t matter if your born with a bad knee, you won’t be hunted down by predators and killed. You will continue to breed and pass on those bad traits. Aren’t these reasons enough to stop human evolution dead in it’s tracks? The answer is “yes”. How can we possibly evolve any further with this happening? The strange thing is, we are still evolving. Small anomalies such as “wisdom teeth” are slowly being filtered out from generation to generation. How in the world is this happening? Do these occurrences disprove Darwin’s theory? 
	These are some things to think about while you’re having your wisdom teeth surgically removed.

 -----

Quotes taken from "http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com"


----------



## Jude Knox (Jul 30, 2005)

I've been thinking an awful lot about this particular faction in our society. It's something we as mammalian primates are too scared to face. 

Your bit reminded me of this exceptionally long quote from this movie "Naked":

Johnny: Do you think the amoeba ever dreamed that it would evolve into the frog? Of course it didn't. And when that first frog shimmied out of the water and employed its vocal chords in order to attract a mate or to retard a predator, do you think that that frog ever imagined that that incipient croak would evolve into all the languages of the world, into all the literature of the world? Of course it fuckin' didn't. And just as that froggy could never have possibly conceived of Shakespeare, so we can never possibly imagine our destiny. 
Brian: I know what my destiny is. 
Johnny: Yeah but what you're experiencing, as far as I can gather, with all these manifestations of regression and precognition and transmigratory astral fuckin' chatterings is just the equivalent of that first primeval grunt. Because evolution isn't over. Man isn't the be-all and end all. Look, if you take the whole of time represented by one year, we're only in the first few moments of the first of January. There's a long way to go. Only now we're not going to sprout extra limbs and wings and fins because evolution itself is evolving. And whereas you, through some process of extrasensory recall, might imagine that you were some, I don't know, some 17th-century little Dutch girl living in a windmill in old Amsterdam, one day you'll realize that you've had not just one or two past or future existences, but that you were and are everybody and everything that has ever been or will ever be. 
Brian: Hang on a minute, you've just contradicted yourself. 
Johnny: Oh, how'd you make that out? 
Brian: Downstairs you were predicting the end of the world, now you're talking about the future. How do you explain that, eh? 
Johnny: Easy. When it comes, the apocalypse itself will be part of the process of that leap of evolution. 
Brian: Well. Whatever happens, mankind will not cease to exist. 
Johnny: He must. By the very definition of apocalypse, mankind must cease to exist, at least in a material form. 
Brian: What do you mean in a material form? 
Johnny: Well he'll evolve. 
Brian: What into? 
Johnny: Into something that transcends matter. Into a species of pure thought. Are you with me? 
Brian: Yeah...like a ghost! 
Johnny: No, not like a [exp. deleted] ghost you big girl's blouse, into something that's like well beyond our comprehension. Into a universal consciousness. Into God, who is by the same principle that time is.


----------



## Graff (Jul 30, 2005)

Now I have to see that movie.   



> It's something we as mammalian primates are too scared to face.



This statement is very similar to my thoughts on the subject. It also reminds me of my thoughts on religion, but I won't get into that. I don't want to offend anyone   .

But then again, what I said at the end of the article is also true. We are still evolving somehow. It may be a different, less significant kind of evolution, but at least it's something. 

Don't mistake me for one of those conceited people who cling to the hope that we have some higher purpose, I'm merely stating a fact.

I'd love to hear all the opinions I can get on this matter, so keep replying people!


----------



## freebird (Jul 30, 2005)

Graff said:
			
		

> *Are Humans Still Evolving?* If you’ve ever wondered, “Are we still evolving?”, this article is for you.



Graff, ain't seen too many monkeys coming out of the jungle with cell phones lately.   :lol:


----------



## Graff (Jul 30, 2005)

> Graff, ain't seen too many monkeys coming out of the jungle with cell phones lately.



