What is the end of evolution?, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 3 times


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:35 PM by sicklecell
reply to post by redoubt


Im just saying that if our surrounding environment stays the same (extremely unlikely) then we will not evolve because there is nothing we need to adapt to.

The shark example stands IF the sharks surrounding environment stays the same, overfishing will make that an impossibility but, IF its environment stayed the same it would not evolve.



reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:43 PM by spy66
Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by spy66



There is no destination for us to reach. The destination is only a human virtue. The purpose of life is to live. There is no other purpose.


That's just a little boring. You'll forgive me if I disagree and continue my existence expecting something new over the next horizon.



Yeah dream on. All you will see is your self getting older. And you will experiance the virtue of your human mind as it unfolds. And you will figure out that it was just your foolish imagination playing your trick.

People who look for a destination to reach in the future dont know the value of their life at present time.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 06:44 PM by Mike_A
reply to post by Conclusion


No there's no such thing as devolution, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution is simply change in a population caused by genetic variation and natural selection; that process can result in anything and always be called evolution.

Your definition is for the word development with evolution as a synonym for that. It is the common use of the word evolve as in "I evolved as a writer" or, as in the examples actually given on the site, "The evolution of Greek society".

The definition of biological evolution is given below this one. In biological evolutionary terms there is no better or more advanced except to say that one population is better adapted to its surroundings.

So no your idea that we are evolving towards a specific goal is flawed from the get go due to a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is.


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:08 PM by Annee
Originally posted by sicklecell
reply to post by redoubt


Im just saying that if our surrounding environment stays the same (extremely unlikely) then we will not evolve because there is nothing we need to adapt to.

The shark example stands IF the sharks surrounding environment stays the same, overfishing will make that an impossibility but, IF its environment stayed the same it would not evolve.


Reminds me of the pygmy elephants that got trapped on an island.

Environment has a lot to do with changes.



reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:32 PM by Conclusion
reply to post by Mike_A


Could you please link me the source of your definition?


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 07:57 PM by Conclusion
Originally posted by Mike_A
reply to post by Conclusion


No there's no such thing as devolution, that's a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is. Evolution is simply change in a population caused by genetic variation and natural selection; that process can result in anything and always be called evolution.

Your definition is for the word development with evolution as a synonym for that. It is the common use of the word evolve as in "I evolved as a writer" or, as in the examples actually given on the site, "The evolution of Greek society".

The definition of biological evolution is given below this one. In biological evolutionary terms there is no better or more advanced except to say that one population is better adapted to its surroundings.

So no your idea that we are evolving towards a specific goal is flawed from the get go due to a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is.



Hmm. If the result could be anything and be called evolution, then that actually proves what I said. I would also say that to use the root word of evolution, such as evolve as a writer, alludes to improving just as you say the surrounding environments evolves one to survive. So it means the same. If we evolve to only improve our survival rate within our surrounding environment, then a spiritual environment would have to improve spiritualism. If there are any signs that evolution does not improve the survival rate then that automatically refutes any claim that evolution is correct. I think what you are saying is that evolution is just change for whatever environment your in. I could argue and say it has been the increase in knowledge that has allowed humans to be the fittest to survive over all the other animals. After all necessity is the mother of invention only if you are aware of what necessity is.

evolution [ˌiːvəˈluːʃən]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) Biology a gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them See also natural selection
2. a gradual development, esp to a more complex form the evolution of modern art
3. (Chemistry) the act of throwing off, as heat, gas, vapour, etc.
4. a pattern formed by a series of movements or something similar
5. (Mathematics) an algebraic operation in which the root of a number, expression, etc., is extracted Compare involution [6]
6. (Military) Military an exercise carried out in accordance with a set procedure or plan
[from Latin ēvolūtiō an unrolling, from ēvolvere to evolve]
Is that a better definition?


reply posted on 23-10-2009 @ 11:46 PM by ZenOnKwalsky
Originally posted by Conclusion
Originally posted by ZenOnKwalsky
sorry but cant stayn silent
There is one flaw in Your reasoning- if there was such a thing as evolution, and we are not quite sure, the Evolution as postulated by the sciencists is over for the human kind...at least for the the Westen Culture and civilised parts of it we can say more about de-Evolution...
Why? simply: evolution is the survival of the fittest...where you can see it in the West?? The new born deaths rate is infinitely close to zero. And teoreticly the fittest as winner always is able to spread his genes to the next generations.
How many top sciencists has more than 1-2 children?? And who is breeding without limit??? Atetntion!- Im not judging them but the final product of our world will be not pure energy but rather the social aid "raper" peoples...



