Evolution Must Be Taught in Public Schools

[Moontanman]

The question is why does evolution need to be taught in schools? I am not saying it should not be taught, but what is the logic for the necessity? It sounds like indoctrination to make sure the brain is washed into compliance before children can think for themselves. That way they are programmed like a robot making it harder to teach an old dog new tricks.

 

It needs to be taught in schools HB because it's science, science is taught in school and so would evolution. Evolution is not indoctrination any more than physics is indoctrination. Teaching science is teaching the real world and how it works, nothing more nothing less. Creationism is indoctrination, science is not.

 

I like science. I also think evolution should be one of the chapters in the science books that deals with many areas of science. But putting it on center stage, creates the impression this is more proven than any area of science including chemistry. That is an illusion that may have other motivations behind it as describe above.

 

Creationists have put evolution on center stage. No one is suggesting that evolution be any bigger part of science than any other part. Creationists are the one who have brought this to center stage, not science.

 

If we draw a bell curve of all of science, as a function of direct solid proof as evident in practical application (needs to be real to be applied in a practical way), evolution is not at the curve maxima. In the science book I would stress the maxima first and proportion time relative to this curve. Toward the the tailing we would have evolution, global warming, which are sort of hopeful areas of science. They should also be presented with the unbiased nature, characteristic of real science. The idea is to not just indoctrinate but get the students to think and question. These are the leaders of the future. Blind herd animals is not what science is about.

 

Get real HB, where do you come up with this stuff? Evolution is one of the most documented of all theories, it has more supporting evidence than most areas of science, evolution is about as close to fact as any theory we have. Evolution is not a hopeful area of science, you are trying to distort the truth to make your case. Again, Science is not indoctrination, religion and creationism are indeed indoctrination, Obfuscation seems to be your best weapon, no matter how often you state misleading ideas HB they will never be the truth. Science is not indoctrination, science is a way of looking at the natural world by collecting evidence and formulating hypothesis and eventually theories about the natural world. It is not simply a party line that has to be followed. Science is all about thinking and seeing the real world as it is. Refusing to see this does not change it.

[Pyrotex]

... If we draw a bell curve of all of science, as a function of direct solid proof as evident in practical application (needs to be real to be applied in a practical way), evolution is not at the curve maxima. ....

HBond,

I have to agree with Kayra and the others.

You have been sorely misinformed. Where do you get your information?

Not supported by direct solid proof???

 

The evidence that Darwin had back in the 1840's and 50's was but a tiny fraction of what we have today. He had geological strata from a few dozen sites. There were hundreds of large fossils. There were the first glimmerings of how creatures interreacted in complex ecological "systems". And there was only a vague idea of heritance, gained from dog breeders, horse breeders and pigeon fanciers.

 

And yet, his evidence was deemed overwhelming and convincing to the vast majority of educated Europeans by the time of his death. The debate was won on the evidence.

 

Since then, we have discovered Mendelian genetics--tremendous evidence supporting evolution. We have discovered DNA--even vaster evidence for evolution, giving us the detailed mechanism for natural selection. We now know basically ALL the geological strata of the planet and ALL its ecosystems. We now have tens of millions of fossils, including fossils of bacteria and soft-bodied creatures Darwin never dreamed of. Our knowledge of chemistry is vastly superior and its application to evolution even more so.

 

Who would tell you otherwise? Who would hide this information from you? Who would lie to you about the massive evidence that proves evolution in every detail? What miscreants would commit such a crime against your intellect?

 

Creationists, perhaps?

[C1ay]

The question is why does evolution need to be taught in schools?.....Blind herd animals is not what science is about.

 

science • noun

1 the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

2 a systematically organized body of knowledge on any subject.

 

— ORIGIN Latin scientia, from scire ‘know’.

 

Knowledge is what science is about and schools are where we convey knowledge. Evolution encompasses all of the knowledge we have on the adaptation and mutation of species. It is not something that we think occurs but rather that which we know occurs. We know for a fact that evolution occurs and that is knowledge that needs to be shared. That is what schools are for.

