Digitally Born

Please keep in mind, I am not a scientist. I am just some joe schmoe. I have a basic understanding of evolution. I cannot guarantee that everything I say in this post is 100% accurate. Then again, if you’ve read any of my other posts, you’d probably have figured that out by now.

Also, you NEED to know what a scientific theory is. Everything stated in science, no matter how factual, is done so as a theory. That thing we call “gravity” (Commonly referred to as “Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation”) .. is, in fact, called the “Newton’s Theory of Universal Gravitation.” Why is such a commonly understood truth, such as gravity, referred to as a theory? Because it might be wrong. Science makes great steps to ensure that no assumptions are made. The very nature of science begs to be checked and tested and experimented time and time again. To stand and define something as concrete as a “Law of Nature” would be to ensure that no person ever checks, tests, or experiments that ever again. We know better then that. In fact, even Newton’s “Law” of gravity has had details re-written, removed, or appended to. It, by itself, is neither complete, nor correct. It is taught in basic science classes because it is “close enough” and easily delivers basic understanding as to how this mystical force behaves.
From Wikipedia:

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena.

And to quote Stephen Hawking:

“Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single repeatable observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.”

Now that you know that, you should re-think the “Theory of Evolution.” It IS proven (as much as any other theory ever is) and will remain so until evidence, or a single experiment, suggests that it is incorrect. Even then, I dare say, that the theory shouldn’t change much in essence. Any scientist will (or should) tell you that the Theory of Evolution is incomplete, as is the Theory of Gravity and the Big Bang Theory and Game Theory and Chaos Theory. So far, there is evidence to support all of these theories. That doesn’t mean that something may happen tomorrow which will require modification (or complete removal) of one or more of them. To attack evolution for being no more then a theory, or the nature of theories, is to attack all theories. Including gravity. You wouldn’t be so bold as to open your mouth and say that gravity doesn’t exist only because it’s a theory? If you did, I know quite a few people who would look at you as a moron, and for good reason.

So, what exactly DOES the Theory of Evolution state? Simply, it makes predictions on how a species adapts to it’s surroundings over long periods of time. Does this mean your grandfather was an ape? No. Does it mean that your ancestors 1M years ago were? Not exactly. It does state that (here’s one big controversy) beings of higher intelligence, strength, speed, cunning come about from beings of lower intelligence, strength, speed, cunning (respectively). The very nature of evolution is in it’s small steps which add up over a long period of time. There is little room in evolution for spontaneous and massive leaps, although they are possible.

“What evidence can I witness that evolution works?” Well, for starters, ponder the fact that you are the combination of your parents. If you have siblings, ponder the fact that (unless you’re paternal twins) your siblings are different combinations. Lets say you have 10% better upper body strength then your brother. If your personal survival (as did his) relied upon upper body strength alone, you would have a better chance to survive. If you survived long enough to reproduce, and did so with a mate who also had the 10% better upper body strength, your offspring would probably be just as if not more likely to survive long enough to mate. Therefore, over a long enough period of time, the people with better upper body strength would eventually out number those without. Until eventually, an offspring is born with an ADDITIONAL 10% body strength, and the process continues. This is what “Survival of the fittest” literally means.

There is nothing random about this process. It is slow, deliberate and gradual. Although there IS an aspect of “random selection,” which can most commonly be described as a “birth defect.” Think about that. There is a percentage of ever species’ population that is born defected. Meaning there was either a problem in the process of combining the attributes of the parents, or in the combination itself. If you can imagine this happening at a somewhat random rate, why, then, can’t you imagine good birth defects happening at an equal rate? Simply because we don’t complain (and who would) about their baby having an extraordinary ability or trait, doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen! Take these random good birth defects, and apply the process outlined above. That’s the extent of the “randomness” of evolution. Frankly, it’s not all that random.

