Questions for Evolutionists: Is the Turkey Buzzard More Evolved than Me?

It seems the confusion may be in the distinction between survival of one particular member of the species and the species itself. It isn’t about how long each member lives but how long the species can survive.

So the Mayfly as a species may be very well adapted for survival, even while each individual Mayfly exists for only a brief time. In the same way, it seems that even though some species may have individual members that survive for hundreds of years, the species itself may not be able to adapt quickly to changes and can therefore not survive over the long run.

I can answer this for the evolutionists.

Where am I wrong here? Am I assuming that survival is the issue? But if it is not, what is?

Like Michael T said, it’s not about individual survival. It’s not even quite about species survival. By evolutionary standards, it’s about your genes’ survival–or rather your genes’ propagation.

It doesn’t matter how long you live–it matters that you have lots of descendants who have lots of descendants. If you lived just 2 years, but had 100 kids who each had 100 kids, then you would be “surviving” better in evolutionary terms than someone who lives 1000 years and has just 2 kids.

Please don’t think of this as an argument. It is not. It is a series of sincere questions. I am certainly not an expert here.

It primarily pertains to those who are naturalistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists (not intellegent design guys, for it would not apply).

Again, the questions are these (all in the same domain):

Is man the most evolved? Why?
If not, what determines the success of evolution?
If it is only survival of the species, why evolve beyond an single celled organizam? or a fish? or a whale?

How could we separate the survival of a species from the survival of the individuals within those species. Seems like quite a dichotomy. How can you separate the two?
What makes evolution successful if not practical survival (rather than a very bizzare idea that as long as the species as a whole survives, we are good)?

The most transparent problem with your question is the notion that something or other can be “more evolved” or “more complex”. There is no sense in which one species can be “better” than another except by our externally imposed ideals.

Steve,

Again, this is a question.

To all: don’t get defensive. I have no problem with Evolution. Have never accepted it, but if there were good reasons to it would not alter or shake my Evangelical faith at all. It should not anyones.

Try to imagine that there are people out there like me who are not combating an idea they find threatening, but truly wrestling with this issue.

Defensiveness is a turn off in any area.

Steve,

So you would say that man is not the most evolved? Would you say that any species is more evolved than another. If so, what are the qualifications?

?

I do hope you didn’t read any defensiveness in my response, or even in the previous responses.

No, man is not the most evolved as a species. That is based on an assumption of teleology absent from evolution. We have adapted in ways we happen to prefer (intelligence, God-consciousness, etc.), but as you noted, there are certainly other traits we would like to have that others do (longevity, etc.). 🙂

Could it be because that somewhere along the line the Lord Himself changed our human survival to 70 years, as stated in Psalms 90:10?. The question is always why? Could it be that that we use more resources than the animals CMP mentioned, or we don’t respect the earth, or the Lord as we should, or it is because when our unique species began to go forth and multiply, as the Lord intended He had to put a limit on our years to insure we had enough resources for our growing numbers to survive adequately ?

Interesting, that for whatever reason, in Christ’s time the life span had dropped to less than 40 years.

Steve, I understand your answer from the standpoint of someone who believes that God is guiding the process and possibly built in intellegent design, but can other type of evolutionist confirm that man is the most evolved? It would seem that naturalistic evolution really cannot since there is no priority above survival (at least from what I understand).

As well, I have also hear arguments from evolutionist that say that man’s growing lifespan is a evidence for evolution. Now, having been in the buisness that I am for so long, I know that not all arguements are represenative of the position and can be strawmen that are irresponsible. Therefore, I am not proposing this as the purpose of evolution.