Now we are getting somewhere. So with that I assume that you believe that if it were true then only the ones who can cram scientific information into their mind would be the ones likely to evolve. The rest left behind. Hmm. So you do not believe that man's conscience evolves? Since we know we are conscience it has to be a part of us. So if we evolve at all then the conscience follows along. I have showed in an earlier thread that the definition of Evolution shows de-evolution cannot happen.


You know the top scientists was only an example...I put it only as the contrary to some imaginary clumsy guy from the very begining of our imaginary evolution. The first homo sapiens if you like when they didnt know anything about use of the fire, the real tools making etc. We can as well put there the, im my example the astronauts, the good doctors, the good firemen or cops etc...
But said evolution includes the elimination of the unfit genetical material as well...now to the certain extend we see, it works now quite to the contrary. I will check what You mean by the lack or impossibility of the de-evolution but for me it is already there...actually we can call it Degeneration if You prefere. It seems always to take place in the decadent societies like ancient Rome etc.
The biological Evolution is, like creating the new dogs race- in this case you play God and you have to eliminate the animals you see unfit to your imaginary ideal, (actually it is not always their phisical traits they look at but more their character, inteligence, sociability with the peoples and the likes).
So maybe its only the problem of used definitions- First:its rather deadly sure that from the biological point of view we, as the human race evolve no more.
We can talk about the evolving science that enables us to keep alive the dissabled persons etc

We can talk about the personal development but thats the diffrent story- there was always more spiritually or morally developed individuals all across the known human history...the problem is quite often they decide to live in the celibate and as such are eliminated from the "biological Evolution"...

We can tallk as well about the conscience development in the Human Race but it seems to be the topic for entirely new thread.
Personally I think as the Homo Sapiens we are not a inch better (maybe even worse with forced political corectness and the likes) than the peoples of the past.
Surely we live in the tiny bubble of the Western Culture but all around even here there are wars and torturesnot less brutal than the in the past, there is massive slavery and the traffic of the human beings- call it whatever you like. In the reality the proportions stays the same...only the todays language evolved so the modern time mages can make the horrors seems less horible...


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 12:02 AM by ZenOnKwalsky
Originally posted by Amagnon
Do people seriously think our species is evolving in a positive way?

Evolution keeps happening - but nature used to kill off the retards, those who had poor lungs and couldn't run, those with poor eyesight, those who weren't strong enough to fight for the right to mate.

Whats happening now? Everyone can breed - we are de-evolving. We are becoming, more stupid and weak every generation.

Soon - we will be climbing trees and eating banana's - and deservedly so.

If we do not take an active role in purging poor genetic material from our gene pool - then we will be monkeys again soon.

It can be done through genetic engineering, it can be done through education (don't breed stupid!) it can be done with financial incentives - but if it NOT done - then people will become dependent on medicine, machines and will just be fat, lazy, weak, stupid .. and hang on - hello America.

Exactly so!!! The final "product" of so-called deevolution we can see in some music televisions (actually they reveal already most of the monkey-like behaviours
About the emergency lans...doubt it- anything you propose will be called Nazi or in the best case politicly uncorrect...
Maybe people feel already what is coming and hence all the propecies of the Apocalypse here on ATS and everywhere... Seems that the Flood- of some kind from time to time is unevitable to keep the humankind going...


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 01:08 AM by Astyanax
reply to post by Conclusion

Clearly you do not live by your signature:

If your mind is closed to possibilities, then it is open to nothing.

Your mind is obviously closed to the possibility that the scientific view of evolution is correct. It is also closed to the possibility that the people who have taken the trouble to educate you about that model on this thread are correct, and that the woowoo merchants and rock band gurus (thanks, Fox) whose posts you've been starring are just plain wrong--as are you.

Mike_A explains to you how evolution works and your response is to ask if he has ever studied spirituality. That response is one of wilful stupidity and ingratitude.

Believe whatever you want, but take that lying claim out of your signature.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 05:55 AM by Mike_A
reply to post by Conclusion


Here’s a concise definition of biological evolution;

www.biochem.northwestern.edu...