To be honest, I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm talking about humans evolving further than we already have, not monkeys evolving to become humans. I probably just don't understand your statement, so if I'm mistaken, please tell me lol.


----------



## journyman161 (Jul 30, 2005)

Logic says if we protect those with defective genes & allow them to breed, we are interfering with the natural cleansing mechnism of the genome.

Unsuccessful mutations are not supposed to live or pss their defects on to the general population, that way the pool purges itself of unneeded or dangerous genes.

But evolution doesn't deal with harmless choices; only if the change is inimical in some way will it be selected _against_ otherwise it can hang around the genome.

It is however a bit of a puzzle as to why some things fade. The appendix, for example. Sure, our diet changed & we didn't rely on it anymore, but why would it _shrink_ from what it was. 

It's almost like there's a monitor somewhere that watches the body for signs of bludging & sets a program in motion to remove permanent bludgers from the system. (a bludger is someone that consumes resources without contributing anything back to the pool)

In a case like the male peacock, it is easier to understand the issue; the peacock has so much invested in the tail as a means of drawing a breeding mate that he rides right on the edge of sustainability, so he has to be very efficient at survival to outdo his competitors.
The peahens do the selecting, so if there is a trait appears the peahens can reject it & that peacock don't get no lovin'
But if the new trait actually detracts from resources used to make & keep his tail in fine condition, the peahens will reject him anyway & he may even die before getting to breeding age.

Also, evolution these days is seen by most as 'puctuated equilibrium', where things kind of drift along for a while, then climate change or some other basic factor alters & all that _don't_ have a particular trait die off & only those with the trait (& associated side issues) get to breed the next generation.

With medicine & surgery, we have almost 'frozen' the genome in one place. Any defects are preserved & passed on, & never mind the fact that human greed to have progeny also condemns those progeny to a desperate miserable life. I'd really like an explanation of the 'right' to have children when your very genome is saying no to the idea.

For the sake of the race, steps should have been taken to ensure congenital disease was left out of the genome. It's all nice & fuzzy when we're talking about how some poor person should be allowed to have a child, but harsh decisions are coming & the longer we leave them the more people will be affected.

Note: I am not doing the hitler things here. I make no suggestions as to what we should be aiming for, just that we know what we _don't_ want.

However, the good news is, provided we can keep the hysteria levels down, we are not far off being able to _repair_ damaged genomes so children bron with known defects can be 'cleansed' before entering the breeding pool.

Again, not suggesting at all that we try to 'direct' the genome, not even for favoured attributes, just that we take over the slow job evolution was doing. After all, we no longer live at the pace evolution can cope with; we've increased the genomic dangers by hundreds of times & at the same time, bred indiscriminately so our eco-niche is under almost constant threat.

These are the conditions under which there have been sudden jumps in the genome in the past, so we can probably expect an increase in genetic diseases and/or failures as the human genome struggles to adapt to the new world.


----------



## Jude Knox (Jul 31, 2005)

journeyman, so what you're really trying to say is....? lol

I got the gist of it. Pretty much.

And Graff (mind if I call you "Sergeant Graff" sometimes? That would be Camp-Happy-Times for this Ender's Game luvr), that film I quoted from is remarkably depressing yet highly thought-provoking. It's EXTREMELY hard to find anywhere. In fact, I was VERY VERY VERY lucky to have caught it on HBO a couple of months ago. This is because A: it's indie and B: it's foreign. Also, C: it was written/directed by Mike Leigh. So, this is basically one helluva trifecta. But if you can find it, I encourage you to see it. It is gritty. It has the ability to rip your heart out with ice cold hands and it can also give you awesome one-liners. 

Take this one for example:

Louise: Why are you such a bastard, Johnny?
Johnny: Monkey see, monkey do.


----------



## mammamaia (Jul 31, 2005)

mark... there's no mystery to why organs shrink when going unused for many generations... just as a paraplegic's limbs will, when not used, things that no longer have any function to fulfill will atrophy...

and, if that lack of function continues for generation after generation, it makes sense that its code in the helix will fade away, as well...  the old 'use it or lose it' rule... 

imo, the average civilized human's brain has to be shrinking, as it seems to be not much used, either!