Steve, I think the popular belief, especially in the media, is that man is the most evolved. I hate to be such a sci-fi nerd here…but do you remember the Star Trek TNG episode where the crew de-evolved into lower species and all chaos broke out in the ship. I know that may sound like a crude illustration but the idea in the episode, imo, was the the current state of man was more superior than before. And it seems to me that in that show, as well as other popular movies, is that we are evolving into something better. I’m not a scientist and I don’t know what current scientist would think of this…but as far as popular culture is concerned I think that is the belief…that we are evolving into something better. I’m not a young earth advocate. I think the universe is billions of years old…but I also think that man (whether through some direct intervention from God or through theistic evolution…and that is a discussion all in itself) is a special creation with the breath of God breathed into him, created in His image.

In order for something to be deemed a “success” or positive improvement there must be a purpose. Evolution is one explanation for what is, there is no purpose, therefore any idea of better is a purely subjective judgement. You cannot possibly move from there to any kind of universal ought or value statement … that doesn’t stop many people from trying though.

John,

Regarding my comment above and yours:

” I’m not a young earth advocate. I think the universe is billions of years old…but I also think that man (whether through some direct intervention from God or through theistic evolution…and that is a discussion all in itself) is a special creation with the breath of God breathed into him, created in His image.’

Wondering how much of this is a spiritual punishment, and how much is equated with our innate human ability to survive anything. Who determines that?

Looking at the plagues which have wiped out so many millions of humans over the years, while other supposedly evolutionalized species have survived, and even thrived, one has to wonder.

mbaker,

Not sure if I understand the question. Sorry.

My statement had to do with the age of the universe. Again, I think it’s billions of years old and not 6 to 10 thousand years old.

John,

just saying that if God made us a unique species, different from all the rest, why would we as young or old creationists (of which I am one also) also have to wonder at His wisdom in creating us in a fiinite universe different from the animals who only exist upon their ability to survive physically. Aren’t we supposed to be higher spiirtually than them, and thus subject to God’s will as far as survival?

mbaker,

So you are an old earth advocate (you didn’t say former or latter, but I’m assuming, if I understand you correctly, that you are)? You are also advocating that God has shortened the lifespan of man in order not to use up the resources on earth? Just trying to clarify some things before I continue. If this is the case, I suppose you could be correct, but I’m not sure about the lifespan thing. The first eleven chapters of Genesis are tricky, especially with Hebrew numbers. If this is the case how do you explain the 6 to 10 billion people on the planet today. Seems like we’re using a lot of resources now. Have I missed something?

CMP,
Re: 4

You’re kinda moving the goal posts here by asking more questions which may be more relevant. The fact still remains that the post itself is nonsensical since it doesn’t grasp the basic premises of evolutionary theory or what an evolutionary theory means by survival. Jugulum hit the nail on the head in Post 3.

As to the other questions you raise.

Is man the most evolved? Why?

To a naturalistic evolutionist this question is nonsensical since as others pointed out it requires an objective idea of what it means to be most evolved. Such an ideal can only come from religion and since naturalism reject God this ideal cannot exist in their thinking.

From a theistic evolution perspective it would be argued that man is probably the most evolved for a number of reasons. 1) Man’s capacity to reason and therefore adapt more readily, 2) Man’s consciousness of God, 3) God’s endowment of man with a spirit/soul (not trying to raise a debate about the constitution of humans here – just giving what some might say).

If not, what determines the success of evolution?

To a naturalistic evolutionist pure chance determined by the environment in which you are placed and the extent to which you’re genes allow you to adapt to that environment determine whether or not you are successful in the evolutionary sense (you pass you’re genes on).

To a theistic evolutionist the process is God guided and therefore the success if contingent upon things working out the way God intended.

If it is only survival of the species, why evolve beyond an single celled organizam? or a fish? or a whale?

Because fish can eat the single celled organism….

John,

I am saying that God created man with a spiritual connection to Him, whether it is acknowledged or not. I.e., do not all people, savages, or not instrincally know there is something higher than them, and worship gods of some kind, even if it is not our God?

So,no, I am not saying it’s simply a resource thing, only asking a rhetorical question as to why God at some point limited our human life span, as stated in Pslams 90:10, and asking was it spiritual or physical.