[Pyrotex]

As a side note, there is a book out by Michael Behe, arguably the biggest single advocate of Creationism in the USA. The Edge of Evolution, I think it's called. I read the first chapter. Behe now admits that creatures did in fact change over geologic time due to natural forces. In other words, "evolution happened". Even HE can no longer resist the mountainous tide of evidence for that.

 

He has backed up to yet another defensive position, trying to prove that all the cosmological evidence and oldest geological evidence and chemical evidence "proves" that the Universe was "designed" (or constructed by some "intelligence"), with the sentient intention of artificially seeding Earth with the first "life" in such a way that it would eventually evolve into a specifically intended (preordained) intelligent creature (us) capable of knowing and appreciating its Creator.

 

So, HBond, your "chief creationist general" has abandoned the fight against Evolution, leaving you and your small band of insurgents alone on the field, facing the "massed artillery" of evidence and reason that supports Evolution.

 

If I wuz you, I would start digging a foxhole about now. :computerkick:

[pamela]

It would appear that some teachers deem creationism as science

from Discover

Time and again, on local school boards and in national courts, evolution wins out over creationism. Despite the strength of these victories, however, evolution continues to encounter competition in the classroom. According to the first rigorous nationwide survey of how evolution is taught in U.S public schools, as many as one in eight high school biology teachers presents creationism or intelligent design as a viable scientific alternative to evolution.

 

The researchers, led by Penn State political scientist Eric Plutzer, questioned nearly 1,000 teachers about their personal beliefs and the amount of class time they devoted to evolution and creationism. The results? About one in six of the surveyed teachers espoused young-earth creationist views, and most of them taught their students those views. Only 23 percent strongly agreed that evolution was a central theme in their teaching.

 

The survey suggests that teachers might be more willing to build their coursework around evolutionary principles if they felt better prepared. “Teachers who lack confidence in their own knowledge of evolution feel uncomfortable getting into confrontations about it with either students or members of the community,” says Michael Berkman, coauthor of the study. Providing teachers access to courses in evolution could help bridge that gap, but there is no current strategy to apply such a plan to the nation’s schoolrooms. Berkman adds, “Science organizations and people who are concerned about instruction in biology should be paying attention to what’s actually going on in the classrooms.”

 

#36: Creationism Lurks in Public High Schools | Evolution | DISCOVER Magazine

[Galapagos]

Uh-oh.... they're back in Florida:

Florida Citizens for Science Blog -- You’ve got to be kidding me …

State Sen. Stephen Wise of Jacksonville announced through an article in the Florida Times Union that he plans to file a bill this legislative session to require evolution to be balanced with a discussion of intelligent design. Yes, require. Not just allow, but to require. Of course, we have to wait for the bill to be filed so we can see the actual language. Sometimes news accounts tweak what people say just a little bit, but then the whole meaning changes. Sometimes the person interviewed isn’t clear enough when talking to reporters.

 

Perhaps the bill won’t require the teaching of intelligent design. But if it does, I have to wonder if Sen. Wise has all of his marbles. A similar move was made in Pennsylvania. It didn’t go well for the intelligent design folks at all. They lost in a federal court case. The local school district was stuck with a million dollar legal bill. School board members were voted out of office. Intelligent design as a challenge to evolution went down in flames because of its clearly religious roots and purpose.

 

I suspect they will not get very far this time around, but of course I will be keeping my eye on this anyway.

 

More coverage for anyone else who wants to follow along:

Florida Creationism: “Freedom” Bill Is Coming The Sensuous Curmudgeon

The Austringer Florida: Reliving the Past

Pharyngula: Here we go again — Florida's turn!

[Galapagos]

Texas scientists, the community needs your help:

 

Greg Laden's Blog : Calling All Texans

Well, not ALL of you. Just the ones who also happen to be Scientists. Texans only, please. If you are not a Texan Scientist do not read this blog post.

