04 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoComplex lifeforms evolved because they were viable, there was a niche in the Earth's habitat for them to exploit. Man's mental powers are beneficial to the survival of individuals so I don't understand why you say they could not have evolved.
Yes, but why it appears that life evolved from simple to complex,from unintelligent forms to intelligent forms,Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as sufficient for survival in a hostile environment ?
If it is an automatic process why it simply did not lead to extinction of all living beings?
As for your last question, I don't understand what you mean. Why should evolution lead to the extinction of all living species?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoThat is a very Victorian way of looking at the animal kingdom, and in serious science it hasn't been regarded as a valid view for many decades.
Yes, but why it appears that life evolved from simple to complex,from unintelligent forms to intelligent forms,Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as sufficient for survival in a hostile environment ?
Richard
04 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoAnd this is just the beginning. We are not the crown of the 'creation'. We are only a link to the future more evolved homo sapiens futurum. Given time.
Yes, but why it appears that life evolved from simple to complex,from unintelligent forms to intelligent forms,Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as sufficient for survival in a hostile environment ?
However, there has been intelligent beings before us. They didn't reach the technological phase, and but they may very well reached this if they didn't get extinct.
The mankind, as we know it, may also very well get extinct. A push of the red button can very well be our destiny, or dozens of other reasons.
05 Jan 11
2 edits
As Darwin himself wrote: "Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure." How mistaken he was! And what was he referring to? Misrepresentation of natural selection; and it is still happening 150 years later. If you think *nature* is doing the selecting you need to read his book again.
P.S. I also seriously doubt man (as we know it) is at the apex of the Universe, never has been and never will be.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by andrew93Dear andrews93,
As Darwin himself wrote: "Great is the power of steady misrepresentation; but the history of science shows that fortunately this power does not long endure." How mistaken he was! And what was he referring to? Misrepresentation of natural selection; and it is still happening 150 years later. If you think *nature* is doing the selecting you need to read hi ...[text shortened]... ly doubt man (as we know it) is at the apex of the Universe, never has been and never will be.
I am very well aware that even Darwin thought that the words " Natural Selection " were likely to be misunderstood as if some" agency "was doing this " work of selection".
He had therefore appended the words "insensibly" at the end of the concerned statement in his book" The Origin of Species".( page 66 Wordsworth Edition ). "Insensibly" can be interpreted in modern terminology as " Automatically ".
Let us use " Natural Selection" as a convenient shorthand although every student of Evolution knows that" Nature "is not involved in any "selection".
My point is a simple one.If the selection is without any active interference from any forces of nature,how is that the Evolution is resulting in betterment esp. of Humans. Why is it not biased towards worsening?
I request you to pl. see all of my messages in this thread before concluding that I am deliberately misrepresenting.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraPlease see my reply to andrews 93 reg. your last query. I pose my question to you that Evolution as it has taken place has led to an improvement of species. Why was it this way only.If the process was automatic why there was no extinction of species as a result of unfavourable developement of various characters? Why is the random selection of characteristics not biased towards extinction?
Complex lifeforms evolved because they were viable, there was a niche in the Earth's habitat for them to exploit. Man's mental powers are beneficial to the survival of individuals so I don't understand why you say they could not have evolved.
As for your last question, I don't understand what you mean. Why should evolution lead to the extinction of all living species?
It also appears to me that Humans have an enormously capable Brain which is having vastly unused capacity i.e. much more than what is needed for mere survival. Why so ?
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoEvolution does not lead to "improvement" of species, it leads to change. Whether or not such change is an improvement depends on what you think is an improvement, nature does not judge.
Please see my reply to andrews 93 reg. your last query. I pose my question to you that Evolution as it has taken place has led to an improvement of species. Why was it this way only.If the process was automatic why there was no extinction of species as a result of unfavourable developement of various characters? Why is the random selection of characteris ...[text shortened]... is having vastly unused capacity i.e. much more than what is needed for mere survival. Why so ?
Evolution is not "random" but requires a random element. If you only have the random element, but no reproducing agents or no interaction with the environment, there will be no evolution. The selection of characteristics is not biased towards extinction because that is bad for survival.
It also appears to me that Humans have an enormously capable Brain which is having vastly unused capacity i.e. much more than what is needed for mere survival. Why so ?
Evolution does not select survival ability, but reproductive ability. Man developed a complex brain because this improved the reproductive success of individuals.
05 Jan 11
3 edits
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally, ….”
Have I completely misunderstood Darwin ?
My view is that Darwin was right in correctly showing that all living beings evolve and that Natural Selection has a hand in improving the species ever so incrementally,so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive.
However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words l random and automatic, why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species.
correct.
“...so that the species survives by the fact of being the fittest to survive. ...”
what does that got to do with evolution?
As KazetNagorra correctly pointed out, “Natural selection works on the level of individuals, not species.”
or, putting that in another way:
When the least adapted individuals (note I don't say “least finest”! Contrary to popular belief Darwin never said “survival of the fittest” and quite rightly too as that is a highly misleading and simplistic statement!) within the SAME species are selected out by the environment, we call that “natural selection” which is part of evolution.
But when the least adapted species are selected out by the environment, although that is strictly speaking a kind of “natural selection”, it isn't “natural selection” in the evolutionary sense of the term. And we don't call that death of a species “evolution”, we call it “extinction”!
“...However Darwin was acutely conscious of the implications of his words like Nature and Selection. He knew these words would cause a misunderstanding that a selecting agency doing this work means bringing in God by backdoor. ...”
what are you talking about? He believed (and knew) the exact opposite! He was a THEIST and in his diary he showed his intense agony and depression at what he perceived to be a clear contradiction between his theory and his religion.
“...So he went on modifying his statement by saying that this selection gets done automatically. ...”
he didn't modify it! Where did you get that from? There is no evidence that he made an earlier version of the theory that was consistent with his religious belief.
Also, logically, saying that the selection is “natural selection” i.e. selection done by nature (more specifically, the environment that living thing lives in) is obviously equivalent to saying selection gets done automatically AND it is also equivalent to saying selection gets done without any need for divine intervention.
“...I do not believe in any"Environment" or " Nature " interested in improving species....”
neither did he believe that and the theory of evolution doesn't imply otherwise. This is another of your misunderstandings.
“...These entities do not have any stake in the evolution of living beings. ...”
he didn't believe that and the theory of evolution doesn't imply this.
“...If selection is random and automatic, ...”
natural selection is not random. This is another of your misunderstandings. It is inevitable that more of the best adapted variants will be selected by the environment than the least adapted variants therefore selection is not random.
“...why is the selection not biased towards the destruction of a species. ...”
firstly, evolution doesn't work at a species level ( yet another of your misunderstandings) .
Secondly, the best adapted variants will be selected by the environment and so the species will generally evolve to be better adapted but that does not necessary mean that characteristics for the species as a whole will be selected for will be good for the species as a whole! This is partly why some species go extinct! For example, dinosaurs evolved to be vary large. But being a large size generally made dinosaur species MORE prone to extinction and NOT LESS! (at least when there was a global change to the climate) hence this is part of the reason why they died out but other smaller species survived.
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeo“...Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as SUFFICIENT for survival in a hostile environment ? ...” (my emphasis)
Yes, but why it appears that life evolved from simple to complex,from unintelligent forms to intelligent forms,Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as sufficient for survival in a hostile environment ?
If it is an automatic process why it simply did not lead to extinction of all living beings?
what is “ SUFFICIENT” is irrelevant here because, being mindless, evolution is blind to what is “ SUFFICIENT”.
Evolution tends towards producing the most optimum design of body and brain for surviving and passing on genes.
Therefore, evolution doesn't stop at mere “SUFFICIENT” adaptation but goes on for as long as it can keep adding improvements to the design of body and brain.
There is nothing stopping evolution from continuing making improvements until it makes us have mental powers far beyond what could be considered as “SUFFICIENT” for survival.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
05 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoVery simple. To see our species as the pinnacle and be-all-end-all of evolution, merely because we are we and all-intelligent and the very model of a modern species-general is no evidence at all that we are. The ant might look at us and think, pah, what a feeble creature, it needs clothes, it can't even survive a nuclear blast, and worst of all, it doesn't even have a hive mind! What an evolutionary dead end this creature called man is... Meanwhile, the elephant could trample us both, and the horseshoe crab doesn't care because he's been here before us all and will be here when we've become extinct.
kindly clarify.
There is no simple ladder of evolution. There is a massive net, being knotted at some ends, unraveled at others, each knot being a species of its own. And every single one of them is the current true pinnacle of evolution, and each will be outmoded in a couple of eras. To presume that evolution would inevitably have produced us, and therefore that there is some way that evolution has a bias towards humanity, or even towards complex species in general, is not a scientifically tenable position unless you are a Victorian gentleman trying to disprove this Wallace chap with his newfangled changing species stuff.
Richard
06 Jan 11
Originally posted by rvsakhadeoSecond attempt - much shorter than my original post.
My point is a simple one.If the selection is without any active interference from any forces of nature,how is that the Evolution is resulting in betterment esp. of Humans. Why is it not biased towards worsening?
Ok. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion there was such a system that was pre-disposed or pre-programmed (for want of a better descriptor) to extinction. In other words, an anti-natural selection or a system of unnatural selection. Under such a scenario let's assume that it works in such a way so as to destroy everything - every plant, animal, earth, water, atmosphere etc.
Firstly, how would such a system ever get started if it was pre-disposed to extinction?
Secondly, if such a system were successful, how would we know? Where would be the evidence of such a system that was a total failure? There would be nothing left to examine. {Or maybe the 'dead' planets are evidence in themselves?}
Or are you proposing something a little more esoteric? In other words, this small slice of history we have observed and documented on this planet is but a subset of a much larger system that is pre-disposed to extinction? A bit like the 'dead cat bounce' - we have observed the bounce (and concluded everything is on the up) but we haven't yet observed the falls before and after. Is this what you think?
06 Jan 11
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonHas any improvement been seen in species other than humans to the extent you are describing?Has evolution stopped in cockroaches for the last millions of years but has continued at a terrific pace for humanoid apes so that Homo Erectus developed into Homo Sapiens in far less time, and so that today Homo Sapiens thinks of nothing about travelling to other planets and developing clones of sheep and the like ?
“...Man at the apex of universe with terrific mental powers at his command far beyond what could be considered as SUFFICIENT for survival in a hostile environment ? ...” (my emphasis)
what is “ SUFFICIENT” is irrelevant here because, being mindless, evolution is blind to what is “ SUFFICIENT”.
Evolution tends towards producing the most optimum de ...[text shortened]... t makes us have mental powers far beyond what could be considered as “SUFFICIENT” for survival.
Please cite proof that all the species continue to improve in the design of body and brain.
06 Jan 11
Originally posted by andrew93I am asking a hypothetical question viz. why there is no destructive bias of the evolutionary processes. Naturally the hypothetical question concerns the fate of living beings only i.e. plants and animals.
Second attempt - much shorter than my original post.
Ok. Let's assume for the purposes of this discussion there was such a system that was pre-disposed or pre-programmed (for want of a better descriptor) to extinction. In other words, an anti-natural selection or a system of unnatural selection. Under such a scenario let's assume that it works in such ...[text shortened]... the up) but we haven't yet observed the falls before and after. Is this what you think?
I don't see why you have included water, earth,atmosphere et. unless according to avid evolutionists,these inanimate things also evolve.