An Interesting Theory Involving Evolution?

Question

Let's assume for the sake of argument that evolution is 100% fact as it is now known, no issues, controversies, etc. Anyways.. The idea states that evolution is a system that should speed up as time passes. For the most part this is seen to be true. It takes forever to get past simple cells, a long time to get complex life, bla bla bla you get the idea. The more time passes, and when the system gets going, it speeds up. However, if we look at our world now, it seems evolution has come to a halt or a crawl. Animals are still complex, but we haven't seen anything that is pushing the limits beyond what we have known for a while. No matter what creature, nothing is improving by leaps and bounds like what the theory suggests and shows.

This theory also is shown through 'human evolution.' Our inventions started slow, fire, wheel. Took some time making tools, advancements, etc. But now we are doing electronics, and all that. It isn't slowing down, we are advancing rapidly.

I think this question has only a few obvious answers, maybe there are more but here are my suggestions. 1. Evolution has limits, even though we have more DNA to play with then earlier it can only be pushed so far. Can't get humans that are super fast, strong, and smart. 2. We are polluting our planet and causing so much chaos and destruction it's hard enough to survive, let alone improve. 3. The Earth is a little younger then what we have been taught, God created everything, and small changes might happen but not gigantic leaps. Those are just my thoughts, if you have any more that sound reasonable feel free, if you have an issue with the theory to begin with give a good reason.

Maybe I don't know much about science but the idea I got this book from was very-well grounded in science considering it was based around nano-technology, it's entitled PREY. My title should tip you off that it is only a theory, so you shouldn't throw insults when 1. The person who wrote the book that based the idea probably wasn't a creationist (so you're insulting the wrong person) and 2. You aren't even realizing that evolution time frames have changed. How long did it take for single-celled organisms to change into multi-cellular? Billions of years? Then those multicellular organisms diversified, etc. and that took millions. Big time change. And as we get more genetics and variety to play with, it should speed up. That's how inventions work. You don't just make something new, you build up on the past (which is what evolution says, you get better, get more complex, get more DNA). If you disagree, then you must not think one bacteria has less DNA than a human.

Answer 1

Just my personal opinion. I don't think evolution is unlimited in it's scope. If an organism reaches a state where it is efficient at what it does and the random changes that occur in it's genetic make up are of no beneficial gain, then the individuals with those changes don't have any advantage over the 'norm', therefore future generations of that species don't carry that change to dominance. Take the dinosaurs for example. I think they existed for millennia with very little change towards the end of their reign. It took a disaster that virtually wiped them out for evolution to be able to step in and start changing species to fill the niches vacated by the dinosaurs.

I'm not very educated. This is simply how I view things. I'm probably totally wrong, but then who really cares if I am. :)

Answer 2

You are just looking at the scale poorly. If you look at one frame of the movie, you can say it is not moving.

The theory of evolution does not imply the "leaps and bounds" you suggest. Evolution means gradual change. The past "leaps" took millions of years. The timeline of evolution is often viewed logarithmically, creating the appearance of suddenness.

You're are using cultural (technological evolution analogy is false. You view the acceleration as a function of time, when it is much flatter as a function of population. Simply put, the more people there are working on technology, the faster it advances.

Answer 3

Evolution is happening all around us, it's just change in response to environment, and this is happening right now. Humans are changing parts of the environment and plants/animals are adapting to this.

We don't see it or it appears to be a crawl because it's a very slow process. We've only been documenting these things in real-time for a very short preiod. And previous milestones took millions of years to develop.

As far as the speed of technology goes, I think you're right. The speed of technology has always followed the speed of information transfer, which is extremely fast right now.

Answer 4

Where did you hear that evolution is supposed to speed up? that is not part of evolution. Evolution can happen in variety of speeds, but there will never be a constant acceleration or deceleration. Also, evolution hasn't stopped or slowed. The changes you seek take tens of thousands of years, at a minimum, and that has always been the case.

Answer 5

Thats the problem when people who don't study science try to utilize it. FAST as opposed to what speed. Natural selection takes generations in isolation in a challenging niche. The human lifespan is too short to see evolution in 70 years or so.
And it is occuring in historical times. For example--the alcoholism rates among southern europeans is low relative to the alcoholism rates in the american indian population. Why? Drunks and alcoholics especially in less enlightened social times--did not provide well for themselves or their familys--the family of an alcoholic as well as himself --on the average died out more relative to the rest of the population. This basically over generations selected the gene pool giving an advantage to those who have less of a genetic predispostion to alcoholism. the american indian was not exposed to alcohol until 400 years ago or so--the recessives towards alcoholism in that gene pool have not been weeded back over 100 generations or so--and we see as a result the much higher alcohlism rate. Survival of the fittest in action.

Answer 6

you're in basic terms gazing on the dimensions poorly. in case you seem at one physique of the action picture, you would be waiting to assert it somewhat is not moving. the belief of evolution does now not advise the "leaps and bounds" you advise. Evolution way sluggish distinction. The previous "leaps" took 1000's of hundreds of years. The timeline of evolution is traditionally recognized logarithmically, bobbing up the phantasm of suddenness. you're are using cultural (technological evolution analogy is faux. You view the acceleration as a place of time, on a similar time because it somewhat is plenty flatter as a place of inhabitants. in basic terms located, the greater persons there are working on technology, the speedier it advances.

Answer 7

When you consider that it took billions of years for life to go from simple to complex I think 50,000 years isn't a lot of time. Besides that we do see changes in human beings. It might not be a evolutionary change or it might be, I haven't studied it, but people are on average about 6 inches taller today that 400 years ago.

Answer 8

human ingenuity is not to be confused with natural biological evolution. usually the "leaps" you speak of in evolution are the result of vast climate or environmental changes and/or cosmic disasters that FORCE immediate change or extinction.

things have been fairly stable on earth for going on 300 million years now...with the exception of the occasional ice age.

Answer 9

Things evolve...it's just that simple!
The Creationist freaks just can't seem to handle an opposing viewpoint even when there's more scientific proof for it compared to their own idea...which has no scientific back-up whatsoever.

Answer 10

Evolution is not a car, pal.