 

The National Center for Science Education is asking Texas Scientists to contact the State Board of Education regarding the Proposed Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Amendments.

 

I know we have some Texans on here... If you happen to be a Texan scientist, spread the word around among your colleagues. If you are not a Texas scientist but a concerned citizen, pass this around to friends to whom this may apply.

 

To those out of the loop, the amendments and relevant information are summarized on the NSCE website:

Contacting the SBOE and Analysis of Proposed Texas Educational Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) Amendments | NCSE

[Pyrotex]

Gala Pagos!

Hello! Pick me! Pick me! I'm a Texan scientist! :hihi:

 

Thanks for the heads up. I've linked to their site and will start reading the "proposal" in the next day or two. Gotta keep those loonies on the path. :)

 

Pyro

[HydrogenBond]

There are two aspects of evolution. There is the physical evolution which can be traced to genetics. There is also a behavioral aspect which can impact selective advantage. This second aspect can be taught and learned. For example, a mother animal will feed her young and acclimate them to their food. She will also teach her young how to hunt for food. Some of the training may be instinctive, but some is also learned behavior for a given environment. The proper learning has an impact on selective advantage.

 

As an example, when we find young animals that have lost their mother, humans will take over the care. There is often concern about releasing them back into the wild. They lack the natural training that would assure their selective advantage in the wild, even if they have all the genetics. If they are accepted into a group, this is half the battle. This gives them an opportunity to learn how to interact and survive, for full selective advantage in their natural environment. This particular aspect of evolution has more to do with the brain playing a role in selective advantage. Bacteria, have no brain, so the data is better for isolating only the genetic part of evolution.

 

With humans, the genetic aspect is important, but the nurturing aspect is equally important to selective advantage. The current theory does not work 100% with humans because it leaves out this aspect. If you look in terms of humans, our body systems can be matched or exceeded by animals. Eagle can see better, dogs can run faster and sharks don't get cancer, etc. Where we excel is the learning aspect, which allows us to extend the genetic limitations. We don't fit nicely in the existing theory because it is not broad enough. This is not to discount the importance of genetics, but even if we have a genetic deficiency we can take a medication, because of the human brain.

 

But at the same time, just having a human brain does not guarantee anything. Selective advantage will require using that brain and extending its capability via training. Things like instinctively music proficiency, at birth, which may be genetic, had to begin somewhere, since musical instruments did not exist millions of years ago. It began with the brain teaching the brain, adapting the DNA. Now it is part of the DNA for some.

[Pyrotex]

HBond,

the Theory of Evolution covers Humans exactly as well as it covers amoebas and kangaroos.

We have evolved an emergent function which we call "higher intelligence" or whatever.

We have it because, in our past, it was a positive survival trait. Period. I just said in 13 words what it took you three paragraphs to say.

If our intelligence leads us to destroy ourselves, then obviously this "higher intelligence" did not continue to be a positive survival trait. Probably, one of its extended phenotypes, Technology, caused our demise.

Kind of like the dinosaurs. At first, large size was a positive survival trait. Then the world changed. And the dinosaurs found their size to be a terrible disadvantage. Pffftt. They went extinct.

However, if our "higher intelligence" continues to be a positive survival trait, then we might even transplant ourselves on other planets, and save Earth in the bargain.

I would like to think so.

The point is, our super-brains do NOT mean that Evolution is "foiled" or "undermined" or "slowed down" or "outwitted" or anything like that. Evolution is not some cast-in-stone Plan. Evolution is just "inevitable change".

[HydrogenBond]

I am not arguing against evolution, but trying to add to the theory, so is it more versatile. Let me show where current evolutionary theory sort of misses the boat. Say we have a new critter that is born, with a new genetic trait . It doesn't go from birth to displaying this trait in a quantum way. It has to go from birth and then grow up to maturity, before many of these traits amount to anything.

