Vet My Answer to a Catholic's Question on Evolution

[Roboramma]

The point I am trying to make here is that you can't naively look at a trait and say "this trait is here because it was advantageous to an ancestor" as you seem to be doing, rather that particular trait may be tied up (through chemistry or structural design, or whatever) with something that was. Others pointed out that the some traits are negative or neutral with regards to reproductive success and yet still remain. My point is that some traits are simply a bi-product of others that are selected for.

The point in bringing up mathematics: yes, something was selected for that created a brain that's capable of mathematics, but it's not mathematical ability. Yet you say:

Everything about us that is inherited is there because it had a reproductive advantage for an ancestor.

Is mathematical ability a trait that is inherited? It's not there because it had a reproductive advantage.

Some other phenotype, or collection of phenotypes, were selected for, not mathematical ability.

 

[Mr. Scott]

The point I am trying to make here is that you can't naively look at a trait and say "this trait is here because it was advantageous to an ancestor" as you seem to be doing, rather that particular trait may be tied up (through chemistry or structural design, or whatever) with something that was. Others pointed out that the some traits are negative or neutral with regards to reproductive success and yet still remain. My point is that some traits are simply a bi-product of others that are selected for.

The point in bringing up mathematics: yes, something was selected for that created a brain that's capable of mathematics, but it's not mathematical ability. Yet you say:
Is mathematical ability a trait that is inherited? It's not there because it had a reproductive advantage.

Some other phenotype, or collection of phenotypes, were selected for, not mathematical ability.

I concede your point that I oversimplified, and a slightly different wording would have covered this, though for my specific audience these complications may have been more distracting than helpful.

 

[Roboramma]

I concede your point that I oversimplified, and a slightly different wording would have covered this, though for my specific audience these complications may have been more distracting than helpful.

I agree with "these complications may have been more distracting than helpful": going into this is over-complicating a subject that can be explained with beautiful simplicity.

The reason I'm replying, though, is that I think the specific statement you made (and even your revised wording) isn't just a simplification, it's wrong in a way that could lead your audience to conclude that evolution is simply wrong in it's entirety. There are plenty of people who misunderstand evolution and from that misunderstanding conclude that it couldn't possibly be correct. If you tell her "every trait is a product of natural selection" and she thinks for herself about some particular trait that is obviously not a direct result of selection (and she's unlikely to see clearly how it may be an indirect result), she may be driven away from exactly what you are trying to educate her about.

I don't know, though, and I suspect that what you wrote will do much more good than harm, I'm just trying to give you my perspective.

 

[godless dave]

Everything about us that is inherited is there because it had a reproductive advantage for an ancestor.

This might have been pointed out already, but that's not strictly true. Sometimes traits become fixed even without a reproductive advantage.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This might have been pointed out already, but that's not strictly true. Sometimes traits become fixed even without a reproductive advantage.

Do we have a late to the party smiley?

I agree, don't add complexity. The reason I am a stickler for "random mutation plus selection pressures" is because "survival of the fittest" has lots of little holes and the anti-evolution theory crowd like driving trucks through tiny holes.

 

[The Shrike]

Where'd you find a Catholic who put any serious stock in the Christian creation myth? It was Sister Antonella Giba who first set me on a course of being excited to study evolutionary biology, back in the 10th grade.

She basically gave us Steven Jay Gould-level biology instruction, but grounded us with some kind of lame platitude like "Now we all know that God is ultimate source of life . . . right?"

I came out of 12 years of Catholic schooling fully on board with the "big bang" setting in motion everything in the universe - including the process of evolution by natural selection. God's role was pretty much "he lit the match" for the big bang.

 

[Mr. Scott]

Where'd you find a Catholic who put any serious stock in the Christian creation myth?

Is in the OP. A stranger sent me a friend request, who had much in common with me except for her being Catholic. I was clear with her I was atheist so I think she hit me up with her lingering questions about creation and evolution. I gave her my answer in the OP but have not heard back from her.