|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: An evolution paradox | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
techristian Member (Idle past 4130 days) Posts: 60 Joined: |
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? This doesn't seem to be the case. As our new technology gets more and more complex we may brag that we are "more evolved" now , but killers and madmen will make use of the new technology for "mass destruction". Then what will your "survival of the fittest" do? The "fittest" will be the one with the most powerful weapon and the "fittest" may exterminate the entire species!
Dan
http://musicinit.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5708 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
JM: (ignore off for one post). Do you think this stuff up all by yourself or do you have a website to crib from? Survival of the fittest is not solely applicable to indviduals, but also at the species level. Killing each other off will not guarantee viability of the species! "Survival of the fittest" for humans means also nurturing and caring for our young so that they have the opportunity to produce offspring. It means developing a family unit that can assist with the nurturing and caring. Speaking of hate crimes, do you realize how many have been killed in the name of God?
Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Why would man evolve into a passive peacelover? What would be the evolutionary advantage of that? Man as a species has survived as well as it has by beingaggressive, and by its ability to create tools which make up the for the shortcomings of the form.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RedVento Inactive Member |
I man turns into a passive bunch of tree hugging hippies please kill me now....
Although I am quite confident the religious quacks who kill in the name of allah/god/wonder bra will make sure that never happens...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
quote: The problem with your statement (at least the major one) is that our technology has largely taken us out of speciation by natural selection. And while social evolution in some ways mimics the effects seen by natural selection they really are not the same and act by different mechanisms. And why would we "evolve" into a peacable creature? What aspect of this would fit in with natural selection? Your questions would be good in sociology or psychology but they are not really relevant w.r.t. biology. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: I've been thinking about that ... I wonder if some traitsin modern western humans make them less likely to crash their cars ... that, considering the numbers of deaths on the roads, would tend to be a selective influence I think. Largely though, I agree. Most selective pressures have beeneliminated by modern western life (note:western).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr_Tazimus_maximus Member (Idle past 3245 days) Posts: 402 From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:
Largely though, I agree. Most selective pressures have beeneliminated by modern western life (note:western). [/B][/QUOTE] I have to agree, although I think that this particular topic already exists in the "Have Humans Stopped Evolving" thread. 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. ------------------"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur Taz
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
[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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NeilUnreal Inactive Member |
quote: My mother, father, and sister are flawless drivers. I, however, am an atavistic throwback to the 1960's era of Grand Prix racing. -Neil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
I think perhaps DrT meant physiological evolution.
I'm not sure about social evolution being restricted tohumans either ... pack and pride beahviours are pretty complex too, and must have 'evolved' somewhere along the lines.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Andor Inactive Member |
quote: I agree John.I have problems with the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" in reference to humanity or human culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1507 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
If they don't tely on it or make use of it, why
have it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: ... 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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024