 

When it is young, it is very vulnerable. If it went off on its own, it may not survive, if it was a herd animal, even with a genetic potential. It is dependent on an existing support system to protect it, lead it, and teach it, until the time comes its genetic changes can enter the evolutionary equation. There are logistics in place, that will make it possible for the genetic change to reach fruition, but this is in the future.

 

It through its brain and brains/behavior of members of the herd that it is getting the nurturing before it can express this advantage. Each generation builds upon that. The results would not be the same without it. This is another part of the foundation of selective advantage.

 

Most of the examples I hear, sound like birth to selective advantage. Based on that odd situation maybe the theory would make sense. But I have never seen animals that birth directly into maturity. Even the futuristic longer neck giraffe, may have been 4 foot tall at one point. Its future genetic potential needed to be nurtured before the genetic changed amounted to future selective advantage. Much of that is connected to continuing logistical support interfaced by the brain.

 

There are human children who can play the violin at a very young age without any instruction. This instrument is only a few hundred years old. What are the odds of this being part of genetic drift? It just so happened to parallel a skill, not of nature, something that is quite recent, that a brain did first.

[InfiniteNow]

I am not arguing against evolution, but trying to add to the theory, so is it more versatile.

 

I strongly encourage you to first try to understand and represent the concept of evolution accurately before you spend any further time "trying to add to it."

 

 

That's just a nickels worth of free advice, Pioneer Hbond. :)

[HydrogenBond]

The environment sets the constraints that define selective advantage. For example, evolutionary theory sets its own philosophical constraints as to what will constitute selective advantage within that social environment. Evolutionary theory does not define evolution in terms of just any forward progress. All changes within evolutionary theory, needs to confine itself to the environment set up by that theory. If you go along it can give selective advantage.

 

The evolutionary theory environment, is not something one is born with. It is taught in schools. Based on that learning, if one wishes to have selective advantage within that environment, one needs to play by the rules of the environment. Not all mutations will be treated the same. One may have to migrate to another social environment that is set up to provide selective advantage. For example, even though a religious person may have no selective advantage in the evolutionary theory environment, there is nevertheless an environment where they do. This is another way the brain works in conjunction with the environment, helping to define evolution. Animals can't alter the environment, if the food runs out, but they can migrate into an new environment to get back their selective advantage.

[Moontanman]

The environment sets the constraints that define selective advantage. For example, evolutionary theory sets its own philosophical constraints as to what will constitute selective advantage within that social environment. Evolutionary theory does not define evolution in terms of just any forward progress. All changes within evolutionary theory, needs to confine itself to the environment set up by that theory. If you go along it can give selective advantage.

 

The evolutionary theory environment, is not something one is born with. It is taught in schools. Based on that learning, if one wishes to have selective advantage within that environment, one needs to play by the rules of the environment. Not all mutations will be treated the same. One may have to migrate to another social environment that is set up to provide selective advantage. For example, even though a religious person may have no selective advantage in the evolutionary theory environment, there is nevertheless an environment where they do. This is another way the brain works in conjunction with the environment, helping to define evolution. Animals can't alter the environment, if the food runs out, but they can migrate into an new environment to get back their selective advantage.

 

HB, you keep talking like Evolution and Creationism are equal and totally correct descriptions of the natural world only differing in the belief system of the person. This is not true, Evolution is a evidence based description of the real world, Creationism is system based on belief only, no real world evidence, creationism is based on a need to prove the reality of an old book of mythology. all of creationism premise is nothing but an attempt to show a twisted deceptive version of reality based on what people want to be true with no basis in what Is true.

[pamela]

Is it possible to look at this topic analytically without the derision?

 

Creationism more specifically

from wiki

Creationism is the religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities. In relation to the creation-evolution controversy the term creationism is commonly used to refer to religiously motivated rejection of evolution as an explanation of origins.

 

Comparison of major creationist views Humanity Biological species Earth Universe

 

Young Earth creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Less than 10,000 years old. Reshaped by global flood. Less than 10,000 years old.