Actually, it’s the theistic evolutionist who is likeliest to posit a teleology to evolution, and to conclude that man is the goal of evolution. Strictly in scientific terms, though, “most evolved” doesn’t mean anything objective, unless you want to count an impossible-to-quantify number of genetic modifications passed down. Swimming? The most evolved for that live in the sea. Walking upright? Humans win! Producing offspring? Rabbits have us beat. You see what I mean?

A part of the confusion is the popular “Ascent of Man” poster, which was a romanticized view of human evolution that scientists nowadays want to puke over. It’s the one showing an ape on the left and gradually taller and more “human” versions to the right.

If this is an honest question (and I do believe it is!) and you really want to know (and I do believe you do!), I can’t recommend enough a talk by Dr. Steve Matheson, biology prof at Calvin College. Here’s the link to the first section that talks about the Ascent of Man poster (around 8:30ff): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvhahO8O_rU&feature=watch_response_rev

(Edit: he critiques it more explicitly at the beginning of the second video.)

In the evolutionary sense….once your past childbearing and passing your genes to the next generation you’re done. Except possibly for some higher level societal aspects where your life helps your children survive to child bearing age as well.

So Chad, how does this statement equate with the Christian faith, that is assuming you are of that persuasion?

“In the evolutionary sense….once your past childbearing and passing your genes to the next generation you’re done. Except possibly for some higher level societal aspects where your life helps your children survive to child bearing age as well.”

If I am not mistaken, that is the point of this post.

Your set up ruined your intentions. It remindes me of a preacher who used a business example of how john scully had to save apple – which he use 2 weeks after Jobs just replaced him – your arguement is valueless if you base it on false presuppisitions.

My recomendation, start over, skip your first part

The problem here is surmising that a fly producing 30 kids within 2 days vs. a human producing 6 kids in 70 years is what living is about, living is not about surviving, eventually all and everthing dies. The fly and the human. The question for the evolutionist is..Is the turkey buzzard aware of their mortality? Does the turkey buzzard feel guilt? Paint? Write? Does the turkey buzzard build nests dedicated to a god? any god? Can a turkey buzzard drive? nope. Turkey buzzards are dense. Why are they dense? We aren’t.

Shorter lives allow for more rapid adaptation. The older living creatures tend to have less need for adaptation.

evolution is defined as the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.

Some of the other commenters have pointed out the confusion in the OP between individual survival, and the survival of species, and the survival of genes.

(1) Is man the most evolved? Why?
(2) If not, what determines the success of evolution?
(3)If it is only survival of the species, why evolve beyond an single celled organizam? or a fish? or a whale?

(1) No species or more evolved than any other species. unlike distance, there is no way to measure if one species is more evolved than another.

Some people argue that humans are the most evolved because they have the biggest brain. However, an equally strong argument could say that platypuses are the most evolved because they have a bill that is optimal for finding food. Or for any trait of any living thing.

(2)I’m not sure what you mean. I’m guessing that you mean: “What determines the success of a (individual, species, allelle) in the evolutionary process”

An individual is successful if it has many offspring, who themselves have many offspring, etc..

A species is successful if it continues its existence. If it survives.

An allelle (a variant of a gene) is successful if it becomes proportionately more common within a species.

(3) Evolution is happening all the time. There is no way for a species to say: “we are comfortable here, let’s stop evolving”. When a new individual is conceived, it may have 20,000 genes, and, say, 10 of the genes have random mutations. This individual has evolved – it has a new unique combination of genes. Every individual ever born, and every individual alive today, has evolved.

An individual or species or gene does not choose to evolve. it is forced upon them.

