It seems to me that those who argue against evolution

[conuly]

Probably wouldn't do that if they knew what they were talking about. Evolution isn't over. It isn't something reversible. It doesn't mean the end product is, in all ways, better from the one it evolved from, and it certainly isn't "proceed among this path to become teh l33test creature evah!!!!!111". And we do see creatures "half new form, half old form" all the time, we just don't realize it because we think that new/old form IS the end one. We can't help thinking that, it's what we see. We don't think of a dog as being "half wolf, half dog-descendant", we think "dog".

This could possibly be changed if people kept in mind the actual definition of evolution. It's simple. It's just "gradual changes through time". Not changes of an individual, because that's NOT THE SAME, but changes of a species through reproduction and death. All species have children to keep from dying out. If you don't have kids, you count as dead, simply because you didn't send your genes on. The ones most capable of getting food or getting laid have the most kids, so there are that many more chances for the "good hunter" and the "be sexy" genes to be passed on. The ones least capable of this die young, or don't have many children. The genes don't get passed on. And in that one generation, there's a change. We just don't see it because it is so tiny. We won't see it until the desencents of the sexy hunter outreproduce the descendants of the dead one, for several generations.

*hopes this makes sense*

Comments

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

It's too bad that society has changed it so that people who really shouldn't breed have the opportunity to. It may sound cruel, but there are genetic conditions that in the real world would get breeded out but because of medicine and other factors, they're allowed to propagate. It's a damn shame too.

[conuly]

Like what? Many people with diseases that can be traced to a definite genetic source make use of reproductive help to prevent such problems as tay-sachs and sickle cell anemia.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

If they have lots of money or really good insurance.

[conuly]

Those aren't diseases, nor genetic conditions.

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

But they relate to the ability of reducing or eliminating the prospects of passing down genetic disorders.

[conuly]

Which ones? Which genetic disorders do you think people at risk don't carefully screen against?

[catsluvdmb.livejournal.com]

A short list would be, breast cancer, albinism, dysplasia, alzheimer, huntington, cystic fibrosis, duchenne MD, marfan syndrome, parkinson, diabetes, lupus, gaucher, porphyria cutanea tarda, waardenburg syndrome, von Hippel-lindau, narcolepsy, FOP, cockayne syndrome, CML, epilepsy, burkett lymphoma, fredrich's ataxia, gyrate atrophy, ataxia telangiectasia, crohn's, charcot-marie-tooth syndrome, SCI, alport syndrome, rett syndrome,

And my two most favorite genetic disorders:
Maple syrup disease and Prader-Willi/Angelman Syndrome.

You know what's interesting, almost every disease associated with the X chromosome is a "syndrome." I asked my genetics professor about it one day, and he said it was because back when most of these diseases were named scientists hated women. Scary part is, I think he was only half joking.

[conuly]

Most of those, however, don't kill people of childbearing age anyway, so your argument doesn't apply. That's why people cry about their parents suffering from Alzheimer's, not their children. Others, such are rett syndrome or albinism, are not only non-fatal (the people would survive anyway) but are unlikely to have more descendants. Those that actually apply in this case would generally exist in people who, having been treated for this their whole lives, will most likely take advantage of genetic screening... or they're non-heritable.