 

Gap creationism Directly created by God. Directly created by God. Macroevolution does not occur. Scientifically accepted age. Reshaped by global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

 

Progressive creationism Directly created by God (based on primate anatomy). Direct creation + evolution. No single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

 

Intelligent design Proponents hold various beliefs. e.g. Behe accepts evolution from primates Divine intervention at some point in the past, as evidenced by what intelligent-design creationists call "irreducible complexity" Some adherents claim the existence of Earth is the result of divine intervention Some adherents believe in the teleological argument, that the existence of Universe is the result of divine intervention

 

Theistic evolution Evolution from primates. Evolution from single common ancestor. Scientifically accepted age. No global flood. Scientifically accepted age.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution

In biology, evolution is change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. These changes are caused by a combination of three main processes: variation, reproduction, and selection. Genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. These traits vary within populations, with organisms showing heritable differences in their traits. When organisms reproduce, their offspring may have new or altered traits. These new traits arise in two main ways: either from mutations in genes, or from the transfer of genes between populations and between species. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are also produced by genetic recombination, which can increase variation between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Speculative conjecture is not factual and therefore does not hold water. Facts and data that can and have been supported must be taught

[Galapagos]

I am not arguing against evolution, but trying to add to the theory, so is it more versatile. Let me show where current evolutionary theory sort of misses the boat. Say we have a new critter that is born, with a new genetic trait . It doesn't go from birth to displaying this trait in a quantum way. It has to go from birth and then grow up to maturity, before many of these traits amount to anything.

You aren't adding anything but confusion, and I'd like to point out that it is being added in a derail-off-topic manner to a thread about education, and in the forum of transparent creationist "Strengths and Weaknesses" rhetoric. You are also highly unqualified to add anything to modern evolutionary theory. It is easy for a creationist to come online and make a bunch of egregiously flawed statements about biology(bad ideas by people too lazy to do homework are a dime a dozen), but difficult for a student to come and correct all of the aforementioned mistakes. I strongly suggest you read a basic introductory book to biology, then perhaps one about evolutionary theory specifically once you have a grasp on the basics(you clearly do not).

 

Your repeated intimation that evolutionary biology does not take behavior or culture into account is absurd. This has been a topic of professional interest since long before 1976, when ethologist(someone who studies animal behavior)Richard Dawkins coined the now-popular term "meme" to describe units of culture and elucidate cultural evolution:

 

"Memes, The New Replicators''

What, after all, is so special about genes ? The answer is that they are replicators. The laws of physics are supposed to be true all over the accessible universe. Are there any principles of biology that are likely to have similar universal validity ? When astronauts voyage to distant planets and look for life, they can expect to find creatures too strange and unearthly for us to imagine. But is there anything that must be true of all life, wherever it is found, and whatever the basis of its chemistry ? If forms of life exist whose chemistry is based on silicon rather than carbon, or ammonia rather than water, if creatures are discovered that boil to death at -100 degrees centigrade, if a form of life is found that is not based on chemistry at all but on electronic reverberating circuits, will there still be any general principle that is true of all life ? Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.(1) The gene, the DNA molecule, happens to be the replicating entity that prevails on our planet. There may be others. If there are, provided certain other conditions are met, they will almost inevitable tend to become the basis for an evolutionary process.

 

But do we have to go to distant worlds to find other kinds of replicator and other, consequent, kinds of evolution ? I think that a new kind of replicator has recently emerged on this very planet. It is staring us in the face. It is still in its infancy, still drifting clumsily about in its primeval soup, but already it is achieving evolutionary change at a rate that leaves the old gene panting far behind.

 

The new soup is the soup of human culture. We need a name for the new replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation. `Mimeme' comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a monosyllable that sounds a bit like `gene'. I hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I abbreviate mimeme to meme.(2) If it is any consolation, it could alternatively be thought of as being related to `memory', or to the French word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with `cream'.