CMP said:
“Steve, I understand your answer from the standpoint of someone who believes that God is guiding the process and possibly built in intellegent design, but can other type of evolutionist confirm that man is the most evolved? It would seem that naturalistic evolution really cannot since there is no priority above survival (at least from what I understand).”

survival is not the priority of the evolutionary process. Evolution is driven by genes that ‘want to’ make as many copies of themselves as possible.

a gene is just a large and complicated molecule, so it can’t do anything by itself.

in order to replicate themselves, genes group together into individuals. humans have roughly 23,000 protein-encoding genes. Now, these genes work together to replicate themselves. They do this by instructing the individual to reproduce.

When a lady-human and a man-human have a child, half of the genes from each parent copy themselves in to the child. Now, there is a new combination of ~23000 protein-encoding genes that exist to form the child.

so, the priority of evolution is not survival. The priority is the ‘desire’ of genes to replicate.

CMP said:
“As well, I have also hear arguments from evolutionist that say that man’s growing lifespan is a evidence for evolution. Now, having been in the buisness that I am for so long, I know that not all arguements are represenative of the position and can be strawmen that are irresponsible. Therefore, I am not proposing this as the purpose of evolution.”

evolution has no purpose. The genes do not gather together in secret meetings and say to each other in hushed tones: “Lets make an organism that is a giant cube! That would be awesome!”

The genes are merely trying to copy themselves as many times as possible. And they temporarily co-operate with each other when they are grouped together within an individual.

This is good stuff. Don’t know how accurate any of it is (as these type of forums are not the best place to seek information).

However, if what you say is true, that evolution is not really “evolution” in the sense of anything evolving and getting better, then complexity does not make any sense to me. In other words, if single celled organisms are not any more or less evolved than human being with all the complexities involved, what is the reason organisms become more complex? Why speak of the development of language in the evolutionary progress if it is not really “progress.” Why the lack of contentment among these genes (*who don’t have any mind, will, or purpose, but yet seem to have autonomous intelligence far beyond the most “advanced” of us all.)

And again, I don’t see how anyone can separate the survival of species from the survival of the individual. After all, it always has to start at an individual level. Do evolutionists believe that their is some sort of symbiotic connection between you and I as humans and our genes are somehow incohoots to make sure the species survives? What is the intelligence called in this scenario?

Man, it sure seems to take a lot of faith to believe this stuff.

Again, I know that this is not the place for me to find the answers for these questions.

CMP,
I am not a believer in naturalistic evolution, however from other interactions I know the position well so I will attempt to clarify somethings.

1. “However, if what you say is true, that evolution is not really “evolution” in the sense of anything evolving and getting better”

Something “evolving and getting better” assumes teleology. Naturalistic evolution knows no such concept. It is a completely aimless, random, and meaningless process. Naturalistic evolution simply says that those creatures with random mutations that are beneficial to survival in their environment will be more likely to survive and pass on their genes, while those with disadvantageous mutations or standard makeups will be less likely to. It’s all completely random, completely aimless, and completely purposeless. If you are lucky enough to have a beneficial mutation you simply won the genetic lottery and and more likely to survive and pass on your genes.

2. “In other words, if single celled organisms are not any more or less evolved than human being with all the complexities involved, what is the reason organisms become more complex?”

There is no reason per se. It’s not like there’s any intelligence at play here. It is simply that the mutations which lead to more complex creatures bestowed some survival advantage on the individuals with those mutations causing them to pass on their genes.

3. “And again, I don’t see how anyone can separate the survival of species from the survival of the individual.”

They aren’t separate per se. It’s just not about how long the individual lives. Rather it’s about how capable they are of living long enough to pass on their genes and produce offspring. If I have a genetic mutation that allows me to live 1000 years but renders me sterile my genes won’t be passed on and will die with me. I will be for evolutionary purposes extinct.

“Why speak of the development of language in the evolutionary progress if it is not really “progress.”

Evolutionary progress can be defined as the ability to do something better than it could be done by previous generations, such as jump higher, run faster, fly greater distances, avoid predators, etc. If you consider a particular change good, that’s progress. If you consider a change bad, that’s regress.