In my siblings example, I used 10% increases in an ability or trait. In reality, increases are on such a miniature scale that measuring them is impossible. But that doesn’t really matter for it to work. Not only is evolutions effectiveness (almost) always only apparent after a very long period of time, but the advantage of even a 0.1% advantage is a real and worthwhile advantage in the scheme of things. An organism with a 1% increase would still have an increased probability to successfully mate. That extra probability (no matter how slight) is all that evolution and natural selection need to take their course and better the species over time.

Are there genes that simply don’t matter? Well hell yes. There’s actually quite a lot of genetic code that’s simply useless (or we haven’t discovered the use yet). It’s called Junk DNA and there’s a lot of it. Roughly 98% of the human gnome is classified as “junk.” So .. why hasn’t natural selection just gotten rid of it? Because there’s no reason to, really. I mean .. if it’s not having a negative impact on the survival of the species, then what is the benefit of selecting it out? There simply wouldn’t be. And since natural selection is, after all, the promotion of beneficial genes, attributes and abilities natural selection and, therefore, evolution, simply ignores all that crap. Nice and tidy.

“We haven’t discovered any really significant changes in humans since we’ve been smart enough to keep track, so are we perfect?” It’s like you read my notes .. I was about to tackle that very question ..

No. Despite what creationists think/say/fart, we are not perfect. Think about our bodies for a second. A very simple example is that we have ONE HOLE (considering that the mouth and nose connected) to breathe, eat, talk and drink with. Although it sounds like it would be very odd to have more then one orifice each one dedicated to each of these functions because we’re not used to that, it’s not outside of nature. Dolphins and whales have dedicated orifices for eating and breathing. Another thing, we’re warm blooded. We have to continuously consume to keep our bodies warm and, therefore, alive. An alligator can eat a chicken and survive for a month. The truth is, our body, although when it works, it works, is exceptionally horrible at most things it does. We are truly fragile creatures. A rough jar on the head that doesn’t even break the skin could pop a blood vessel and we’ll just slump over. That hardly sounds decent, much less perfect.

“So then, why haven’t we seen any real changes in humans lately?” There’s a lot of speculation as to why our species hasn’t continued on what is regarded as a speedy evolutionary track. The common (as far as I know) thought is that we (humans) are actively removing ourselves from natural selection and replacing it. We have overcome many obstacles as an intelligent species, and we continue to overcome as time progresses. These obstacles, most notably diseases we’ve cured, are no longer weeding out the weak among our ranks. Instead, we are replacing natural selection with unnatural selection. We, as a society, now somewhat choose who lives and who dies. The trend is getting more profound as we advance further and further being able to cheat natural death more proficiently. This also helps explain humanity’s exponential population growth.

However, despite not seeing changes does not mean that changes have not occurred. In fact, one of the most feared diseases of today, cancer, is now being looked into as not being a disease at all, but an underdeveloped construct of our immune system of fighting off other illnesses. This theory is still in the early stages of research, but has been gaining evidence recently. The theory states that cancerous cells form around damaged tissues within the body. Like white blood cells, they envelop the damaged or foreign cells, die and harden. The problem arises in that the immune system has developed the whole thing. These cells aren’t very well targeted so they attach cells they shouldn’t and there is really no clean-up plan. So new research is going into looking into finishing the process, as opposed to “curing” it.

I digress. As humanity pulls itself further and further from being bound to natural selection, it is, in fact, replacing it with technological and social evolutionary systems. In the not too distant future, humans will have pushed technology far enough for it to be able to directly augment our physical selves. Nanobots will course through our veins, repairing damaged cells, intercepting and interacting with our nervous system to enhance (and even replace) what our conscience mind knows of reality. At this point, our evolution will be almost entirely based upon technological evolution. Our survival based upon its growth. This is good news. The growth curve is steep, and getting more so.

Hopefully I’ve given you some simplistic understanding as to what evolution means, its well earned credibility and given you some really exciting ideas to stimulate your own thoughts about our future.

As always, I’d love to hear what you think.