----------



## Graff (Jul 31, 2005)

> imo, the average civilized human's brain has to be shrinking, as it seems to be not much used, either!



I laughed out loud at that one   



> mind if I call you "Sergeant Graff" sometimes? That would be Camp-Happy-Times for this Ender's Game luvr



Of course   . But I think it's Colonel Graff  :wink: .

Journeyman: You seem very well learned on this subject, and what you wrote was very interesting    . 

mamma: I definiety agree with your point that it has something to do with a kind of atrophy, good thinkin  :wink: .


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Jul 31, 2005)

Well, the Neanderthal man had a larger brain than ours . . . you might have a point there, Maia.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

Limbs & organs may atrophy, but genes don't. To understand we need to look at it at the genome level. There is a sequence (or several) that codes for development & intestines etc. 

To alter the size of appendix, the gene sequence must be modified. Chemical bases don't just fade with lack of use & any alteration would more likely result in the _absence_ of the appendix than a shrinking of it.

It may seem a logical thing, but at the genetic level it isn't; it becomes a very complex question.

There are others as well, including those where it is exceedingly difficult to work out a 'survival' rationale for them coming about in the first place. eg, human female breasts. Wide hips have a survival reason; you can have larger brained progeny, but why would the genome work to create large stores of fat to create an appearance oF pregnancy? Pregnant women can't breed, large breasts are not anything to do with milk production or better flow of milk, yet men have them as a sexual trigger & womens bodies develop them.

No other female mammal has such breasts; even those with udders. Why would a genome invent such a thing? It's easy to look at things now & say to increase the sexual attraction, but how the hell does a genome understand the sexual attraction between one conglomerate of cells & another?


----------



## Graff (Aug 1, 2005)

Hmm... very thought provoking.

There is a quote that could explain this. It goes: "Trying to get a human to understand the universe he lives in, could be just as difficult teaching a cat the Theory of Relativity."

lol


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

Unless the teacher's name is schroedinger? And I think the Cheshire one may have had a fair grasp as well. :grin:


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

Another example of a human trait that hasn't vanished even though it has no possible use, is male nipples. We have them because the genome is, at basics, a female genome & men are altered females. But they've been present in males since the dawn of mammals & there's nothing keeping them in place.

There's also at least 3 layers of complexity in the genome, of which the chromosomes are merely the first one explored. _Something_ controls the expression of the genes, as well as which get 'chosen' for recombination. Then there's the wraparound layer of chemical complexes that covers the genome like a skin; it must be there for some reason. Perhaps to make choices based on the current organism's environment?

While we are affecting evolution by treating the symptoms so previously non-viable specimens not only survive & breed, it doesn't necessarily stop evolution, as there is still cellular & environmental mutating processes as well as whatever may affect the chemical layer around the chromosomes.

So, rather than stop the river of evolution, we're really allowing it to get dirtier, by blocking the natural cleaning that should occur.

The non-fatal changes would still be occuring throughout the population.


----------



## Graff (Aug 1, 2005)

I had no idea that the cleansing process could occur at the cellular level. Very cool stuff. But now that I think about it, it makes perfect sense. 

Do you by any chance know who said that quote? The one about the cat. I remember reading it, but I don't quite remember who said it.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

Recombination is the cleaning process as well as a cell's main defence against the mutability of cellular predators. (viruses etc)

Don't know who said the cat quote, but it sounds like perhaps einstein?


----------



## mammamaia (Aug 1, 2005)

A little knowledge is a hilarious thing...
who here stands in the nobel laureates' ring?

When posters present their walls of degrees,
I'll believe their claims 'to know,' with ease.

Till then, along with my _own _surmises,
all postulations I'll count mere aggrandizes! 