The important part here is replication. If some units of culture can appeal to more folks and get themselves copied more, or more quickly, than it may replace the others in the pool of culture. Dawkins goes on to give more specific examples of memes:

 

 

"Memes, The New Replicators''

Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation. If a scientist hears, or reads about, a good idea, he passed it on to his colleagues and students. He mentions it in his articles and his lectures. If the idea catches on, it can be said to propagate itself, spreading from brain to brain. As my colleague N.K. Humphrey neatly summed up an earlier draft of this chapter: `... memes should be regarded as living structures, not just metaphorically but technically.(3) When you plant a fertile meme in my mind you literally parasitize my brain, turning it into a vehicle for the meme's propagation in just the way that a virus may parasitize the genetic mechanism of a host cell. And this isn't just a way of talking -- the meme for, say, "belief in life after death" is actually realized physically, millions of times over, as a structure in the nervous systems of individual men the world over.'

 

Consider the idea of God. We do not know how it arose in the meme pool. Probably it originated many times by independent `mutation'. In any case, it is very old indeed. How does it replicate itself ? By the spoken and written word, aided by great music and great art. Why does it have souch high survival value ? Remember that `survival value' here does not mean value for a gene in a gene pool, but value for a meme in a meme pool. The question really means: What is it about the idea of a god that gives it its stability and penetrance in the cultural environment ? The survival value of the god meme in the meme pool results from its great psychological appeal. It provides a superficially plausible answer to deep and troubling questions about existence. It suggests that injustices in this world may be recified in the next. The `everlasting arms' hold out a cushion against our own inadequacies which, like a doctor's placebo, is none the less effective for being imaginary. These are some of the reasons why the idea of God is copied so readily by successive generations of individual brains. God exists, if only in the form of a meme with high survival value, or infective power, in the environment provided by human culture.

Read the entire chapter if you haven't seen it before. Note that at the beginning, Dawkins stresses how human beings are different than other animals in this respect, and the importance and power of cultural change.

 

As for some more recent work, natural selection has been observed acting on culture, and a study of said selection was published in PNAS by Paul Ehrlich:

Natural selection and cultural rates of change ? PNAS

It has been claimed that a meaningful theory of cultural evolution is not possible because human beliefs and behaviors do not follow predictable patterns. However, theoretical models of cultural transmission and observations of the development of societies suggest that patterns in cultural evolution do occur. Here, we analyze whether two sets of related cultural traits, one tested against the environment and the other not, evolve at different rates in the same populations. Using functional and symbolic design features for Polynesian canoes, we show that natural selection apparently slows the evolution of functional structures, whereas symbolic designs differentiate more rapidly. This finding indicates that cultural change, like genetic evolution, can follow theoretically derived patterns.

 

 

There are many, many other evolutionary scientists working on culture, both human and non-human:

PLoS Biology - A Pacific Culture among Wild Baboons: Its Emergence and Transmission

Reports exist of transmission of culture in nonhuman primates. We examine this in a troop of savanna baboons studied since 1978. During the mid-1980s, half of the males died from tuberculosis; because of circumstances of the outbreak, it was more aggressive males who died, leaving a cohort of atypically unaggressive survivors. A decade later, these behavioral patterns persisted. Males leave their natal troops at adolescence; by the mid-1990s, no males remained who had resided in the troop a decade before. Thus, critically, the troop's unique culture was being adopted by new males joining the troop. We describe (a) features of this culture in the behavior of males, including high rates of grooming and affiliation with females and a “relaxed” dominance hierarchy; (:) physiological measures suggesting less stress among low-ranking males; © models explaining transmission of this culture; and (d) data testing these models, centered around treatment of transfer males by resident females.

related search full of articles from pubmed

Here are some news items also discussing some of these issues. News items are not always the best place to read about research, but for someone who clearly doesn't even understand the basics of biology or evolutionary theory, they may be more tractable:

Chimpanzees Can Transmit Cultural Behavior To Multiple 'Generations'

