No I never demanded that anyone provide any evidence at all, if you read my post carefully you would have known that.The Cadet said:
When a friend tells you he "does not agree" with the concept of evolution
- Thread starter IsraelRocks
- Start date
Evolution is a theory because it explains observations and facts, not because we are lacking evidence or because we don't understand it all. Even if we knew everything there is to know about it, evolution would remain a theory. The idea that it would change into something else comes from a misunderstanding of basic terminology.VanTesla said:
A civil discussion is a disrespect of someone's opinion?redeemer09 said:
The guy in the op's story is apparently pretty intelligent, I'm sure he can handle a little disagreement.
Besides, by suppressing my view and my right to express it, you're disrespecting it.
I agree with your friend. Humans are not as much a part of evolution as other organisms because we construct complex societies and are tool-makers, a combination which impedes evolution.
Societies are in the most part designed to protect those less fortunate in life's lottery. This goes against the primary driving force of evolution, survival of the fittest.
The creation of tools also overrides the need to evolve to suit our environment.
The more we innovate in science and technology, the lesser the pace at which humans will evolve.
Societies are in the most part designed to protect those less fortunate in life's lottery. This goes against the primary driving force of evolution, survival of the fittest.
The creation of tools also overrides the need to evolve to suit our environment.
The more we innovate in science and technology, the lesser the pace at which humans will evolve.
Everything you've said here demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about. Saying that one organism is "not as much a part of evolution" isn't just wrong, it's nonsensical. The idea that survival of the fittest selects against societies that protect the weaker members is a complete misunderstanding of what 'survival of the fittest' means. If a creature can survive to pass on its genes, it is fit enough. Full stop. Doesn't matter if they survive by being the best, or by getting help from others, or by using tools. Having technology does not mean we will evolve at a slower rate--again, this is simply nonsensical. Technology can influence which traits get selected for, but that's it.Aphantas said:
If you're interested in actually understanding evolution, I recommend starting here: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_01
"If a creature can survive to pass on its genes, it is fit enough" that is true with other creatures where survival means adapted to the circumstances. Humans do not need to evolve to adapt to a circumstance, we can alter our surroundings to better suit us. a creature who lives in a forest cannot survive in a arid area, while people can because we are able to make machines, devices etc. that can give us what we need thus those who are not fit for an environment are able to survive. Evolution is obsolete when technology can make us fly, climb, swim, survive harsh climates, even survive injury and disease. this does not account for evolution of the brain or societal skills but but a society can do also inhibit that.
a species which protects those less fit does in fact inhibit evolution, the reason that animals have adapted to so many places is because the ones that were less fit for the environment chances for procreation was less then that of the others.
Evolution is a product of many random chance mutations, how can a creature move towards adaptation when undesired mutation is not removed from the gene pool. if all mutations survive, there is no trend toward anything and evolution is without direction and movement, Evolution does not occur.
Fit enough is different from fittest. Evolution is not about being "fit enough" but fitter then others. Evolution strives for perfection, not adequacy.
there is more I would like to post right now (and edit), but i have pressing engagements.
this is interesting so far.
a species which protects those less fit does in fact inhibit evolution, the reason that animals have adapted to so many places is because the ones that were less fit for the environment chances for procreation was less then that of the others.
Evolution is a product of many random chance mutations, how can a creature move towards adaptation when undesired mutation is not removed from the gene pool. if all mutations survive, there is no trend toward anything and evolution is without direction and movement, Evolution does not occur.
Fit enough is different from fittest. Evolution is not about being "fit enough" but fitter then others. Evolution strives for perfection, not adequacy.
there is more I would like to post right now (and edit), but i have pressing engagements.
this is interesting so far.
Although I have to give credit to the concept of Evolution. I do believe in God and Jesus Christ. (I am a Catholic). I tend to repect things quite well honestly, and I do give respect to a theory that does have consistancy. Do I believe in Evolution? No. Do I believe in Natural Selection? Sort of.
The way I see it is, God put us here on this seemingly fragile world to make what we can out of ourselves. Those that are not built to survive the conditions they are in are unfortunatly going to die. I know I just explained how natural selection works, but I just have a weird relationship with the concept of Natural Selection.
The way I see it is, God put us here on this seemingly fragile world to make what we can out of ourselves. Those that are not built to survive the conditions they are in are unfortunatly going to die. I know I just explained how natural selection works, but I just have a weird relationship with the concept of Natural Selection.