But your own definition is adequate if you understand that the relevant definition is the “life sciences” one and not the chemistry, mathematics or military ones.

Hmm. If the result could be anything and be called evolution, then that actually proves what I said.


No, your OP suggested that we were evolving along a particular path towards a known goal of pure energy. There are two problems with that, the first is that there is no “goal form” in evolution and the second is that it is not known whether life could exist as pure energy.

I would also say that to use the root word of evolution, such as evolve as a writer, alludes to improving just as you say the surrounding environments evolves one to survive. So it means the same.


It does in common usage but that is not what we are talking about, we are talking about evolution in the scientific sense. That’s why your site has a separate entry for biological evolution.

The difference is the same as in the word “theory”. In common usage this means a guess but in a scientific sense it means something different.

If you are going to discuss biological evolution you should understand the scientific definition of the word.

If we evolve to only improve our survival rate within our surrounding environment, then a spiritual environment would have to improve spiritualism.


If there was such a thing as a spiritual environment (not a social or cultural one that includes spiritualism) that had an effect on our survival and reproduction the yes but as far as anyone can determine (using the scientific method) one does not exist.

If there are any signs that evolution does not improve the survival rate then that automatically refutes any claim that evolution is correct.


That is not entirely correct; evolution is change in a population due to genetic variance and natural selection. That can include things such as genetic drift whereby a population that just happens to have a big nose, for example, is cut off from the rest of the population and so can only pass on that big nose.

Also, some changes can come about as a by-product of other, more advantageous, changes but are themselves irrelevant.

I think what you are saying is that evolution is just change for whatever environment your in.


I’ve said what evolution is, it is change in a population due to genetic variance and natural selection.

A species doesn’t change in response to the environment, i.e. a change in the environment doesn’t initiate genetic changes. These changes happen all the time but are not taken up in the whole population because there is no reason for them to; however when the environment changes then circumstances may arise that make one of these changes advantageous (or in the case of genetic drift, it would isolate only that change) and so it will be taken up by the entire population.

I could argue and say it has been the increase in knowledge that has allowed humans to be the fittest to survive over all the other animals.


But why can we gather and hold all of this knowledge? The answer is rooted in evolutionary changes that gave us a much bigger brain that is more adept at this task than others.

Yours is only a proximal explanation, the ultimate explanation is evolutionary.

reply to post by Amagnon


Evolution keeps happening - but nature used to kill off the retards, those who had poor lungs and couldn't run, those with poor eyesight, those who weren't strong enough to fight for the right to mate.


So you think Stephen Hawking is a less evolved being than you?

Again, this notion of devolution or a better or worse evolved organism is utter nonsense. The sheer lack of scientific understanding in some posts, especially when there are so many resources available to learn, is inexcusable.


reply posted on 24-10-2009 @ 06:27 AM by spy66
Originally posted by Amagnon
Originally posted by spy66
Survival of the fittest is a bunch of baloney. We shouldn't get confused about our abilities and our assets. With out our modern assets we are left to rely on our mind and by the choices that we make.

Its not a sure thing that a strong person will survive in any situation it encounters. His survival depends on the choices that he makes from the knowledge he possesses. Humans are not borne with a survival instinct. Survival has to be thought and experienced. If we are not thought what we can eat and drink. And not to mention where to find it. Then that lack of knowledge might kill you.



Go and eat a banana monkey man.

We are certainly born (not borne) with survival instincts - and survival of the fittest is not a bunch of baloney - unlike your post.

The toughest, smartest and most socially adaptive were the most successful in reproduction - but that is not now the case.

Unless we take charge of our own evolution - then it is going to go backwards. More genetic diseases, poor eyesight, reduced intelligence, poor social skills - these no longer prohibit reproductive success.

Change or be changed.


I bet you wouldn't survive long without money. I bet you wouldn't survive three weeks in the wilderness. Even if you brought food for 10 days. Your mind would break down and you would run home.

Try it and see how much survival instinct you have. I bet you will be surprised your lack of knowledge.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



"I was raised an atheist"- Professor František Vyskočil
  Posted 9 days ago with 6 member flags
The meaning or point of existence or life
  Posted 13 days ago with 2 member flags
Sand Castles and Science
  Posted 11 days ago with 2 member flags