;-)


----------



## brglid (Aug 1, 2005)

*Evolution of Humans*

Nature always has it's way of weeding out the weak, no matter how civilized we become. 
Darwinism applies to almost all aspects of life. For example, different social classes have different breeding habits then others. For example, a catholic man will most likely have more children than a gay man. Is this evolutionarily beneficial?? It depends on who you ask. 
Countires that are more poorly developed, have lower life expectancies and have less time to breed, but there is also limited birth control in these countries. 
I think modern human evolution applies mostly to one ethnic groups ability to war against another. War showcases a civilization's technological superiority/ inferiority, athleticism, hospitals, etc. A very similar situtation to who would live and die in a cave.
It seems to me that the wars that have occured throughout time are the most significant advances in human evolution. As dismal as it may seem, I believe that without war, the human race would indeed stagnate. Many of the great technological advances of humans have been a result of a wartime neccesity. Lets also not forget the space race.
Why would a civilization exert any effort unless they where threatened? In response to the question "Have humans stopped evolving?" My response is no. Our evolution occurs through technology and war for the most part. Technology is the result of a culture's mental capacity. I also believe mutations still play a part in evolution, for example cancer is a major player in today's evolutionary ballfeild.
These are just some thoughts I have, I am a Molecular Biology student so I think about it. If anyone agrees/ disagrees with me, I'd love to hear your thoughts.


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Aug 1, 2005)

Some good points. Many technological advances have been driven by war. And, war and chaos spurring on human evolution . . . that was what the Shadows did, guiding humankind by pushing them into conflicts, as shown in the SF series, _Babylon-5_.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

A problem or two with the social evolution thing. 1st is a biggie - how would or could a genome, which is individual to a person & limited to the cellular environment, 'know' anything about society? Social pressures mean nothing for a cell excepting where they infringe on the ability to breed.

the problems with war are manyfold. As many things or more have been destroyed by war than were ever created. We have lost most of our history, lost the light of civilisation numerous times, & seen the flower of brilliance quenched by the darkness of barbarism too often because of war.

And I'd actually like to see a listing of the things we're supposed to have gained from war _that aren't weapons or fight-related_
Sometimes, the things learned during the spur of war are later shown to have beneficial aspects as well, but those beneficial things are learned during peace time. Conquerors, dictators & kings alike do not wait patiently for their weapons while the thinker works out the new plough.

War also provides negative evolution for the race. We do not send our weak or crippled to war, we take the fittest & best & place them in an arena where it is NOT their own skills & talents that choose who survives. it's not like the days of knights & champions where the truely best were the ones who survived & passed on their genes.
Meanwhile, the less able & deficient stay home to breed.


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Aug 1, 2005)

Well, advances in medical science can be applied to the civilian sector, if that's what you mean. Brglid did bring some points, interesting ones. As for sending our "best and brightest" . . . hmmm, I don't know if I want to go there.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

Note I didn't say best & brightest.

And medical science doesn't so much stop evolutionas it allows the pollutants to stay in the pool. Eventually the pollution of bad genes will kill or cripple vast swathes of the population unless technology can stay ahead of it.

Fortunately, we're right on the verge of being able to clean up genomes at zygote level, although as usual there's a dangerous side; if we start deciding we know what to _add_ to the genome or that we know what to breed _towards_


----------



## Graff (Aug 1, 2005)

Lensman has a very strong point, that advancing technology is the new form of evolution. Our bodies have reached their peak, now we start evolving in a different way. What will it matter if someone has a desease in their leg, when we can lop it off and replace it with an even better, robotic one?


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

The problem is you're constantly putting off the genetic fix by tech replacement. Each generation will need the replacement.

But it will be far cheaper very shortly to actually tell the body to grow a new one by turning on or off a few genes.

And removing that gene complex from the zygote or repairing it to proper state, means, unlike the robot/cyborg route, that zygote's children don't need procedures, nor will the zygote.


