Re: Are there things that don't evolve?

Yes, chance is an incredibly relevant part of evolution as it is part of
history. Mass extinctions on a large scale show how evolution is in many
ways 'guided' by changes in the environment, whether gradual or
catastrophic. It's in the latter case that organisms are most unlikely
to be able to adapt. Of course even a gradual change is no guarantee
that life can adapt.
And indeed, without the dinosaurs' extinction, mammals and by extension,
humans, may not have been around. Of course this does not mean that
another species could not have evolved to become God perceiving.
Then again, to my pets, I must seem in many ways as a "God" which feeds
them, cleans them and keeps them generally in good health. I may
sometimes forget a feeding and my pet may wonder as to why he was punished.
American Scientist had an excellent article on the cognitive psychology
of belief in the supernatural and how this may have evolved. Too bad
that it is hard to poll animals on their beliefs.

http://www2.psych.cornell.edu/cutting/courses/rushtonbons.pdf Religion
had the following correlations with monozygotic, dizygotic twins spouses
friends and heritability (%).51 .42 .41 .20 18

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/psci/2004/00000015/00000005/art00002
Are Children “Intuitive Theists”?: Reasoning About Purpose and Design in
Nature, Kelemen, Psychological Science, Volume 15, Number 5, May 2004,
pp. 295-301(7)

*Abstract:*

Separate bodies of research suggest that young children have a broad
tendency to reason about natural phenomena in terms of purpose and an
orientation toward intention-based accounts of the origins of natural
entities. This article explores these results further by drawing
together recent findings from various areas of cognitive developmental
research to address the following question: Rather than being
“artificialists” in Piagetian terms, are children “intuitive
theists”—disposed to view natural phenomena as resulting from nonhuman
design? A review of research on children's concepts of agency, imaginary
companions, and understanding of artifacts suggests that by the time
children are around 5 years of age, this description of them may have
explanatory value and practical relevance.

http://www.hum.utu.fi/uskontotiede/info.html

These are fascinating issues to ponder.

http://personalwebs.oakland.edu/~dow/personal/papers/religion/evolrel11.dist.pdf
In The Evolution of Religion: Three Anthropological Approaches, James
Dow explores three facets of religion

<quote>This article examines three anthropological theories explaining
how religion has evolved and continues to evolve. They are: commitment
theory, which postulates that religion is a system of costly signaling
that reduces deception and creates cooperation within groups; cognitive
theory, which postulates that religion is the manifestation of mental
modules that have evolved for other purposes; and ecological regulation
theory, which postulates that religion is a master control system
regulating the interaction of human groups with their environments. An
assessment of the success of the theories is offered. The idea that the
biological evolution of the capacity for religion is based on the group
selection rather than individual selection is rejected as unnecessary.
The relationship between adaptive systems and culturally transmitted
sacred values is examined cross-culturally, and the three theories are
integrated into an overall gene-culture view of religion that includes
both the biological evolution and the cultural evolution of behavioral
systems.</quote>

In "The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual" Richard Sosis explores the
genetic backgrounds and religion.
Stosis, (2004). The Adaptive Value of Religious Ritual. American
Scientist 92(2):166–172.

While reading up on these issues I ran across the following quote which
in light of the 'criticisms' from ID activists seems quite relevant

<quote>The first is a belief that adaptationist hypotheses are
hopelessly difficult to test and are destined to remain speculative
“just-so stories”. This belief is a pillar of skeptical arguments about
evolution, as if evolution can be rejected for its difficulty rather
than its falsehood. In any case, the belief is just plain false.
Functional hypotheses are as amenable to the scientific method as
non-functional hypotheses and in any case they cannot substitute for
each other, since the proximate/ultimate distinction requires both
mechanistic and functional explanations for everything that evolves by
natural selection. Productive evolutionary scientists do not wring their
hands about the difficulty of testing hypotheses but roll up their
sleeves and get to work.
</quote>
http://gunston.gmu.edu/liannacc/ERel/S2-Archives/REC04/Sloan-Wilson%20-%20Testing%20Evolutionary%20Hypotheses.pdf

Pim

Dawsonzhu@aol.com wrote:

>
> Thank you Pim for the contribution. I had not stumbled on this.
>
> I would add, however, that there is an element of chance here. Were, for
> example, no asteroid to hit the earth 65 M years ago, the dinosaurs would
> probably still be ruling the earth. They were very successful, despite the
> advertisements by Microsoft. We have not survived even a small fraction
> of the overall time they did. Perhaps some large brained dinosaur could
> have evolved and maybe they too would believe in God, but such is very
> hard
> to say. So, whereas they become more "complex", it is not without a large
> measure of other factors that we humans became the ones who have the
> capacity (at least) to believe in God. These "other factors", I
> expect, have a
> reasonable scientific explanation, but philosophies are not built on
> the tiles
> of facts, they are built on how one views the mosaic formed by those
> tiles.
> Each has his/her interpretation of this final mosaic from the angle of
> experience
> and perhaps even the eye of resolution used, but whether the final
> conclusions are
> that there is this God or there is not, both become statements of faith.
>
> I say one must chose, and live by it. And by Grace, somehow, I was lead to
> believe in Jesus. If that is all foolishness to some, I understand,
> but we know
> from Paul that this is what we should expect people to think,
> understandably
> in fact, and such may I too must expect. All I will say on this is
> that what we
> seek to understand as scientists is "how the universe works", and
> "what it
> all means" we must deal with on a different level than what science
> can offer.
>
> By Grace alone we proceed,
> Wayne
>
>
>> Just when you think you have read it all, you run across yet another gem
>>
>> Abstract
>> How evolution led to complex life is one of the great questions. This
>> paper describes simulations
>> that investigate the role of ecological interactions in the evolution of
>> complexity. Webworld
>> is a robust model of evolution in food webs. It is extended for
>> variability of organism complexity
>> under evolution. Statistical and network analysis indicates a clear
>> tendency for complexification
>> within the model, led by adaptations that initially disconnect the
>> species from trophic interactions.
>> This suggests a process where short term fitness is increased by less
>> connection to the
>> ecosystem, but long term fitness is insured by incorporation within the
>> ecosystem. Certainly it
>> suggests a greater role for ecosystems in the evolution of complexity.
>>
>> http://brainoff.com/easy/dissertation.pdf
>>
>> And yet another workshop http://ecco.vub.ac.be/ECO/
>>
>> The following class shows some relevant concepts in evolution and
>> complexity (evolvability for instance)
>>
>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/admissions/pg/syllabus.php?unit=COMP6026
>
>
>
Received on Sat Mar 25 22:28:14 2006