History UsefulNotes / Evolution

* This is one of the central tenets of Evolutionary Psychology, a field awash with, if not completely dominated by, pseudoscience and bullshit. They take a common trait (eg. girls prefer pink and boys prefer blue [[note]] In fact, as recently as Victorian times this was the other way around with blue being the "female" colour and pink being "male" [[/note]].), assume it's a universal trait, and then find a post hoc rationalization (eg. boys were hunters, girls were gatherers that needed to be able to see berries). The field is mostly bullshit because 1) those traits usually aren't universal (girls don't universally prefer pink and boys don't universally prefer blue), 2) there's no reason to suppose such a thing evolved rather than being a cultural issue (in China, everyone prefers pink because it's a shade of red and red is lucky, whereas in some places red is unlucky and associate with death because of blood), and 3) there's no way to test their random rationalizations. That's not to say that perhaps Evo Psych couldn't someday be a field worth studying, but right now it's a haven of racism, misogyny, and assorted bullshit.

-->'''Megan''': ''That's just the kind of bullshit sexism that discredits evo-psych! Your "evolutionary histories" always seem tuned to produce 1950s gender roles!''

* Our genus, ''Homo'', is only about 2.5 million years old. That includes our earlier bipedal ancestors. "Modern" humans only really popped up around 200,000 years ago, and Cro-Magnons (the first ''homo sapiens'') 50,000 years ago.

-->-''GarfieldHis9Lives''

* Attempts to claim that evolution is just a theory tend to ignore other scientific theories such as plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, and the theory of gravity. While there are some fringe pseudoscientists who take issue with these individually, most people don't make the realization that if evolution is questionable because it is "just a theory" then so is gravity. Amusingly, gravity is less well understood than evolution, but much more accepted.

* Attempts to claim that evolution is just a theory tend to ignore other scientific theories such as plate tectonics, germ theory, atomic theory, and the theory of gravity. While there are some fringe pseudoscientists who take issue with these individually, most people don't make the realization that if evolution is questionable because it is "just a theory" then so is gravity.

!!!Myth: Evolution is '''just''' a theory.

Major factors that drive speciation through selection are geographical or climatological in nature: when populations get separated by mountains or rivers, the split-off groups can diverge; when the local weather patterns turn more rainy or warmer, creatures built for cold, dry weather die off. Additionally, a creature may have a competitive advantage for limited resources. Plants that grow higher than others get a clear, unobstructed path to sunlight. Animals that are faster, bigger, or tougher can more easily kill their prey, or those that are fast and quick can outrun predators that might hunt them, or those that are smaller and weaker require less food and so do not starve. Organisms that are more attractive to the opposite sex can have more offspring. There are too many factors to list, of course; this is just a sample of what all affects an organism's ability to reproduce, to survive selection and the passage of time. In the end, no matter the cause, that which survives to reproduce becomes more prevalent, whatever that may be. It's a misconception to think only the "fittest" survive; this is not true. There's an element of chance (anyone can get hit by a falling rock). Plus, a great number of organisms survive to have children; it's whether they have ''more'' surviving children and grandchildren that determines the course of change. In this sense, when Darwin talks about fittest, he meant that which is most suited for its environmental niche compared to other competitors and not some arbitrary overall measure of advancement or optimal solution.

Major factors that drive speciation through selection are geographical or climatological in nature: when populations get separated by mountains or rivers, the split-off groups can diverge; when the local weather patterns turn more rainy or warmer, creatures built for cold, dry weather die off. Additionally, a creature may have a competitive advantage for limited resources. Plants that grow higher than others get a clear, unobstructed path to sunlight. Animals that are faster, bigger, or tougher can more easily kill their prey, or those that are fast and quick can outrun predators that might hunt them, or those that are smaller and weaker require less food and so do not starve. Organisms that are more attractive to the opposite sex can have more offspring. There are too many factors to list, of course; this is just a sample of what all affects an organism's ability to reproduce, to survive selection and the passage of time. In the end, no matter the cause, that which survives to reproduce becomes more prevalent, whatever that may be. It's a misconception to think only the "fittest" survive; this is not true. There's an element of chance (anyone can get hit by a falling rock). Plus, a great number of organisms survive to have children; it's whether they have ''more'' surviving children and grandchildren that determines the course of change. In this sense, when Darwin talks about fittest, he meant that which is most suited for its environment and not some arbitrary overall measure of advancement.

Whereas an error in a computer program will cause it to crash and stop running, organisms can be more flexible. Sometimes a mutation can be crippling or fatal, other times it is a superficial change, and on some occasions the change is beneficial. The vast majority are completely neutral, either occurring in non-coding DNA or not changing the performance of the gene in which it occurs. You yourself are the heritor of some 120 (average number for humans) changes and aren't particularly crippled or enhanced by them. A specific mutation will typically only occur once and then spread through the population. Some mutations spread by virtue of being beneficial while others spread completely by chance in a process known as genetic drift. It is through genetic drift and mathematical models that scientists can trace evolutionary paths and genetic mutations back through history, in a process similar to the study of how language mutates over time.