Actually even with the tools and societies we created we still evolve. There's the peacock method of natural selection where the most desirable specimens are more likely to produce in the West (although I'm not sure if there's any evidence of gradual changes as of yet).Aphantas said:
In Africa, in Aids epidemic countries there are humans that have a natural resistance to HIV/Aids that lets them carry the disease but not suffer from it's effects.
In Nepal you have Sherpas, who have an amazingly adapted physiology allowing them live and survive at higher altitudes than other humans.
In Italy there is the community of people who are essentially immune to heart disease.
There is no such thing as "perfection". And no, Evolution does not "strive" for anything. Evolution simply "is" and "produces". If an organism can survive long enough to pass it's genetic legacy onto an offspring in which will survive after it dies, then Evolution has occurred and the organism has proven itself more fit to pass on it's genetic legacy than an organism whom did not survive to pass on it's own. So in fact, yes. Evolution does strive for adequacy, as perfection in any definition due to how mutations and biology function in reality will never be reached, no matter how many adaptations one possesses.Aphantas said:
What you are doing, is putting typical, simple minded human terms of "fittest" and "strongest" into Evolutionary theory and declaring the process of Evolution is some sort of "race" to the finish line (there isn't one). Nothing could be farther from the truth, in this case.
Thanks ShadowsofHope I must agree with you that evolution has no real goal or aim since it is a process, not a person, it was just an easy way to try to visualize a complex idea and how it works, but evolution still has a direction in which it heads, or in terms of probability, a trend. The trend is determined by external factors upon a creature which favors certain traits. It is true also that perfection is never achieved because there's no such thing as a static environment and there are other creatures evolving to consume them more and more efficiently.ShadowsofHope said:
But I must ask you a question, If a creature was truly adequate for an environment, would it not suffer and die only from old age? Surely these things happen only when situations for which it is not adapted for occurs.
I also like those examples of human evolution by ThisIsSnake, good rebuttal. It can be used to support my case however since those are also examples of where technology has failed. Evolution occurred because Technology had not given them those abilities earlier or at all. there is no cure for AIDS currently, Air Pressure regulation has only been recently discovered, and heart disease is treatable for the short term, but not preventable. Evolution acts to fill in Technology's gaps.
Peacock Selection based on appearances is interesting to consider since it has no utility other then to seduce the opposite sex. This would occur for humans but for the combination of two traits in people, we are self-aware and social. other animals are for the most part controlled but instinct, but people are able to recognize instinct and suppress it with their conscious mind because that urge is not socially acceptable. After all, to be accepted by our chosen society, no matter how small, is very important to all of us.
This can seen in any person still in the closet so to speak, but this example is getting less applicable by the day with the rise of sexual tolerance.
Self-awareness also means that we a very precise idea of what a human is and acts like, which to be blunt is like ourselves. Visible mutations are shunned and rejected from our gene pool because of our own expectations of what humans are.
onto your next point it is important to not only consider whether a animal has reproduced, but how many times it has. A single mutation will most likely not add up to evolution if it is not built upon by others with the same mutation.
a single mutation will be either pushed out of existence by stronger genes (the decline of ginger hair among people is an example of this) or the carrier will die, ending that line of evolution or in a very improbable chance succeed by being a stronger genetic trait. That last example is of something called micro-evolution (found that in the link posted to me before, thanks BrassButtons), so we as a species are still evolving at a very, very slow pace, but new visible mutations are being systematically removed by society. We will all end up with black hair in the end since that is the strongest colour gene (or so I am told) and evolution in that area may stop for a long time after that.
The only way for cosmetic mutation to proceed would be for society to become truly tolerant of all people or for the triffids to come down upon us, in which case we couldn't tell anyway.
again thanks for all the respond's to this, I like my views being challenged.
P.S. I just realised that I have hit a snag in Peacock Selection. We can treat some deformities/mutations, this alone is allowing visible mutations to pass under the radar of society. Technology is allowing some mutations though in that case. The funny thing is though, even if we do evolve cosmetically, we just will just alter ourselves to be like everyone else! Evolutionary change is both granted and foiled by Technology in this case!
Would think he means that a person with such a high educational level wouldn't be stupid. But the basic laws of human stupidity do not only apply to people who have low intelligence (http://www.ecotopia.com/webpress/stupidity/).CarlMinez said:
OT: He'd alienate himself in my country by saying that unless he lived with the crazy religious cultists of tiny villages at the far reaches of civilization.
...My entire point was that THAT is the part he may have disagreed with - ie, we began as spores and evolved into humans. Sure, it COULD have happened that way, assuming everything was there in the first place. But there are people who don't believe we /started/ that way, that evolution is just how we've continued since everything began.The Cadet said: