Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Kohavah
Joined: 11/4/2009
Msg: 41
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?Page 2 of 6    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Pertaining to evolution then...what shall die, in order for Righteousness and Justification, to unfold, in this evolutionary process?
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 8:04:04 AM
Pertaining to evolution then...what shall die, in order for Righteousness and Justification, to unfold, in this evolutionary process?

Whatever is the wrong song,
Will die.
And with it, the singer.
 hyoid
Joined: 5/12/2009
Msg: 43
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 8:48:57 AM
rug doctor-

We may be able to prevent "a" global disaster; maybe even several or many. Eventually, we're going to strike out. But it's only the 2nd out. The pinch hitter is the genome-is he up to the task? And if he is, would we recognize the base runner as human? And do we care if he is or not?

Personally, I don't think humanity will ever leave earth in colonizing numbers. If we do, it will be in seed ships and not cattle cars. And that will be a speciation event. A permanent divergence of genetic destinies.


that's Selection: learn or die.
That's the human paradigm.

Which is the opposite of natural selection: Change and live.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 44
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 9:31:44 AM

We may be able to prevent "a" global disaster; maybe even several or many. Eventually, we're going to strike out. But it's only the 2nd out. The pinch hitter is the genome-is he up to the task?
You're asking if information - perhaps the scoreboard and stats and a good instructional book - can hit a homer.
Every day it is learned behaviour that is preventing your immediate extirpation.
Even your immune system is operating with learned behaviours.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 45
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 9:48:30 AM
volcanoboy:

I said successful humans rather than rich ones- and I consider it a success for an intellectual person to find mentally stimulating work. Scientists get a lot of props in particular- not a ton of individual limelight usually but they get stuff done. High paying business jobs do often demand intelligence to get there and to maintain it too though. Dumb heirs are a different story...


I agree with your basic idea too, there is a common misconception among the poor and middle-class that their wealthier peers somehow got there by blind luck, but there is a difference between the really intellectual people and the rich, which is that the wealthy have a drive to get their reward because they aren't really very intelligent. They think that money or fame will gain them some sort of permanence, safety, but it really just provides them a delusion of immortality and it gains them access to a large amount of excess. Must the rich by clever? Yes. Must they really be intelligent too. No. Can they be? Sure. Are more of them likely only clever? Probably.

Dumb heirs are everyone's favorite, even intelligent people enjoy them, because they lack the cleverness of their parent and they demonstrate the futility of hoarding money, things, and fame. They show how impermanent the legacy that their family struggled so hard to build is. The irony of it is amusing to me at least.

In Plato's republic, which the allegory of the cave is from, Socrates basically walks around Athens explaining to everyone that wants to talk to him why their lives are pretty much not worth living... The first man who's life he sums up is a wealthy man. He explains to him what we have already discussed, that money and things are not real and that they only provide a delusion of success. The man cannot grasp that he is not a success, because his only concept of what success is, is wealth.

Wealthy people are not more successful at anything other than gaining wealth, and it is not a very valid way of measuring intelligence.

If wealthy people were really better for surviving from an evolutionary standpoint, then why don't they reproduce like the poor? Impoverished families tend to be much larger than wealthy ones because they have more children. One reason is because children cost money to raise, so families who have money have fewer children purposely to reduce the burden, another reason is because poor families need more children to work or to be sure that at least some will live to adulthood.

The poor are better at surviving than the rich ironically, they are better at surviving, just not thriving. Wealth is no measure of evolutionary success.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 9:53:56 AM
Even survival seems to be a naive view of evolution. Survival doesn't imply change, evolution does.
maybe. In the case of a big impact to earth, the song for land animals seems to need verses about getting down deep and hiding.
everyone who doesn't have that song, is gone. so avoiding catasprophe is always about the song.
all else is commentary. the great change happened with a collision. blam. those with the right song live, no matter which their species, genera, family, might be.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 10:07:08 AM

The fact that 5110's descendants haven't mixed could be because they differ from the natives. The Grants note that the descendants have a differently shaped beak from those native to Daphne Major. As finch beaks are vital in identifying potential mates, this could serve to keep them reproductively isolated.

5110's offspring also have the avian equivalent of a strange accent. These finches learn their songs from their father, and the Grants suggest that 5110 sang the songs from his birth home of Santa Cruz then modified his come-hither ballad by roughly copying the Daphne Major birds'. This imperfect copying, they suggest, has over time acted as a barrier to interbreeding.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-species-of-finch-may-have-evolved.html

If 5110's lineage of hybrids display hybrid vigour, then as well as being a mate distinguishing learned song, the song then brings continuing conformity to the song, along with the expected hybrid increase in fertility and clutch size and so on.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 49
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 10:16:16 AM
Yes the poor do reproduce more rapidly and are safer because of it- as well as their ability to survive on limited resources. The wealthy do have advantages of their own in terms of evolutionary success however. They have fewer children and fewer numbers but if overpopulation severely restricts the resources of mankind (food/water/land), as long as the basic government and economic infrastructure remains the rich will have a much greater rate of survival. The only other point is that while the rich depend on the poor if there is no massively increased robotic labor, the poor do not need the rich. They can survive without government, or economy- and could even fall back on more ancient forms of civilization such as agriculture based societies.


Yes, so in a survival situation the wealthy vs the poor becomes a story of foxes vs. wolves, with foxes being the wealthy, and wolves being the poor... and in that situation I'd say advantage wolf... not that I want the poor to win evolutionarily, but thats how it seems it would go.

I'm not saying the rich wouldn't survive, the fox can escape the wolf, he just can't defeat him, the wolf will survive for sure.
 Rug Doctor
Joined: 11/2/2005
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 11:36:14 AM
It's an easy answer there. If an intelligence could come up with an idea so attractive or repulsive that people would limit themselves to one baby, and could get voted for or imposed on the populations, the overpopulation problem would cease.
If an intelligence came up with the idea of outreproducing their opposing factions and enemy camps, then if accepted, it goes the other way.

If an intelleigence tells our experts in government that economic growth forever is necessary, then we need more people in Canada.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 11:42:36 AM
RE Msg: 42 by VolcanoBoy:

Bernard and Helmholtz both are highly intellectual. They could easily do much better. But they settle for the jobs that let them use their minds, even if it does mean a rather menial existence.
But Bernard and Helmholtz are Alpha class humans and they were made to be appropriate for their work and they are in the top class of human just below the Controllers. They do jobs that let them use their minds but the work of Delta and Gamma humans do not use the mind and they could not do it. The work of Delta and Gamma for the most part needs to be done and without someone to do it a problem arises. When I mean the less successful humans are needed for the the upper-middle / upper classes I mean the Gamma and Delta are necessary. For those that didn't read it this is like University graduates (Alpha) working in shipping, moving boxes. Shippers, low-level factory workers, cashiers, dock workers are all examples of Gamma or Delta class work.
It's true that Huxley suggested that the intellectuals were in the Alpha class. But that is because that's how it was when he was writing it in 1931. The Gamma and Delta classes were not given the option to study, and there was no option for an intellectual to find work except in the Alpha class. That's changed now. The Gammas and Deltas of our time have been given the chance to study for themselves, and there are plenty of smart people working in MacDonalds (I knew people working there).

What we can see, is that now that intelligence doesn't have to mean an Alpha-class job, that many intellectuals aren't in Alpha-class jobs, and many are in Gamma and even Delta-class jobs. We can also see that now that non-intellectuals are in Alpha-class jobs.

Huxley was working according to the old class system. In the new class system, the rules have changed, and Brave New World would be different if it was written today.

RE Msg: 44 by Kyle4phun:
This kind of echoes Socrates, somewhat reminds me of the allegory in the cave...

really intelligent people realize that fortune and things are not real, that in many ways dirt is worth the same as money...
It's not just smart people. A lot of people in the UK have discovered that high-paying jobs that keep them at work until 8 or 10, stop them from spending time with their kids. Many are now realising that it's just not worth it to work like a slave for a lot of money, if you aren't enjoying your life anyway. So a lot of people are changing to lower-paying jobs that give them greater job satisfaction and more time with their kids.
 merelymortal
Joined: 11/24/2009
Msg: 54
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 1:02:11 PM
scorpiomover:


It's not just smart people. A lot of people in the UK have discovered that high-paying jobs that keep them at work until 8 or 10, stop them from spending time with their kids. Many are now realising that it's just not worth it to work like a slave for a lot of money, if you aren't enjoying your life anyway. So a lot of people are changing to lower-paying jobs that give them greater job satisfaction and more time with their kids.


True, just because someone doesn't strive hard to make money doesn't also mean they are an intellectual, but the same goes for those who strive to make money... so I think we are in agreement that financial success means little to nothing toward evolution?

The only way I see that wealth could possibly effect evolution is in how it effects mate selection. Females like males with wealth, probably even more than they like males with health, and definitely more than they like males who can and like to think... it seems counterproductive... at least from a philosophical standpoint, and also from a logical standpoint, but the practical reasons a female would want a wealthy male are almost limitless... so it probably factors in to evolution most in that way, that it effects a male's ability to mate with who he chooses... how does that effect evolution? how could we know? Even if a male achieves getting his choice-worthy mate it doesn't mean that will actually be beneficial evolutionarily, or that it will do anything other than diversify a portion of the gene pool that will be selected out of existence in the next bottleneck.

Also, I would like to clarify what kind of wealth I'm talking about... I'm talking about really rich people, not middle-class, upper middle class, or anything near what most people probably even know. By any lower standard, anyone with money is smarter by any meaning of the word smart you can find than are poor people (in the same population, lets not get into comparing populations in the USA with sub-saharan africa where even a genius is poor). When I say "rich/wealthy people", I'm talking about Tiger Woods rich, lol.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/3/2009 5:29:04 PM
RE Msg: 64 by VolcanoBoy:
Well you could slave away for 5-10 years in a high paying job keeping your expenditures low and then stop working or work a job much easier and then make smart investments with the saved wealth. Then as long as you don't blow money on luxury you are set with only having to sacrifice a handful of years?
I knew a lot of young people who said that was their goal. I've since watched a few programmes about rich people. They all said the same thing, and it was very surprising. They all said that it took them so much time and effort to become rich, that it became something they couldn't live without. They all had the money to retire. But their focus had changed, and now being rich was no longer their aim. It was just making more and more money.

That's not how they start out. But that's how they all seem to end up.

Of course, you could always be the exception to the rule. There's always at least one.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/4/2009 2:37:00 PM
nothing has ever proved to me that we aren't devolving.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/5/2009 11:24:45 AM
no, but I will check it out.

to me, the body looks like it might have been perfect at one time. [ya, I know the story]

anyway, everyone I know has something wrong with them now, AND we are apparently gaining bad and mostly useless mutations with each generation.

SO, at some point in the past we were obviously in better shape then we now are.

given more time, our DNA will become more and more gibberish to the point of effecting us more and more negetively.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/6/2009 12:06:51 PM
Paul, upward trend? what upward trend?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/8/2009 2:02:29 PM
this is confusing, I can't find my last message!
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/8/2009 5:11:28 PM
ya, thats right.
creation makes sense, in that respect.

but the confusion was from earlyer today. you know.

his crap is gone, now our messages don't fit.
 IgorFrankensteen
Joined: 6/29/2009
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/13/2009 6:21:55 PM
I apologize for not reading ALL of the responses, my reply may already have been said.
What I DID read, especially including the OP, indicates a fundamental and all-too-common failure to understand how natural selection works, what it applies to, and what it has to do with human development.
Natural selection does NOT make a species "better". In fact, it can occasionally make it much worse.
All there is to natural selection is, that MUTATIONS occur naturally on their own; when those mutations CHANCE to result in the survival AND SUCCESSFUL PROCREATION of a group, AND the non-mutated group dies out, then evolutionary change occurs. It has NOTHING to do with "better."
As for the [common amongst fascists and other superiority-worshiping types] myth that by helping the weak, we are somehow upsetting the "natural order" and interfering with evolution, that's absolute balderdash. The only way we could manipulate evolution to our detriment is if we preserved the weak, AND helped them to have children, AND refused to have children ourselves. Further, the weakness itself would have to be genetic in kind, and not simply a result of accident. Even with all of that, you would STILL only be forcing an evolution towards more PHYSICAL weakness, and unless human kind then faced a challenge to their continued existence that required ONLY physical strength to survive.
So, PLEASE get a better understanding of this science, and stop promoting the nonsensical "let's leave the weaklings behind" empty-headedness.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/13/2009 6:40:15 PM
RE Msg: 76 by Paul K:
''I knew a lot of young people who said that was their goal. I've since watched a few programmes about rich people. They all said the same thing, and it was very surprising. They all said that it took them so much time and effort to become rich, that it became something they couldn't live without. They all had the money to retire. But their focus had changed, and now being rich was no longer their aim. It was just making more and more money.''

It has been my experience that tv shows about how the rich got rich, etc..... usually don't have all that much with reality to begin with. To watch a tv show and then to come to the conclusion that how the people in the show acted was representative of generally how people in their situation act is childish and beneath you.............
It's not my only source. I knew a heck of a lot of rich people growing up. They got a big house, got a few big cars, sent their kids to expensive schools, went on holiday 3 times a year, spent a lot more money, part on frivolous things, saved some, and just kept working till they died or couldn't work.

I do know a few who are retired very young and wealthy, and some fit into that framework, some don't. THAT would be the norm.
Of all the hundreds of rich people I knew, many were wealthy, but none retired while young, none at all, that I can recall.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/13/2009 8:39:00 PM
like warren buffett said in an interview, he was just wired to figure out how to make money.

some people like to work, it's satisfying.

species changing evolution happens so slow, that there isn't any evidence of it.
or,
too slow to ever to any dam good as far as reacting to the environment, I think.
 AtomicGogol
Joined: 4/4/2008
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/13/2009 11:44:54 PM
I think that's an interesting point, twister, but I don't think I'd characterize depression as something recent or more pronounced now. I think the variations that cause it happened since humans first evolved but we notice it more now because of society.
As someone who deals with depression, I think a happy medium needs to be met. The fact is that it can be debilitating like any other illness, but it can create a very unique perspective. Trying to live with it out of control for some benefit or such is silly because it's not something you can turn on or off.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/14/2009 6:35:30 AM
RE Msg: 81 by Twister239:
This new wave of 'depression' that is sweeping humanity is actually evolution . But people are to busy trying to fight it..instead of learning its worthyness and get past the struggling stage of it..check this artical out.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=depressions-evolutionary

Some of the best art , music and writtings have been done with a depressed mind.
Not so straightforward as the authors suggest, twister.

Many creative things have been done during a depressive period. But at least as much is done during a period when the person is not depressed.

What CAN be said, is that the majority of creative people show a much higher tendency to get depressed far more often, and more severely, than the average person. In THAT way, depression is linked to creativity.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 69
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/14/2009 10:08:39 AM
I read awhile back about a psycgiatrist who said that given the state of the world and the average man or woman's situation, depression ought to be our normal state, with a bright outlook being a sign of denial and dysfunctional optimism (or words to that effect). I'm inclined to agree with the guy, however, I think a bright outlook is borne of a sense of purpose and action, just as I believe depression is borne from a feeling of powerlessness and inaction.

Face it...The world sucks big time, but if we don't change it for ourselves, who will?

Depression is utterly debilitating, and the feeling of the hopelessness of it all mires the depressed in inaction. The only way out of the hole is to act "as if" life isn't hopeless; one must force himself into some sort of mobility and take some action. Once that is done, the depressed man is on the road to recovery. The sense of empowerment and efficacy may be slow in coming, but come it will, as the sense of powerlessness is gradually replaced by a self-made meaning and purpose.
 haywiresue
Joined: 9/27/2006
Msg: 71
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/14/2009 11:36:12 AM
Interesting topic, as each species is different, and there is no way to control natural evolution in the purely scientific form without manipulation of the environment - so how can its results be contrary?

Humans are different than any other species, so comparing humans to animals or any other species, will only show that evolution tendencies are different.

Travel and the internet have made the world a smaller place and there are more dealings with different people in different places around the world. This will influence evolution from the days of early humans.

Races are intermingling more now than ever before due to immigration, and this will also have an effect on evolution. Human size and features will evolve, as different races have different physical characteristics.

If the evolution of the reasoning abilities in humans is being considered, this is harder to determine.

Humans are the only species to do more than just survive. We had a need to collect things, and humans valued/respected those who were leaders, or who had the most.

All parts of the world had leaders. Who became the leaders have been determined by physical power, brute strength and challenging their position, and this has evolved.

In early times it was brute force, and over time as humans became "civilized" leaders were determined by riches. This has evolved from Viking times of pillaging, to the Industrial Revolution when trade/money determined power/riches.

There have never been any determined outcomes of evolution, so it is what it is.
 milt_n_bradley
Joined: 10/14/2009
Msg: 72
Are we working contrary to evolution as a species?
Posted: 12/15/2009 8:35:16 AM
How,exactly,since we cannot control evolution,can we be working "contrary" to it,OP?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >