The key questions really are: how fast is “fast”? and how slow is “slow”?

In the fossil record, there are periods of relative stability that last millions or tens of millions of years with only small changes observed in fossils within the stratum. By comparison, a change that takes 100,000 years will appear sudden when viewed from our perspective. But, actually, 100,000 years is a long time (Arguably, human civilisation has been around for less than 10,000 years).

100,000 years will also be 100,000 generations for many organisms (it’s about 4000 – 5000 generations even for humans), and much adaptive change can occur in 100,000 generations.

Have to disagree with you on that one.
If our organs are ridiculously poor we’d hardly make it to age of 10. Of course our organs are not perfect, but they arent ridiculously poor.

Religion hardcore fanatics (fundies or whatever they call themselves) piss me off too. Not fond of hardcore atheists either. Bunch of closed minded idiots that make normal religious and atheist peple look bad.

Take care.

I see what you’re saying and I have to pretty much agree. What’s with this outbreak of reasonableness here.

This discussion kinda reminds me of a conversation I had with my wife a few months ago…. From a purely genetic point-of-view, our adopting our cats is the worst thing that could happen to them. We had them neutered, of course, which means that their genes will never go back into the gene pool. And their “lines” will end with them. And they all seem to be pretty healthy cats so their genes might’ve done the population some good.

They’re still awfully cute though.

It’s a common misunderstanding that pops up in many places. Creationists will argue that if the solar system formed according to the laws of physics, then we shouldn’t see the oddities (in orbits, axes of rotation, etc) that we see.

I find it fascinating that many people equate the chaotic variability of the natural world with an omniscient creator, as though only a perfect intelligence could/would create something so imperfect.

Comments like “ridiculously poorly designed organs” only serve to confuse the issue, Phil.

And to answer your question, “are we, the humans, in the path of the deer”. Quite possibly. Although my belief is that we will continue to learn and gain knowledge that will allow us to find ways to sustain ourselves on resources that are not finite… that we will learn to propogate our species to other planets… and in doing so ensure our survival.

And that’s really my question… can that process of learning and gaining knowledge, and thereby knowing better how to adapt and survive as a species, be defined as an evolutionary process?

Yes, in my case the image that does not leave my head is this:

When the wolves are exterminated the population of deer increases exponentially until the supply of food becomes scarce, but when that happens the shortage is so severe that the deer can extinguish altogether.

Are we, the humans in the path of the deer?

I can’t disagree with that… in fact, that very thought process ocurred to me just the other day while I was watching a Discovery Health channel program on a little girl who was born with severe deformities and all the trials and surgeries she will need to endure just to survive. Clearly, we are effecting the evolutionary process here, and in all cases where we cure disease. No other species directly interferes with the process of selection as we do… however, one could make the case that it is our evolution, specifically the evolution of our brain, that has allowed us to achieve the ability to cure ouselves. And so I wonder, can we call learning and knowledge a part of the evolutionary process? I’m not sure I’m qualified to give that answer… I simply don’t know.

But I can answer to your eventuality that we as humans have moved beyond the point where the evolutionary process can affect us. I’m not sure I agree with that. Rapid climate change, epidemic disease… these things can bring about sudden and rapid changes that we, as a species, may or may not be able to adapt to rapidly enough to survive… but there will be other species on the planet that would. Evolution at work…

My point is, once evolution took us to the point where we could create complex societies, we (humankind) have moved farther and farther away from the mechanisms that make species evolve into a better adaptation with the surroundings. Now our own mechanisms are superseding most of those that made us evolve until now, and our idea of “perfection” comes from our own sense of what it should be.

Our bad backs (if we can consider them so bad) will not improve through evolution because those with better backs in our generation have no bigger opportunity to have a numerous offspring, and their offspring have no better chance than the rest of the population of reaching childbearing age. Also, our backs are already good enough to work reasonably well until after childbearing age, so even if we had no health and hygiene systems in place, we would not evolve into a species with better backs.

Phil, Sorry to hear about your brother’s herniated disk. Mine was C6/7…the worst experience of my life.

I see that the article refers to the U of Penn. If you are ever in Philadelphia, check out the Mütter Museum at the Philadelphia College of Physicians…it will creep you out.

Well, one thing that comes immediately to my mind is that it certainly aids our species to survive by helping our children to survive. Or even other people’s children.

M-branes collisions. Our four dimensional (three space, one time) lies on the surface of one of these M-branes. Dark energy is a force acting between the branes. It’s called the ekpyrotic model.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_Model

Itâ??s not a great theory,

According to whom? The two current cyclic theories are quite the cutting edge.

in that I donâ??t believe there is any substantial proof and that it creates more questions then it answers (so where did THOSE come from?)

On the contrary, they answer some questions far more cleanly (dark energy, for one) than the inflationary model does, hence their attractiveness.

but if you have something better Iâ??m sure the cosmologists would pay very handsomely to borrow your time machine.

The cosmologists build their own time machines. Or, rather, have engineers like me build them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMAP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_Surveyor

I would counter your argument by pointing out the the evolution of the human brain has had no small part in our species “creating complex societies”… it was the evolution of the hominid brain that allowed it to overcome and adapt better than its predecessors… I still say ultimately it’s the hand of evolution at work there…

It’s not a great theory, in that I don’t believe there is any substantial proof and that it creates more questions then it answers (so where did THOSE come from?) but if you have something better I’m sure the cosmologists would pay very handsomely to borrow your time machine.