“Why the lack of contentment among these genes (*who don’t have any mind, will, or purpose, but yet seem to have autonomous intelligence far beyond the most “advanced” of us all.)”

Mutations happen. That’s life. The genes don’t know if or when they are mutated, and the copying mechanism does not know or care.

“And again, I don’t see how anyone can separate the survival of species from the survival of the individual. After all, it always has to start at an individual level.”

The length of survival of an individual is longevity. The individual’s ability to propagate his genes during the length of his survival affects the survival of his species.

“Do evolutionists believe that their is some sort of symbiotic connection between you and I as humans and our genes are somehow incohoots to make sure the species survives? What is the intelligence called in this scenario?”

No cohoots, no symbiotic connection. We are just descendants of a common ancestor in branches of the family tree that happened to survive to this generation. Other branches were not so lucky, especially those where a genetic mutation negatively affected their ability to reproduce. The way things have worked out, it looks as though my particular branch will end with me, as will all of the awesome genetic mutations that were bestowed solely upon me when I was created. As long as other branches do not end, the species survives.

Evolution is really a misnomer implying a change from a higher to lower life form. Most biologists at work call it natural selection, and the “evidence” that is touted and strongest is for natural selection. This means that a species has natural variations in it’s genome (mutations) and environment changes may make one of these variations “better” in the current environment and lead to more offspring surviving.
This could be better coloration to match the environment. A classic example is higher numbers of dark moths surviving in industrial Britian in the 1800s as the tree bark darkened from soot. In the 20th century the ratio of dark to light moths lightened again as the trees did.
They have a much harder time with speciation (change from one species to another), darwins finches were all finches, even if different islands required different beak sizes. It could be as easily argued that God allowed varation in the species to ensure survivability in changing environments.
And they have made zero progress on proving abiogenesis, the original beginning of life. How do amino acids come alive in the first place? This failed so regulary that one of the Crick/Watson duo that “found” DNA postulated that aliens must have done it (which just pushes the problem back and is basically ID)

A classic example is higher numbers of dark moths surviving in industrial Britian in the 1800s as the tree bark darkened from soot. In the 20th century the ratio of dark to light moths lightened again as the trees did.

I have heard the support for this example was faked. And it still has the problem that the only thing that changed was color. So what, there are multiple colors within many species.

I might embrace evolution more fully if someone would just come up with a 2 celled amoeba. They have a very short life-cycle, so there are many, many generations within a short time span. We can manipulate their environment all we like. How come no one has made an amoeba evolve into a different species?

I did hear that someone produced a fruit fly with an extra set of wings, but IIRC, it could neither fly nor reproduce.

“And it still has the problem that the only thing that changed was color. So what, there are multiple colors within many species.”

I think we are in agreement: natural selection of variations within a species does not equal evolution. The moths remain a classic example taught in schools and most evolutionary arguments are based on it or similar occurences. (wikipedia has a pretty fair article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution)

My point is that the extrapolation of this to “evolution” and “life from non-life” is not supported and these types of natural selection are the extent of the “overwhelming evidence for evolution” that we hear so much about.

Its the evolutionists who have a “leap of faith” that natural selection results in different species and increased complexity over time

Regarding peppered moths, I’d recommend that people not get their information from Jonathan Wells or anyone else at the Discovery Institute.

Peppered Moths
Where Peppered Moths Rest
Moth study backs classic ‘test case’ for Darwin’s theory

Also, on this topic, in addition to Steve’s videos I’d recommend these from the same channel;
Human Genomics: Vestiges of Eden or Skeletons in the Closet?
Can an Evangelical Christian Accept Evolution?

