Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
49 online now:
AZPaul3, nwr, PaulK (3 members, 46 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,216 Year: 4,328/6,534 Month: 542/900 Week: 66/182 Day: 0/38 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An evolution paradox
techristian
Member (Idle past 3339 days)
Posts: 60
Joined: 04-03-2002


Message 1 of 31 (8822)
04-22-2002 11:36 PM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Joe Meert, posted 04-22-2002 11:45 PM techristian has taken no action
 Message 3 by Peter, posted 05-14-2002 9:25 AM techristian has taken no action
 Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-14-2002 10:26 AM techristian has taken no action
 Message 6 by John, posted 06-07-2002 1:20 AM techristian has taken no action
 Message 21 by Whirlwind, posted 11-29-2004 10:53 AM techristian has taken no action

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 4916 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 2 of 31 (8823)
04-22-2002 11:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-22-2002 11:36 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-22-2002 11:36 PM techristian has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 3 of 31 (9626)
05-14-2002 9:25 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? 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


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 being
aggressive, and by its ability to create tools which make
up the for the shortcomings of the form.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-22-2002 11:36 PM techristian has taken no action

  
RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 31 (9628)
05-14-2002 9:54 AM


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 2453 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 5 of 31 (9629)
05-14-2002 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by techristian
04-22-2002 11:36 PM


quote:
Originally posted by techristian:
[b]If you believe in PAST evolution, then what do you believe for future evolution?
[/QUOTE]

First Te, believe is not the correct word. Will evolution occur in the future, doubtless. However, without a knowledge of which mutations will occur and what will happen w.r.t. the enviroment it is impossible to predict exactly which species will evolve into what.
[QUOTE]
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[/b]


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by techristian, posted 04-22-2002 11:36 PM techristian has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 06-11-2002 6:58 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

  
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 taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 7 of 31 (11295)
06-11-2002 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
05-14-2002 10:26 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Dr_Tazimus_maximus:

The problem with your statement (at least the major one) is that our technology has largely taken us out of speciation by natural selection.

I've been thinking about that ... I wonder if some traits
in 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 been
eliminated by modern western life (note:western).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 05-14-2002 10:26 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 06-11-2002 8:25 AM Peter has taken no action

  
Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 2453 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 8 of 31 (11301)
06-11-2002 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peter
06-11-2002 6:58 AM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Peter:

Largely though, I agree. Most selective pressures have been
eliminated 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peter, posted 06-11-2002 6:58 AM Peter has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by John, posted 06-11-2002 1:34 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has taken no action

  
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 taken no action

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 taken no action

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 31 (11339)
06-11-2002 2:28 PM


quote:
crash their cars

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 715 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 11 of 31 (13049)
07-08-2002 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
06-11-2002 1:34 PM


I think perhaps DrT meant physiological evolution.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 06-11-2002 1:34 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:12 AM Peter has 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

  
Andor
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 31 (13060)
07-08-2002 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by John
06-11-2002 1:34 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John:
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.

I agree John.
I have problems with the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" in reference to humanity or human culture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by John, posted 06-11-2002 1:34 PM John has taken no action

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 715 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 14 of 31 (13339)
07-11-2002 4:30 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by John
07-08-2002 10:12 AM


If they don't tely on it or make use of it, why
have it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John, posted 07-08-2002 10:12 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 07-11-2002 9:47 AM Peter 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 taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022