----------



## Graff (Aug 1, 2005)

> But it will be far cheaper very shortly to actually tell the body to grow a new one by turning on or off a few genes.



You have a great point there, but what about things that just can't be grown? Eventually we will be concentrating more on enhancements instead of just replacements. humans always want more, replacements aren't gonna cut it.

What if I wanted my address book medically grafted into my brain, so when I want someones address, I say their name and the address pops into my head? I can't just alter the genes and grow that in my brain, it's technology. Of course technology advances in biology are also needed to be able to enhance the human body, but advances in robotics will be very beneficial in that area.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 1, 2005)

I wouldn't say it couldn't be done with genetic manipulation, as we have some pretty dedicated areas already in our brains. Howvever, it's a poor example; your mind can already do that. If you choose not to use the faculty, that's up to you.

Genes could also, for example, be used to grow _better_ parts, such as bones plated with carbon fibre or an altered, faster responding nervous system, or eyes that can see infra red, or lots of fast twictch muscles for a sprinter etc. but that's a whole new field from wether or not we're still evolving.

It's also an ethical dilemma; should we tamper with the genome that way. Fixing deficiencies or erros is one thing, builing in 'improvements' is entirely another.

However, don't despair! Your personal PC will be available in a socket near you real soon now. They're already getting success with the Mind/Machine interface, so Microsoft Window, Socket version will be available real soon now.

I'd want mine to do a fair bit more than remember telephone numbers for me.

EDIT: I keep wondering, if we've got socket windows in our heads, walking down the street & get an unrecoverable system error; just how do you go about rebooting?
Would Ctrl-Alt-Del equal Eye-Nose-Ear? A finger in each to reset? Would a human virus be able to corrupt your code? Could a computer virus take control of your mind & start screwing everyone in sight to make copies of itself?


----------



## Graff (Aug 2, 2005)

I don't believe the body could "grow" carbon fiber, sice it's not made up of cells. Everything grown by genes has to be made up of cells, thats all the gene knows how to do. It couldn't comprehend how to fabricate carbon fiber, or infra-red eyes. Unless it just made out eyes more similar to cat eyes... but not infra-red. 

But you're right, I used a bad example with the address book thing, since you can just remember addresses. I was thinking more along the lines of what you mentioned later, with the Windows in your brain.


----------



## journyman161 (Aug 2, 2005)

I'd be cautious about saying what cells can & can't be made to do, & the genome wouldn't need to know how, that's the job of the gene engineers.

But you're probably correct in that carbon fibre bones would be more easily accomplished by nantech. Nanotech offers the possibility of rebuilding things at the molecular level & above.

Lose a leg? Smear the stump with nano paste & eat like crazy (or provide external nutrient) & beofer your eyes, probably while-U-wait, new leg based on your genotype.


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Aug 2, 2005)

Somatic nanotech offers a wide variety of means to heal people, make them better. Now, using a carbyne-weave around bones and muscle tissue--there are some interesting possibilities on the horizon for us . . . .


----------



## LensmanZ313 (Aug 2, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4734507.stm


> Nanotechnology has been harnessed to kill cancer cells without harming healthy tissue.
> The technique works by inserting microscopic synthetic rods called carbon nanotubules into cancer cells.
> 
> When the rods are exposed to near-infra red light from a laser they heat up, killing the cell, while cells without rods are left unscathed.
> ...


----------



## AdamBaldwin (Aug 16, 2005)

The type of news we are fed in the media these days does not do justice to the actual research that is being done for evolutionary theory in microbiology and biochemistry.  General media tends to simplify it (and all scientific news), so that much of the stuff they are talking about cannot be learned from in a serious way

Neodarwinism (the term used for modern evolutionary theory derived from the combination of theories throughout the 20th century) is feeling some pretty strong heat for  revision. 

The common thought is that we are constantly evolving, and that empirical documentation of Darwinian evolution has occurred over and over again is not as simple as it seems.

