|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 24, 2018 5:24:29 GMT
I am referring to basic biological Darwinian evolution, not some fancy sociological evolution (which is a whole other can o' worms).
We are done with that. By and large, every aspect of what we call civilization is put in place to circumvent the processes which drive evolution, namely high death rates due to predation, famine, disease, etc.
In order for some trait to be advanced through Darwinian evolution, it must provide the individual some reproductive advantage. (I say reproductive because that is the simplest way to break it down; reproductive advantage implies survival advantage as well, since an organism doesn't reproduce unless it survives long enough to reproduce, and it isn't reproductively successful unless its offspring also survive). None of that is active with humanity; there is no genetic inheritance that leads to reproductive success, so there is no driving principle that would result in continued evolution.
Is this not so?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 3:21:31 GMT
I am referring to basic biological Darwinian evolution, not some fancy sociological evolution (which is a whole other can o' worms). We are done with that. By and large, every aspect of what we call civilization is put in place to circumvent the processes which drive evolution, namely high death rates due to predation, famine, disease, etc. In order for some trait to be advanced through Darwinian evolution, it must provide the individual some reproductive advantage. (I say reproductive because that is the simplest way to break it down; reproductive advantage implies survival advantage as well, since an organism doesn't reproduce unless it survives long enough to reproduce, and it isn't reproductively successful unless its offspring also survive). None of that is active with humanity; there is no genetic inheritance that leads to reproductive success, so there is no driving principle that would result in continued evolution. Is this not so? Are we not men?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2018 3:47:21 GMT
I am referring to basic biological Darwinian evolution, not some fancy sociological evolution (which is a whole other can o' worms). We are done with that. By and large, every aspect of what we call civilization is put in place to circumvent the processes which drive evolution, namely high death rates due to predation, famine, disease, etc. In order for some trait to be advanced through Darwinian evolution, it must provide the individual some reproductive advantage. (I say reproductive because that is the simplest way to break it down; reproductive advantage implies survival advantage as well, since an organism doesn't reproduce unless it survives long enough to reproduce, and it isn't reproductively successful unless its offspring also survive). None of that is active with humanity; there is no genetic inheritance that leads to reproductive success, so there is no driving principle that would result in continued evolution. Is this not so? Serious now. I do understand what you are saying, but I think it may be hard to determine if our physical evolution has indeed stagnated for the reasons you mention. To appearances, there are humans who are reproducing that appear to provide no genetic advantage to our species, but yet they are reproducing in a world where social assistance programs and welfare are available to just this type of person. Could this indicate that these people are adapted to survive in just such a circumstance as this, to get the basic survival requirements (food, shelter) for a minimal effort? Secondly, perhaps the highest birthrates are occurring in the most primitive and backward societies because the "affluent" societies are not reproducing fast enough? You and I might believe that we are part of the "preferred" genetic pool, but we're just talking nature here. Nature has no conscience.
You didn't want to delve into social evolution which is also very good subject for debate, but I do believe that humankind is "evolving" further in a way that will continue to use machines to augment our physical constraints. Mankind is where he is (dominion over all plants and animals) due to his mind, far more than his physical attributes. I believe that our minds will guide our future or lead to our ruin, after which of course, nature will have her say.
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 3, 2018 16:49:07 GMT
You would only agree to that if you are certain that there are no more environmental changes heading our way.
I think plenty of environmental changes are heading our way, so will not agree to it.
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Mar 4, 2018 2:10:05 GMT
You would only agree to that if you are certain that there are no more environmental changes heading our way. I think plenty of environmental changes are heading our way, so will not agree to it. How about "not currently evolving"?
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 4, 2018 9:35:19 GMT
You would only agree to that if you are certain that there are no more environmental changes heading our way. I think plenty of environmental changes are heading our way, so will not agree to it. How about "not currently evolving"? It depends what time period you are talking about. We probably haven't evolved much since last Thursday, but we probably have in the last few hundred years. E.g. immunity to various diseases.
|
|
|
Post by slowcomingwarbird on Apr 11, 2018 6:27:50 GMT
More like the human race seems to be de-evolving into a more primitive form since the 1970's. People are getting more stupid and reactionary. Taking action based on emotion instead of thinking it through. With very little regard for the lasting consequences or long term effects of any given set of actions taken.
It is more than just a change in social behavior, people actually seem to be de-evolving back into primitive animals. At this rate it won't be much longer before people are no longer able to read or write, or constructively think for that matter.
|
|