Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Never cite youtube. Ever.

And this is where, having made an arse of myself, I duck out to try and glue my dignity back together.

Good day sirs!

Mortified Penguin wrote:
Admittedly I acted like a troll there, but then you pony up some evidence. Seriously, I'm all ears. I just set forth the logic behind why the scientific community supports evolution (although I'm no biologist; this is from what I've read in New Scientist every now and then).

Bear in mind that there are versions of creationism and ID that are consistent with evolution; essentially evolution with an old bearded dude watching over it all. They are indistinguishable on a scientific level, and so are largely irrelevant. They only receive advocacy because certain individuals cannot stand the idea that a deity is not made mention of.

generalgrog wrote:But your forgetting that it's the kids that also partake in the high fat/sedentary lifestyle...plenty of time for children to grow up and have more kids that do the same...etc.....etc.

GG

No, I'm not forgetting it. The only time mortality has an impact on genes is when it stops individuals from breeding. Obesity doesn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:It seems to be no more than a matter of jargon, and not one associated with philosophy. I would argue that there is a generally 'positive' movement to evolution, where species adapt to their surroundings according to the factors that comprise a specific environment. (positive= adaption, negative= lack of)

Catastrophic events that do not allow adaptation, indicate a lack of evolution in some species. My main point is that I would not be surprised if animals could simply lose certain adaptations, they could also lose the capability to have those adaptations, far in the future where they may be necessary to survival. I wouldn't consider humans losing brain-power (for instance, and if at all possible), and becoming more 'primitive', to be a 'negative' adaptation. I do think that patterns of that nature, are very interesting though, and I really don't know enough to confirm anything I am saying.

I just looked up Devo's wiki page to see if I was mistaken.

"The name "Devo" comes "from their concept of 'de-evolution' - the idea that instead of evolving, mankind has actually regressed, as evidenced by the dysfunction and herd mentality of American society."[2] This idea was developed as a joke by Kent State University art students Gerald Casale and Bob Lewis as early as the late 1960s. Casale and Lewis created a number of art pieces in a vein of devolution satirically."

So yeah, nothing to do with God, just a fun idea that people were getting less evolved. It links to the devolution page, but it slightly different to that. Anyway, my bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hawkins wrote:

Well thinking about it, your right dogma, evey example ive tried to come up with points towards evolution (even negitive traits that are harmful and self destructive fit as evolution), even the stuff that will eventully kill off our species, physically, and metally. But what about socially? would it be fair to say that we are as a society devolving? Or are we Evolving? i guess thats altimately what i was trying to say to begin with.

No, because devolution assumes that evolution is a march towards a greater species (and therefore devolution is going backwards into less evolved states). The problem is that no such march exists, creatures don't become 'better', they just become adapted to their environment. A population of spiders move underground and over generations they lose their eyesight, they haven't become better or worse, just adapted to the environment they're now in.


Society is kind of similar, kind of. It's different because the design of society is affected by conscious choices, whereas evolution is entirely based on mutation. Either way, there's no higher or lower society, just the society that suits the conditions.

Dogma: I can talk about evolution all I want thanks, otherwise we're gonna ban you from international politics threads.

Shuma and Silver: So you say natural selection isn't occuring because of societal interferance which is unatural, or human activities such as genetic engineering or selective breeding?

I don't see it that way. For one, I don't see human activities as "unatural", they're part of the world like everything else. As natural as ants building anthills or chimps forming gangs. The social aspect does accelerate things massively and make it seem like something completely distinct, but I think that the idea that because more mutants survive evolution has stopped or slowed is erronous. For it to have stopped or slowed it'd have to be going in one direction. It isn't. It's going in all directions at once depending on environment.
Putting human value judgements into evolution is easy to do, but it generally leads to a skewed view.
Now, I do have to say that I'm not a specialist in evolution, so I'd love to know any books or other sources that refute what I'm saying.

Da Boss wrote:As natural as ants building anthills or chimps forming gangs.

Or that natural soda... the one with just as much sugar as any other soda.

The social aspect does accelerate things massively and make it seem like something completely distinct, but I think that the idea that because more mutants survive evolution has stopped or slowed is erronous. For it to have stopped or slowed it'd have to be going in one direction. It isn't. It's going in all directions at once depending on environment.

There are some decent theories that humans are evolving into multiple species, through forces that were present, before we introduced technology as a means to evolve.

Putting human value judgements into evolution is easy to do, but it generally leads to a skewed view.
Now, I do have to say that I'm not a specialist in evolution, so I'd love to know any books or other sources that refute what I'm saying.

