Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An evolution paradox
John
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 31 (11121)
06-07-2002 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-22-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
If you believe in PAST evolution, then what do you believe for future evolution? Do you believe that man will "evolve" into a passive peacelover?
Dan
http://musicinit.com

You are confusing change with "change toward some predetermined moralistic goal." Natural selection doesn't work like that. A carnivore may evolve to kill better than, or to kill something different than its competitors. Or it may start to eat something else entirely, like fruit, and stop competing for meat altogether. But it doesn't PLAN the result. There is no goal. Really, it is very simple. A population eats what it can. If it runs out of things it can eat, it eats something else or the population dies. The new food may cause upset tummies in some animals giving the advantage to those who don't get the upset tummies and so the population changes ---- very very slowly.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-22-2002 11:36 PM techristian has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 31 (11336)
06-11-2002 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
06-11-2002 8:25 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:
Te appears to be mixing Societal evolution with Natural (ie environmental and species) evolution. A common mistake IMO and one that has done a great deal of damage to the common understanding of Natural Selection and Natural evolution.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I have my doubts about the validity of distinguishing between "societal" and "natural" evolution.
Societal evolution is really just evolution complicated by one peculiar human adaptation-- the ability to modify behavior and pass such behavioral modifications along without altering genetics. The adaptation that makes this possible-- the brain-- is a very natural component. We can't just "step out" of nature. It isn't possible. We still adapt to our environments, but in a radically different way than most animals.
A branch of anthropology known as "cultural ecology" addresses this issue head on. A man named Marvin Harris is probably the father of the science.
The "damage" is done to natural selection when religious and political ideas are injected into the formula.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 06-11-2002 8:25 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 10:06 AM John has replied
 Message 13 by Andor, posted 07-08-2002 10:55 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (13050)
07-08-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Peter
07-08-2002 10:06 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
I'm not sure about social evolution being restricted to
humans either ... pack and pride beahviours are pretty
complex too, and must have 'evolved' somewhere along
the lines.

Of course you are right about the packs and prides. Similar behavioral phenomena are all over the place in nature, but no animal relies on it, or makes use of it, like humans. I should have been more clear.
Take care.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Peter, posted 07-08-2002 10:06 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 07-11-2002 4:30 AM John has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 31 (13351)
07-11-2002 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Peter
07-11-2002 4:30 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Peter:
If they don't rely on it or make use of it, why
have it ?

... don't rely on it to the extent that humans do. Wolves are pack animals, but don't rely on culture for their weapons, for ex. They have teeth, we chip rocks or make guns.
------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Peter, posted 07-11-2002 4:30 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Peter, posted 07-12-2002 3:11 AM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024