Referencing websites may not be the best way to make a valid argument. I would suggest going to  a local university library and doing some specific reading, especially if you are thinking about submitting it.  Whenever writing an essay on a topic of a scientific nature, even if it is an opinion, make sure your opinion is on something that is founded in current research.

It is very easy to build your foundations of topics from the general media, but when the time to write comes, make sure you have many current research sources to back it up

On a separate note, the book “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution” by Michael Behe (the book that is responsible for the intelligent design movement) is worth reading, whether or not you agree with his arguments. It sheds some new light on this subject, and opens the doors for nontechnical reading in current biochemical evolution theory.


----------



## AdamBaldwin (Aug 16, 2005)

starrwriter said:
			
		

> Intelligent design is an anthropomorphism. Atoms, molecules and cells don't show intelligence in their activity or interactions. Intelligence is a human quality that a few higher animals share to a lesser degree. The building blocks of matter and life don't depend on outside guidance.
> 
> Intelligent design is a pseudo-scientific back door to Biblical creationism, made for people who are a little too educated to believe in the literal meaning of the Bible.




Claiming intelligent design is pseudo-Christianity is a far too common mistake.

I will preface this by asking if you have actually read Behe's book, because your assessment of Behe's concept of intelligent design is not at all accurate. 

Behe's book and thesis has nothing at all to do with the components of matter arranging themselves in an intelligent manner, or that somewhere on the microbiological, biochemical, or atomic level, there is some type of being tweaking our nature. Behe is not a theologian, he is a biochemist, and his book is a challenge to neodarwinism's macro evolutionary theory. He claims that to hypothesize things from a macro level is a sure fire way to overlook anything on the micro level disproving your theory. At the biochemical level, neodarwinism seems much less of a theory, and more of a religion.

Intelligent design, in a  nutshell, is a concept that neodarwinism's holes, and lack of explanation for a concept which Behe puts a lot of focus on, which is irreducible complexity -- the idea that there are elements of life  that can only function in their defining form with a certain amount and design of components, and to remove them is to dissolve the substance altogether.

For example: A motorcycle is irreducible complex. It is roughly a bicycle with an internal combustion engine, and its supporting elements. A bicycle, by its own accord, cannot evolve into a motorcycle. That would mean one day a bicycle was in a garage, and a freak explosion destroys the car, and the engine and all of the parts are crammed together into a motorcycle, and a person comes along and starts using this new machine.  
No, a bicycle can only be formed if it is compiled with a certain combination of parts to create a functioning motorcycle. It is something that was created for a purpose --  the purpose of functionality. Behe then infers that this can be explained by the idea that is was intelligently designed by something who knew what the end product would be.  
Please do not refute this example by saying a bicycle is not a living being. Contrast it and synthesize the concept to living organisms

Intelligent design is anthropomorphic, because Behe cannot account for any other solution other than evolution and creation (not Christian creation – there are many forms of cosmic creation) so he combines both, because the scientific minds of the world could not perform their jobs by accepting all types of mystery as a mystery, and therefore irrelevant, but it is not a solution to the mysteries of life. It does not explain creation. It does not assume there is a god. It does not say we are all special and have a purpose. What it what does is infer that we are not products of chaos, and we may eventually find that there are parts of us than are irreducibly complex, and that that is where Darwinism will invariably fail.




			
				starrwriter said:
			
		

> On a separate note, the book “Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge To Evolution” by Michael Behe (the book that is responsible for the intelligent design movement) is worth reading ...



I try very hard not to reveal my biases in my writing unless I feel it is necessary, because I think it makes for more interesting material. I found it very odd that you ended your quote of my post with “it is worth reading...” when I actually said “is worth reading, whether or not you agree with his arguments.” The irony is THAT is irreducibly complex, and you inadvertently gave an example of intelligent design to create a primer for your following post. You took out a vital part of my sentence, and now it does not mean what it did when I wrote it *smiles*. I was referring to the merit of a diverse read, not its validity.

