 |
|
|
|
| No Matter How Many Times You Add The Number One To Itself You Will Never Get A Number Greater Than (Insert Whatever Number Desired Here). |
| This is a slightly watered-down version of an argument typically made by many who deny the validity of evolutionary common decent. For, according to such claims, no matter how long evolutionary processes have been ongoing or how many changes in allele frequencies have occurred in a population of organisms there is simply no possible way any large-scale altercations could have happened. This is literally equivalent to stating that addition in mathematics will never result in higher numbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is utterly ridiculous for anyone to argue against what is usually referred to as microevolution
(changes in a population below the species level) due to advances in biology. Thankfully not many do
so any longer. The primary arguments aim for what is usually referred to as macroevolution (changes
in a population above the species level). The number one was used because it is the lowest natural
number that is positive and represents evolutionary changes in a population of organisms on the
micro-scale. The only problem with using the prefixes “micro” and “macro” is that there is
no real boundary that divides the two other than the species level of taxonomy, which is not
necessarily definitive itself. So, when using the mathematics analogy, we simply have to guess a
number that will serve as the boundary between microevolution and macroevolution. Humans evolved
from hominid ancestors. That serves as one of the most recently known evolutionary change humans
experienced above the species level. It is estimated that modern day humans (homo sapiens) arose
about 50,000 years ago. So let’s use a higher number like 100,000 to represent the
macroevolutionary boundary for humans. The alleles of a population will change somewhat during the
reproduction cycle of the species due to genetic drift and natural selection. The changes are
normally minor, which is why we are starting with such a low number (though technically the number
could vary and would not have to be 1 every time). There exist over six billion people on Earth. It
is believed that over 400,000 babies are born every day worldwide. Each time a child is born add one
to that specific lineage’s number, which after a while will not likely be the same as another
lineage. But let’s assume each lineage starts at one for the time being. Now, what happens when
you add a low number like one to itself over an extended period of time within the human population?
Well apparently nothing if you ask some people because no number will ever exceed 100,000 regardless
of how many offspring are produced within the population. So what happens to the number of a lineage
when it nears 100,000? Does it forever stop at 99,999? Only if the lineage does not have anymore
children. Because evolutionary processes go hand in hand with reproduction. Does the number start
over once reaching 100,000? Only for a new species that may have branched off due to the
accumulation of evolutionary changes. The number for the parent species would continue to increase
however without resetting unless the population met with extinction. So why exactly will the number
never exceed 100,000? I have no idea actually.
Well I hope everyone enjoyed the mathematics analogy seminar. Hopefully it is realized that claiming
macroevolution to be absurd while accepting microevolution is as nonsensical as claiming
microgravity environments (like the gravitational potential of atoms and molecules) to be legit
while asserting against macrogravity ones (like those of planets and stars). But we all know the
likelihood of that being the case. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
In abstract numbers, there is no limit to how drastically different a number can be size-wise.
When it comes to concrete evolution, that there is practically no limit to how drastically different
a species can evolve is wishful thinking. Those who deny limits deny their faith. Those who believe
in limits admit their faith. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Not sure I see all of the relevance, because I'm not sure I totally understand the argument. I
guess, at best, it is a slight rebuttal to the position that there isn't enough time for macro to
happen. So, you win? Not sure it's a slam dunk at all for the general theory however. Exactly how
many people were around 100,000 years ago?, What was the population of the earth 50,000 years
ago?. What was the average number of offspring per adult at that time? I.e. The birth rate. What
was the survival rate,so these offspring could reach reproductive age? When exactly did humans lose
their ability to mate and reproduce with their "common hominid" ancestor? Was there more than one
common ancestor, so that humans, today, are different in kind? Why or why not? Or are we all the
same? Why can't we reproduce with other descendants from this common ancestor? Gee, you bring up
so many questions. You are sure of your facts, aren't you? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
01 Apr 2011 01:22
Sign In