Michael,

I agree with the critiques of your initial argument above: you are confounding “survival of the species” and “survival of individual members of a species” when these are two different concepts. A species whose members lived for 1000 years, but were incapable of reproducing, would not be successful from an evolutionary standpoint (that is, genes are not passed on, the species does not continue), even if those individual members survive for a very long time. On the other hand, the mayfly is actually a great example of a species that is very successful from an evolutionary standpoint (that is, genes are passed down, the species does continue), even if the individuals are not successful. But even then, “not successful” is a bit of begging the question, as we’re defining it from our perspective (individuals who live for decades) as opposed to theirs (individuals who live for minutes).

However, you asked some very specific questions that don’t appear (all) to have been (entirely) answered yet (those from the fourth comment above), so I thought I would attempt to do that for you. Because of character limitations, I will have to break up the post, but I’ll try and arrange them coherently. I won’t make any promises, but I will try!

What determines the success of evolution?

Generally speaking, a species is successful if it is able to pass genes off to the next generation. Species can do this more often (and so, in one sense, are even more successful) when there is mutation, and some of the mutated traits improve individuals’ ability to pass those genes on. What is referred to as “natural selection” is really just this process happening again and again over a long period of time. The idea is that, over a long enough period of time, individual members of a species become so distinct that they are better classified as members of different species (so, speciation).

If it is only survival of the species, why evolve beyond an single celled organizam? or a fish? or a whale?

Well, because in some environments, it’s easier to be a whale or a fish than a single-celled organism. “Easier,” of course, meaning better suited to passing on one’s genes, thereby ensuring the further survival of the species for at least one generation.

How could we separate the survival of a species from the survival of the individuals within those species. Seems like quite a dichotomy. How can you separate the two?

By recognizing that they are actually two very distinct things that only seem similar at first. To riff off an example I used above, let’s say there were some trait, some mutation, that allowed my brother to live for 1000 years, but made him incapable of reproduction. On an individual level, he will be much more “successful” than I will: he’s going to live for 1000 years! But on a species level, I will be much more successful (assuming I have children), because my genes will be passed on, whereas his will not. My genes have the ability to influence future generations, whereas his do not. This is not even to say that one type of survival is definitively better than another, merely that they are two different things.

What makes evolution successful if not practical survival (rather than a very bizzare idea that as long as the species as a whole survives, we are good)?

First of all, practical survival, while not being the only measure of success, certainly is important. A trait that gives an individual member of the species a longer lifespan, thereby giving that member more chances to reproduce and pass that trait along, will likely be favored in natural selection.

What makes natural selection so successful is that it is a very efficient way to select for such traits. If a trait improves the individual’s ability to reproduce, that trait will be favored. If it does not, then it won’t be favored (because the individuals who possess it won’t have as many opportunities to reproduce).

Second of all, what should be bizarre about the idea that whole species survival is better than an individual’s survival? You seem to come from the perspective that longer is better. If one were to look at earth’s history using a bit more broad timeline than a decade, century, or even millenium, and if one were to value, in the same way you do, length of time as a unit of measurement for success, than a species whose members live for a 1000 years but then all die off (thus ending the species) is far less successful than the much-maligned mayfly, who lives for but a moment, but successfully passes its genes on to continue to species for millenium after millenium.

Where and why do the genomes find this need or “desire” to replicate. What is the emotive force behind it? Why not just die out? Who or what determines that it is better to survive than to die?

BTW: I do appreciate the engagement here. I don’t have much time, but I am trying to understand here something that is far outside of my field of study and (most of the time) interest.

Let me take a stab at CMP’s original question:

Is man the most evolved? Why?

I would say from a scientific point of view, the question does not make sense, but from a TE point of view, I would affirm “Yes we are.”

Recognizing that TE is primarily a theological not scientific position I would point out that God told Man, as His image bearer, to have dominion over the earth. I think it is obvious that man is the most dominant species on the planet. We can change the environment drastically. We can wipe out species and save species. And by understanding how God created, we can become better stewards of creation, and better lovers of God.

Secondly, if being successful in evolution means surviving as a species, humans are the most adaptable species. Humans can go and survive in places that no other species can. We can survive changes in environment that no other higher/complex species can.