Major factors that drive speciation through selection are geographical or climatological in nature: when populations get separated by mountains or rivers, the split-off groups can diverge; when the local weather patterns turn more rainy or warmer, creatures built for cold, dry weather die off. Additionally, a creature may have a competitive advantage for limited resources. Plants that grow higher than others get a clear, unobstructed path to sunlight. Animals that are faster, bigger, or tougher can more easily kill their prey, or those that are fast and quick can outrun predators that might hunt them, or those that are smaller and weaker require less food and so do not starve. Organisms that are more attractive to the opposite sex can have more offspring. There are too many factors to list, of course; this is just a sample of what all affects an organism's ability to reproduce, to survive selection and the passage of time. In the end, no matter the cause, that which survives to reproduce becomes more prevalent, whatever that may be. It's a misconception to think only the "fittest" survive; this is not true. There's an element of chance (anyone can get hit by a falling rock). Plus, a great number of organisms survive to have children; it's whether they have ''more'' surviving children and grandchildren that determines the course of change.

* The idea that evolution implies a cut throat social world is false for a few different reasons. Evolution is a descriptive theory about theories operate and not a prescriptive theory about human ethics. It's impossible to know what future selection pressures will befall mankind so maintaining genetic biodiversity is important. Evolution can lead to cooperation as the ability to get along well with others and work in teams can contribute to an organisms fitness. Finally as stated above the products of evolution aren't really all they're cracked up to be.

The idea that evolution implies a cut throat social world is false for a few different reasons. Evolution is a descriptive theory about theories operate and not a prescriptive theory about human ethics. It's impossible to know what future selection pressures will befall mankind so maintaining genetic biodiversity is important. Evolution can lead to cooperation as the ability to get along well with others and work in teams can contribute to an organisms fitness. Finally as stated above the products of evolution aren't really all they're cracked up to be.

* And not having the answer to this question doesn't invalidate natural selection or common descent anymore than gravity and thermodynamics are invalidated by physics not having the answer to how matter and energy came into existence(also known as the first cause argument and/or complexity of the universe argument). To put it another way, not knowing who your father is doesn't mean you didn't have one.
* That said, the study of abiogenesis is a vibrant field. Scientists have long known that vitalism (the hypothesis that life involves a "vital element" that can't be replicated with "mere chemicals") is untrue, at least for purposes of the science of biology. And numerous experiments have suggested that early-earth conditions would naturally give rise to basic organic molecules, albeit with some serious difficulties that need to be worked out. The current consensus, drawn from a variety of evidence (genome comparisons and direct observations of cerain environments) is that the last universal common ancestor arose in heat vents at the bottom of the ocean, where there is still life today. Unfortunately, the process is almost certainly non-repeatable outside of a very well-controlled lab, because any naturally-forming organic molecules will get gobbled up by existing life before they have to chance to "become alive."

* This is one of the central tenets of Evolutionary Psychology, a field awash with, if not completely dominated by, pseudoscience and bullshit. They take a common trait (eg. girls prefer pink and boys prefer blue), assume it's a universal trait, and then find a post hoc rationalization (eg. boys were hunters, girls were gatherers that needed to be able to see berries). The field is mostly bullshit because 1) those traits usually aren't universal (girls don't universally prefer pink and boys don't universally prefer blue), 2) there's no reason to suppose such a thing evolved rather than being a cultural issue (in China, everyone prefers pink because it's a shade of red and red is lucky, whereas in some places red is unlucky and associate with death because of blood), and 3) there's no way to test their random rationalizations. That's not to say that perhaps Evo Psych couldn't someday be a field worth studying, but right now it's a haven of racism, misogyny, and assorted bullshit.

[[/folder]]

* People don't like to think that we're subject to the same impersonal forces of evolution, that things are going on in our brains that we don't understand, and that we're making choices we're not choosing to make. Well, screw you, buddy. We're all repulsed by the smell of rotting meat; some of us perhaps moreso than others. Perhaps some of us are more sensitive to that and thus make dietary choices that give them an advantage, which can be passed on. Perhaps some of us are better able to tolerate food that's less fresh, which is ''also'' an advantage that could be passed on, and which means that being repulsed by unfresh food would no longer confer an advantage! Are either of those traits better? Only time would truly tell.

-->''"I need say hardly anything in favor of the Intellects of the Negroes, or of their capacities for virtue and happiness, although these have been supposed by some to be inferior to those of the inhabitants of Europe. The accounts which travelers give of their ingenuity, humanity and strong attachments to their parents, relations, friends and country, '''show us that they are equal to the Europeans.'''"''
-->-'''BenjaminFranklin''', being right

-->''"[[CriticalResearchFailure How'd the moon get there? How'd it get there?]]"''
-->-'''Bill O'Reilly''', ''TheOReillyFactor''

-->-'''WoodrowWilson'''. In 1922.

-->-'''{{Pokemon}}'''

-->'''Cueball''': ''Evolutionary wha-? I meant Savannah, ''Georgia.''

-->'''Cueball''': ''Evolutionary wha-? I meant Savannah, ''Georgia.

-->'''Cueball''': ''Evolutionary wha-? I meant Savannah, ''Georgia''.

** The above [[WarOnStraw argument]] is a falsehood derived from his [[PoliticalCorrectness biases]]. No one in EvoPsych believes that all human traits evolved in the stone age nor that humans stopped evolving. Also, just because a trait isn't universal doesn't mean its not natural.
* As above, humans are still evolving, so, no, not all traits came from the stone age.

-->'''Cueball''': ''Evolutionary wha-? I meant Savannah, ''Georgia

-->'''Cueball''': ''Evolutionary wha-? I meant Savannah, ''Georgia''

-->''"One of the most prominent icons of modern day Christianity, the Crocoduck is capable of dispeling all arguements in favour of Atheism and Darwinism simply by not existing. Its sworn enemy is the platypus, which, in harsh contrast, is capable of proving god does not exist by existing.”''