Thread: Are Humans Still Evolving?

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.

Originally Posted by starrwriter

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.

Originally Posted by starrwriter

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?

Originally Posted by starrwriter

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.

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.