Finally, if being more evolved means having original or surprising traits, then human intelligence tops the list. (BTW Human intelligence/consciousness is one of the most compelling reasons for not believing in a reductionistic materialistic world view.)

In summary, the human species is most evolved because of its dominance, adaptability, and intelligence.

Is man the most evolved? Why?

It depends on how you define “most evolved.” If you mean “most iterations of gene-passing/most mutations,” then, no, man almost certainly isn’t the most evolved. As is pointed out above, species whose individuals live shorter lives (but still reproduce) go through generations more quickly, and therefore have far more mutations than relatively long-living species like humans and turtles and the others you list.

If you mean something like “species whose individuals live the longest,” then, again, no. As you point out above, there are plenty of species whose individuals live longer. Indeed, there are many more species than those you list, if you also include plant organisms that can live for centuries.

Even if you mean something like “most able to adapt their environment to themselves, rather than merely adapt to their environment,” it’s not entirely clear we’d win that contest. There are various species of plankton that are able to induce cloud formation, thereby lessening their exposure (and eventual death due to that exposure) to UV radiation.

I’m guessing, though, that you mean most evolved in the sense of intelligence, rationality, moral reasoning, language, and a host of other characteristics that our brains (and some corresponding physical structures) make us very good at. So, if we define “most evolved” like this, then, yes, we are the most evolved.

The answer to your first question (which I put last) depends entirely on how the terms in the question are defined. Beyond which, it is not a question that science is really set up to answer. The process of scientific naturalism is very good at making observations about nature, attempting to explain those observations, and then predicting things to test those explanations. In other words, it’s very good at asking “what is the way things are, and what might explain what things were like in the past and what they will be like in the future?” It’s not very good at asking “why are things the way they are?” That’s the beauty of philosophy and religion, and that’s exactly why I disagree with those who view the latter as appendices (useless vestiges from the distant past) among the modern disciplines.

So then, I hope I’ve shed some light on how evolution answers your questions in some cases, and helped you see in other cases how the answer depends almost entirely on how you define the terms of the question.

I might warn you, though, sometimes it looks a bit like your questions are not sincere inquiries, as when you appear to look to foster a contradiction between one sense of “most evolved” (the last) with another (the second), in order to make evolution (and those who believe that it is an accurate scientific understanding/depiction of the natural world) look foolish. Or when you make comments like “Man, it sure seems to take a lot of faith to believe this stuff.” Or when you say “I know that this is not the place for me to find the answers for these questions.” If this isn’t the place, then why ask them here?

Just something to consider for next time.

The previous post was the last of my initial response, but in the time it took me to post the comments (and I have some vague awareness from past discussions that posting multiple comments is actually frowned upon, for which I apologize, and throw myself upon your mercy, noting only that I tried to limit my responses to your questions, be as succinct as possible–a characteristic this parenthetical obvious belies–while still adequately answering them), you asked another great question.

Where and why do the genomes find this need or “desire” to replicate. What is the emotive force behind it? Why not just die out? Who or what determines that it is better to survive than to die?

I did this a number of times in my comments, and so have others, when we speak of what a species “wants” or what science “does.” This kind of language is great in that it’s a great shorthand that we, as creatures who want and do things, understand immediately. But, as with any shorthand, it’s limited in how much it accurately describes natural processes and abstract concepts. Genomes, genes, species, science, etc., do not “desire” anything. They do not have thoughts, and they don’t care one lick about survival. See, even in this explanation I cannot get away from personifying language. It’s not that they don’t care, it’s that they neither care nor don’t care. They are just things. They do not determine that it is better to survive than to die. It is merely the case that those traits that promote longer survival, and more opportunities to reproduce, will be more likely to be passed on to the next generation than will traits that do not promote longer survival.

CMP,
“Where and why do the genomes find this need or “desire” to replicate. What is the emotive force behind it?”