It is my favorite subject (Like I said though, not a Bio major), and what little I have read, indicates an extremely diverse set of opinions. Evolution is evolution, awesome.

Wrexasaur wrote:Maybe we have already taken a step past standard evolution?

I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.

Which is what I would like to ask: What with everyone getting into genetic manipulation, and even then some scientists are looking at "reanimation", how long do you guys think we have until real X-men?

Slarg232 wrote:I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.

You Blood Angels fan? That should explain it And it would be kickass if you had them and the rest didn't, cause if they did, you'd be no more special than anyone

Da Boss wrote:Shuma and Silver: So you say natural selection isn't occuring because of societal interferance which is unatural, or human activities such as genetic engineering or selective breeding?

Natural selection is the predeliction for the weaker (less suited to their environment) to not survive and propogate, while the strongest members (most suited for their environment) go on to create the next generation(s). However, humanity is now at a point that in many 1st and 2nd world nations, we are able to sufficiently control the environment in such a way that we are able to ensure that most people, despite how "strong" they might otherwise be to survive and procreate.

Thus to a certain degree, we have stopped or at least limited one of the main drives behind evolution in the so called civilised world. By controling our environment, we control how we change, however, because we have made our environment so comfortable and the dangers and challanges so minimal, as well as allowing anyone to breed and survive, we are not strengthening our species but rather stagnating.

It is only through radical environment change (either natural or enforced by humanity - such as bringing in trial by combat for everyone who is of breeding age, etc, or indeed deliberate man made climate change) that humanity will be able to strengthen itself.

Alternately, we can either selectively breed or genetically modify the population to give it more "desirable" (in our eyes at least) traits - good health, stronger, faster, more dextrous, greater intelect, etc, or indeed change it altogether - giving it the ability to live underwater, or in space, etc.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Natural selection is the predeliction for the weaker (less suited to their environment) to not survive and propogate, while the strongest members (most suited for their environment) go on to create the next generation(s).

Only propagation affects natural selection, a creature can both survive and not propagate; thereby failing to contribute to the next generation. Death is not necessary for the occurrence of natural selection, though obviously it would affect the process.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Thus to a certain degree, we have stopped or at least limited one of the main drives behind evolution in the so called civilised world. By controling our environment, we control how we change, however, because we have made our environment so comfortable and the dangers and challanges so minimal, as well as allowing anyone to breed and survive, we are not strengthening our species but rather stagnating.

All individuals in any environment are allowed to breed or survive, the relevant question is whether or not they do either. Additionally, you must remember that having a broadly varied gene stock is an asset, not a hindrance. Evolution is driven by necessity, and having more options due to broad genetic variation insulates a species against extinction due to catastrophic events. I suppose you could consider this to be stagnation, but that only really makes sense if you're looking at evolution as a march towards perfection; something which borders on religiosity.

SilverMK2 wrote:
It is only through radical environment change (either natural or enforced by humanity - such as bringing in trial by combat for everyone who is of breeding age, etc, or indeed deliberate man made climate change) that humanity will be able to strengthen itself.

You're still looking at this in qualitative terms, which is wrongheaded. A creature is 'strong' if it is able to thrive in the environments which it inhabits; adaptation is the only reasonably objective standard of 'strength' which we possess. Humanity can survive in more environments than most of the creatures on Earth, and is the only species able to survive in space. You cannot discount the ability to create technology when considering the adaptability of a species.

SilverMK2 wrote:
Alternately, we can either selectively breed or genetically modify the population to give it more "desirable" (in our eyes at least) traits - good health, stronger, faster, more dextrous, greater intelect, etc, or indeed change it altogether - giving it the ability to live underwater, or in space, etc.

Now you're talking about creating meta-humans, which isn't really about pushing the abilities of the human species, but engineering a completely new one.

aka_tizz wrote:

Slarg232 wrote:I hope that, if reincarnation is possible, I don't come back until some people (my next life included) have wings. Wings like a bird of prey, making me an angel. That would be kickass.

You Blood Angels fan? That should explain it And it would be kickass if you had them and the rest didn't, cause if they did, you'd be no more special than anyone

Nah, Chaos fan actually (wouldn't say no to bat/daemon/dragon wings, either)

Nah, you wouldn't want to be the only one, because then you would be a freak. You would want to be part of a group of people, like something like Final Fantasy or something, so that you have the people with wings, the normal people, the people who have 20 limbs, you know that sort of thing.