Chimpanzees May Build Their 'Cultures' In A Similar Way To Humans

'Cultured' Chimpanzees Pass On Novel Traditions

Human Culture Subject To Natural Selection, Study Shows

These wiki pages may also be of interest:

Dual inheritance theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sociocultural evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolutionary anthropology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cultural anthropology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

There is also some interesting work being done with population genetic models applied to cultural transmission. Two prominent names that come to mind are Robert Boyd and Peter J. Richerson, who have presented some group selection models of cultural change. There are a great number of evolutionary scientists spanning several relevant or related fields doing studies of culture, so to claim that minds, behavior, or culture are not addressed in current theory is simply untrue.

 

There are human children who can play the violin at a very young age without any instruction. This instrument is only a few hundred years old. What are the odds of this being part of genetic drift? It just so happened to parallel a skill, not of nature, something that is quite recent, that a brain did first.

The ability for language was most likely not fixed by genetic drift but selection, and musical proficiency may have been as well(it could simply be a by-product of lingual and other cognitive abilities, or have been selected for). I find Geofferry Miller's ideas regarding sexual selection music, language, and the mind to be very interesting:

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/m/miller-mating.html

Edge: SEXUAL SELECTION AND THE MIND

 

Miller argues that music and language were the result of selection imposed by other minds, via sexual selection and mate choice. So in a sense, it may have been minds imposing selection pressures on other minds in an entirely Darwinian fashion.

 

Your analogy between Giraffe and human is also quite poor. It certainly is remarkable when a prodigy or savant is born, but you are forgetting that there are not any prodigy violinist infants. Human beings, just like songbirds, have to develop in certain ways(for example, our lingual skills, which may be a necessary scaffolding of our minds before anybody is going to be a virtuoso musician.). Your analogy would make sense if human infants were born and immediately(and miraculously) picked up a violin as soon as their fingers could fret them.

Savantism is remarkable and not fully understood, but attempting to label it as some particular weakness in our understanding of human evolution is silly and non-sequitur. There is a whole lot we do not understand about evolutionary psychology, but this is the same for any new science, especially ones based on unknown historic events.

[HydrogenBond]

There appears to be a misconception that there are only two alternatives; either evolution "as it", or creationism. In this site, anything not "as is" ,with respect to evolution is called creationism. Many assume it is a dogma that has been cast into stone. There are shades on both sides of existing evolutionary theory.

 

I applied selective advantage, to the environment created by the social philosophy called evolutionary theory. Let me switch it around so everyone can be more objective.

 

Say a scientist, or someone so inclined, went into a religious revival with the hope of showing the usefulness of logic and science. This revival is a cult so, adding scientific objectivity is completely progressive for that group. In spite of that, the doctrine of that group will define selective advantage for the members of its group. If you wish to move up the ladder of selective advantage, it requires getting with their program. The scientist would have no selective advantage in that environment, even if he is trying to introduce something progressive which should allow selective advantage. He might be called a "heathen ", which is lower than anyone in the group. This way others in the group will see their selective advantage appear to fall if they listen to the heathen. Then they will become heathens without any environment.

 

My thinking is, the conservative nature of any group example, to any change, may serve several purposes. To allow any change, would impact the group environment that gives people their selective advantage. The same cult people would have no selective advantage in a science community. For the group to drift toward science, amounts to going in the opposite direction of their selective advantage. If we assume selective advantage is the goal of evolution, going in the opposite direction will create a defensive reaction.

 

The overall logic of this may reflect the brain creating an internal environment, for the group, reinforced by the group, until genetics makes this second nature. The brain creates an internal environment within the biochemistry of the group for DNA adaption which will reflect the group.

 

It is not as simple as genetic change, birth and maturity in one day, leading to selective advantage. Between genetic/birth there is growing up and learning the ways and hierarchy of the group, which doesn't like too much change. Isolated nature can get stuck in time. But this may serve a purpose, with the brain being sort of selective of selective advantage.