Why Christians and conservatives should accept evolution

[Middleclass]

Natural selection offers no such thing. A species can evolve some mutation, over a great deal of time, which is more advantagous than before. But there is no pressure to have the most advantagous thing possible.

You know, I actually assumed you must be reasonably well-educated until you spouted that idiotic tripe. Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

Really? The most effecient and advantageous thing possible? Of all possible mutations?
I mean, I may have mis-stated my point, but it sounds to me like your endorsing the idea that every mutation is perfect for the species it occurs in, that there is no possible mutation which would increase a genetic Pareto Effeciency.

To my knowledge, evolution only produces changes that create comparative advantage. Being able to out compete is far different from having the best of all possible mutations.

Allow me to restate my point for the sake of clarity. What I was trying to say is that if evolution were guided by an intelligence, then the outcome is drastically different. Take, for example, peacocks. They have enormous tailfeathers that make it easier for predators to catch them, but easier for them to attract a female. On the whole, a reproductive advantage, and a product of evolution. But if this resembled an economy, then peacocks would be agreeing with one another to have their tails reduced by half. The peacocks who enjoy the longest tails, and hence the easiest mating, still would. But all peacocks would find it easier to run away from enemies. Evolution, at least in this case, has failed to produce a Pareto Effeciency, which is a characteristic of the market.

That is all I meant by evolution failing to produce the best possible outcome.

[Darth Wong]

Really? The most effecient and advantageous thing possible? Of all possible mutations?

I mean, I may have mis-stated my point, but it sounds to me like your endorsing the idea that every mutation is perfect for the species it occurs in, that there is no possible mutation which would increase a genetic Pareto Effeciency.

To my knowledge, evolution only produces changes that create comparative advantage. Being able to out compete is far different from having the best of all possible mutations.

Correct: comparative "advantage". So now you're revising your own statement to say that evolution does not favour the "best" organism, when it originally said that it did not favour the most "advantageous" organism: something you now admit that it actually does, even using the term "comparative advantage" (as if there's any other kind of advantage). And "possible" is limited by the mechanism of mutation, ie- you have to select from the variations that can naturally arise due to the mechanism of genetic mutation, rather than making up imaginary super-perfect organisms. Remember that when Darwin created the Theory of Evolution, he didn't even know what genetic mutation was.

Allow me to restate my point for the sake of clarity. What I was trying to say is that if evolution were guided by an intelligence, then the outcome is drastically different. Take, for example, peacocks. They have enormous tailfeathers that make it easier for predators to catch them, but easier for them to attract a female. On the whole, a reproductive advantage, and a product of evolution. But if this resembled an economy, then peacocks would be agreeing with one another to have their tails reduced by half. The peacocks who enjoy the longest tails, and hence the easiest mating, still would.

You honestly believe that competing corporations reliably agree to do what is best for everyone? What fairy-tale land do you live in? The free market and evolution both do the same thing: they allow the competitor with the advantage to win. Sometimes he'll even fuck himself in the hopes that the other guy will get fucked even worse and go extinct. Neither evolution or the free market creates imaginary perfect outcomes. It would ideally do so, but ideals and reality do not always intersect. You should know that.

But all peacocks would find it easier to run away from enemies. Evolution, at least in this case, has failed to produce a Pareto Effeciency, which is a characteristic of the market.

Do you believe there are no corporations out there or industries in which persistent inefficiencies exist?

[Middleclass]

I concede. I over-stated the differences between the two theories. My only defense is that I got too caught up in the theory of Smith, and not caught up enough in the realities of the modern market, which seems more important given the nature of the OP.

[Setesh]

It doesn't need to, because that is not what you said!

Natural selection creates enormous pressure to have the most advantageous variations possible, because all other variations tend to be wiped out.

I pointed out that this is false. Second-best is often quite good enough; heck, fifth best is often quite good enough, in non-critical areas.

This is far less true in Smith's theory: a manager can and often will try to optimize a procedure even if failure to optimize has zero chance of endangering the company, even if it produced insignificant enhancement of shareholder value.

Evolution can't even see it -- if it doesn't help reproduce, it might as well not even be there.

And then you get the local optimizations that are far below the global optimizations. Smith's theory allows for radical change; evolution isn't going to get rid of our appendix.

You do realize evolution is getting rid of the appendix, that's why we can live without one. Some people are born without one. Its rare for now but it happens. Its former digestive function has been lost (probably due to dietary changes) all it does is get filled with digested matter from the large intestine, then push it back out.

[Wyrm]

And then you get the local optimizations that are far below the global optimizations. Smith's theory allows for radical change; evolution isn't going to get rid of our appendix.

You do realize evolution is getting rid of the appendix, that's why we can live without one. Some people are born without one. Its rare for now but it happens. Its former digestive function has been lost (probably due to dietary changes) all it does is get filled with digested matter from the large intestine, then push it back out.

To this I would add that, unless you were one of the lucky few born without an appendix, there would be selective pressure to keep the appendix at some minimum diameter, due to the propensity of smaller-diameter appendicies to trap material and become infected. Evolution would therefore work to shorten the human appendix until it regressed back into the large intestine entirely.

[Superman]

The problem with this entire statement is that it's like saying "Why Christians and conservatives should suddenly stop being stupid." It sounds good in theory, but the reality is quite the opposite.