Archaeologica.org

Let me ask a third time since this questions is somewhat of the root question for my thread...

Interested Onlooker wrote:Just high level, it would seem that who we are today is more than evolution can account for. Evolution's 'laws' are very scientific...all based on survival.

We have traits that are not in-line with evolution. Agreed?

Agreed?

Yes - 0
No - 0




Go!

I'm not sure I would agree that they are based on survival, procreation more like, with survival based on chance.

Look at alzheimer's disease. It typically strikes long after the prime reproductive phase is over, therefore it has little to do with survival.

I/O

Put me down as a disagree. Evolution isn't a predetermined path. Nor is it merely a tool for developing 'better' traits. Much of evolution is random chance. Traits that increase chance of survival or procreation naturally stand a good chance of being passed on, but some traits that confer disadvantages might not be 'weeded out' of the gene pool if the disadvantages are not very costly or do not occur until old age.

I've often thought that there must be a fairly narrow range of acceptable changes within the DNA strand.

For example, we can cite red hair or blond hair as a genetic mutation but this is a mainly cosmetic change for the organism. A more basic change - such as a mutation in the gene which enables the organism to convert food to energy is going to kill the organism probably before it is ever born. Likewise, an organism born without the ability to produce hemoglobin is not going to last long.

So we have a basic blueprint for life and then we get into the question of what makes life forms different? How much of the DNA strand is shared between all vertebrates? I haven't got a clue but I suspect the percentage is fairly high.

This also has damn little to do with archaeology.

Well, maybe not archeology specifically, but genetics does fall under anthropology as a whole.

Digit wrote:I'm not sure I would agree that they are based on survival, procreation more like, with survival based on chance.

Procreation only ensures that genes pass from one generation to the next regardless of the genetic qualities being passed.

Survival for an individual could be determined by chance. Survival of a gene pool has more to do with natural selection.

Minimalist wrote:Look at alzheimer's disease. It typically strikes long after the prime reproductive phase is over, therefore it has little to do with survival.

Let me respond to Dannan which may help explain my question better.

And yes, this does relate back to archaeology, please bare with me.

Just high level, it would seem that who we are today is more than evolution can account for. Evolution's 'laws' are very scientific...all based on survival.

We have traits that are not in-line with evolution. Agreed?

Hello I/O, can you give me a couple of traits that you're talking about. Then I think I'll be able to give you an opinion.

dannan14 wrote:I/O

Put me down as a disagree. Evolution isn't a predetermined path. Nor is it merely a tool for developing 'better' traits. Much of evolution is random chance. Traits that increase chance of survival or procreation naturally stand a good chance of being passed on, but some traits that confer disadvantages might not be 'weeded out' of the gene pool if the disadvantages are not very costly or do not occur until old age.

I agree, evolution is not a pre-determined path. Random mutations do create favorable and unfavorable traits which are all subject to natural selection.

It's the magnitude of difference that's not being accounted for. Is there not a difference between 10's of thousands of years of a relatively static hunting and gathering lifestyle to Mozart?

I can understand how evolution would explain the chance event that a human was born with a unique quality such as improved strengh or increased endurance. Even someone born with having a higher intellect, but I want to try to keep this into perspective.

We have traits that are not consistent within the parameters of evolution that can be sited.

When I asked whether we had traits that are not in-line with evolution is because I believe that the magnitude and qualities are outside the boundaries of what evolution can account for.

I think that the difference is not reflected by physical appearance but it has more to do with mental ability.

Does this make any more sense or am I out on a limb?

Interested Onlooker wrote: We have traits that are not consistent within the parameters of evolution that can be sited.

i don't know what you mean here.

dannan14 wrote:

Interested Onlooker wrote: We have traits that are not consistent within the parameters of evolution that can be sited.

i don't know what you mean here.

What evolutionary event, regardless of species or time period, do you find to be the most extraordinary?

How about some examples of the parameters and the traits that cross them?

Dannan, I see your point in that parameters was not the correct choice of words since evolutionary change is not bound by any known parameters. In addition, if a change occurs it has to be either benign or favorable to survive.

What evolutionary event, regardless of species or time period, do you find to be the most extraordinary?