 I can gather that you are a Christian from your other posts, and that your beliefs conflict with Behe's thesis, Based on your derivation of my quote, I must wonder if you believe I am not a Christian, because even Christians can find truth in science and “Atoms, molecules and cells”. 

Wasn't there a guy in the bible who said something about a certain higher power being everywhere and in everything?


----------



## AdamBaldwin (Aug 17, 2005)

starrwriter said:
			
		

> I haven't read the book you refer to, but I know for a fact that intelligent design is being used as a shill for Biblical creationism.



Well, the topic at hand is evolution, and what people do in reaction to literature is a sociological issue, as it is irrelevant to the nature and intended purpose of the book. The book has no information that directly associates it with biblical texts, and the book's thesis is one that makes it very clear_ that it is not_ a book about spirituality, or creationism. It deals on a clearly intellectual level, and works very hard not to cross the threshold of religion. That would make Behe less credible, and it would jeopardize his position as an biochemist/academic.

_People use it as a shill, not Behe._
That is why I think it is necessary to read the book to boast such a claim.

 I said pseudo-Christianity because I understood what you said in your first post -- that people can interpret it as a shill. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, I was responding to your post.

Neodarwinian Evolution does have some rather detrimental holes when it comes to application. I am glad we can find some common ground on this topic  
But what I was going at with the concept of intelligent design is that the book attacks that lack of consistency on the biochemical level. Behe's thesis goes on to intelligent design, but you can always disregard that if desired. 

I find it incredibly ironic though, that when the world of science finally meets the world of spirituality, even on an issue that may not be something worth meeting through, many on both sides react with hostility. 

The idea of the book has attracted both sides, but I find it unfortunate that people horde their pride, and cannot see the simple truth that they were brought together nonetheless.


I would highly suggest reading the book though, if not only to affirm your objections.


----------



## Hodge (Aug 17, 2005)

> For example: A motorcycle is irreducible complex. It is roughly a bicycle with an internal combustion engine, and its supporting elements. A bicycle, by its own accord, cannot evolve into a motorcycle. That would mean one day a bicycle was in a garage, and a freak explosion destroys the car, and the engine and all of the parts are crammed together into a motorcycle, and a person comes along and starts using this new machine.
> No, a bicycle can only be formed if it is compiled with a certain combination of parts to create a functioning motorcycle. It is something that was created for a purpose -- the purpose of functionality. Behe then infers that this can be explained by the idea that is was intelligently designed by something who knew what the end product would be.
> Please do not refute this example by saying a bicycle is not a living being. Contrast it and synthesize the concept to living organisms



I like this example. It fools the uneducated masses who know little about evolution because it sounds so good. But it's flawed in two ways.

1) The odds of this happening are indeed slim, but not nonexistant. Blow up the car next to the bike a few trillion times and you'll have something comparable to evolution (remember, this has been happening for billions of years—it's not one isolated incident).

2) Evolution doesn't even work this way. Micro evolution has been proven. Your side argues that macro evolution isn't right because something can't become another species (it can only change small traits). Two things about this:

a. What are species? Does nature classify all of her organisms into little groups or is that something we did to make it more organized?

b. Micro evolution is when an organism goes through a small change. We can replicate this at whim with bacteria in laboratories, and we've even documented it in our own species (some people are now being born with natural resistance to nicotine). 

Let me ask you this: if an organism goes through a small change every, say, 1,000 years for 100 million years, would all of those small changes (100,000, to be exact) not add up? And if all of those micro evolutionary changes stacked up on top of each other, would that not be a very different organism than the one that started out? 

This is macro evolution. Micro evolution times a big number. There's no big secret here and certainly no need for intelligent design. Things seem to work out so well because things that don't work out _don't work out_ and don't survive.

To say that everything is so complex that it must have been driven by some intelligent force is a very bad argument. You are essentially saying that since we know so little, we know it must be such and such.


----------