The genomes do not have a “desire” to replicate. There is no intelligence involved. Rather (from a naturalistic, deterministic perspective) creatures have genetic makeups which cause them to instinctively desire to reproduce. These instincts are in turn the result of random beneficial genetic mutations.

Ultimately any terminology when talking about evolution which implies intelligence or purpose is anthropomorphic.

“Why not just die out?”

Many species have and continue to go extinct when the genetic traits they carry prove disadvantageous for the environment in which they exist.

“Who or what determines that it is better to survive than to die?”

No one. One is not better than the other from a strictly evolutionary perspective.

Tim (and all the rest),

I do appreciate so much you tempered responses here. I do see what one person said that this comes across as snarky. I don’t mean it to. It is coming from someone who having thought about this and asked a lot of questions remains very confused.

My biggest facination with this is that all the people that I feel like are respectable and without an agenda come down on the side of evolution these days. It seems pretty well accepted and I respect scholarly consensus when agendas don’t seem to be the motivating factor.

Forgive me for my stubborness, but the explanations have not given any reason for me to separate the “desire” (and I know that does not work for NE) to reproduce from the desire to live. They seem to be one and the same. Why reproduce if life is not the goal?

As well, this “unguided guide” of NE seems to produce the greatest leap of faith that I can imagine. I know that you TEs and IDs will agree and that would be your very argument.

I know that the original post seems to equivocate in a ill-informed way, but it still makes sense to me!

There are a hundred other questions that I have, but these were just some that were on my mind.

Michael love the theology, but man you got to study science a WHOLE LOT more before posting such things. Seriously read some good books on the subject that have no religious bias or agenda(some will actually be written by Evangelical scientist!) just read the straight science books for awhile. Carl Zimmer is fantastic at explaining it in his book “Evolution”

Michael T,

This makes some sense:

“”Why not just die out?”

Many species have and continue to go extinct when the genetic traits they carry prove disadvantageous for the environment in which they exist.”

However, the mechanism that causes them to change and adjust has as its goal survival. In other words, those species did not die out randomly, they died out because the failed to adjust. Their “instinctive desire,” as you called it, (which I find hard to separate from willful desire in any possible world), did not “work.”

(Ha, look at all the “” I have to put around everything in order to understand it…I feel as if I am talking about the nature of God!)

In other words, something is pushing them toward survival. The species only starts with one, therefore, at some point the sigular entity wanted to survive.

Anselm,

Touche my friend.

BTW: Love the name.

Michael,

Forgive me for my stubborness, but the explanations have not given any reason for me to separate the “desire” (and I know that does not work for NE) to reproduce from the desire to live. They seem to be one and the same. Why reproduce if life is not the goal?

In NE, there isn’t a goal. Reproduction isn’t even a “goal”. There’s only a description of an effect: If a breed’s genetic traits lead to more descendants, then there will be more of that breed around in the future.

Or in other words: If your family has 10-times more kids than other families, then America will be mostly Pattons 200 years down the road.

If a genetic trait makes that more likely, then those traits will usually be preserved. (A longer individual lifespan might help that happen, but only if you keep having more kids or if you help take care of your grandkids.)

If you lived 200 years but had 0 kids, then America would only have one Patton.

That much is straightforward cause-and-effect.

As well, this “unguided guide” of NE seems to produce the greatest leap of faith that I can imagine.

Hmm, that’s strange. (Though I might be misunderstanding you.) I would say that the natural selection part of evolution is the easiest, most straightforward, obvious part of the theory. I don’t know where you’re seeing a leap of faith.

The leap of faith isn’t at the mechanism for preserving or favoring certain genes. The leap of faith is that mutations will produce those genes. (It’s easy to preserve the information—generating it, not so much.) Natural selection pretty easily pushes you down a genetic pathway once it opens—the question is whether a pathway even exists. (If there’s no mutation that could take you there, or if the mutations just don’t happen, then the species can’t travel down the pathway.)