If "Evolving", is adding to your most needed adaptations; eliminating one of your least needed is?

[Gottservant]

Please stop trying to "teach" us evolution. This last post has the kernels of some reality in it, but it gets jumbled up with other stuff.

What books on evolution have you read? Recently, or at all?

You said 'teach', that wasn't me.

"Do not be called teachers, for one is your teacher, even the Christ" - gospels

I've had discussions about Evolution and am comfortable with being condescended to, preferably if what is communicated tends not to have an air of egregious self-satisfaction.

 

[Gottservant]

If he did come back to life, he would have to go back to school to learn everything that has been discovered since his day before he could get a degree.

The question is: what would Darwin do differently, given that he had to start over?

 

[Gottservant]

Nope. That's not what a tax is. Taxes don't eliminate the weakest economic actors.

You chose the word 'eliminate', I would prefer 'weaken'.

There is a transfer of economic power to the government, which makes competition harder for small business.

In Evolutionary terms, the leader of the pack directs the herd, making it more certain the population as a whole survives - while leaving the over-committed to suffer exposure (through vulnerability to predation).

 

[Gottservant]

Listen, I feel a bit unsure of myself - suggesting that negative evolution be somehow equal with positive evolution, but unqualified.

The point about negative evolution, is that it doesn't guarantee survival on the basis of aggressive predation. If positive evolution comes up against negative, positive will win, in every circumstance but where positive is overdone (if you will).

The point I believe it makes, is that you cannot always rely on positive evolution, when in fact negative evolution can take the same contenders and give an advantage above and beyond being "overdone". If you are negative and you are "overdone" on the other hand, you are left without enough adaptation to meet the challenge. Both positive and negative being "overdone" it is the stronger that wins, once again.

What you can't do, is rule negative evolution "out": it has a specific function, that is congenial with positive evolution - to a greater degree, not a lesser one.

Maybe that will go someway to explaining negative evolution, as fits with your (evolutionary) "schema".

 

[Hans Blaster]

You mean to tell me, that if you are equally adapted for the right, as for the left, you will never be in a situation where it is impossible to decide?

If you favour left over right, you will always have an alternative.

Say you spent a long time among right handers, and then went to the left: unless you minimized your right handedness to a degree, you would find it hard to mate with left handers?

Are you aware of any "chirality" problem in mate selection or mating performance?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You mean to tell me, that if you are equally adapted for the right, as for the left, you will never be in a situation where it is impossible to decide?

If you favour left over right, you will always have an alternative.

Say you spent a long time among right handers, and then went to the left: unless you minimized your right handedness to a degree, you would find it hard to mate with left handers?

Your example is completely and utterly useless and insipid. My mum is right handed and my dad is left handed. Handedness in humans has no bearing on survival.

I'll repeat myself:
There is no 'maximum number of adaptations', since Evolution isn't like a game of Bucking Bronco where if you evolve one too many adaptations, an animal just... well, let's use explode as a metaphor. Your idea of there being a 'focus' for adaptation is laughable since the single focus for all life is to just live. That's it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Listen, I feel a bit unsure of myself - suggesting that negative evolution be somehow equal with positive evolution, but unqualified.

The point about negative evolution, is that it doesn't guarantee survival on the basis of aggressive predation. If positive evolution comes up against negative, positive will win, in every circumstance but where positive is overdone (if you will).

The point I believe it makes, is that you cannot always rely on positive evolution, when in fact negative evolution can take the same contenders and give an advantage above and beyond being "overdone". If you are negative and you are "overdone" on the other hand, you are left without enough adaptation to meet the challenge. Both positive and negative being "overdone" it is the stronger that wins, once again.

What you can't do, is rule negative evolution "out": it has a specific function, that is congenial with positive evolution - to a greater degree, not a lesser one.

Maybe that will go someway to explaining negative evolution, as fits with your (evolutionary) "schema".

There's already a principal in nature for creatures that aren't able to evolve and adapt enough to surviva: survival of the fittest.

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

[STAFF EDITED DELETED QUOTE]

Listen, I feel a bit unsure of myself - suggesting that negative evolution be somehow equal with positive evolution, but unqualified.

The point about negative evolution, is that it doesn't guarantee survival on the basis of aggressive predation. If positive evolution comes up against negative, positive will win, in every circumstance but where positive is overdone (if you will).

The point I believe it makes, is that you cannot always rely on positive evolution, when in fact negative evolution can take the same contenders and give an advantage above and beyond being "overdone". If you are negative and you are "overdone" on the other hand, you are left without enough adaptation to meet the challenge. Both positive and negative being "overdone" it is the stronger that wins, once again.

What you can't do, is rule negative evolution "out": it has a specific function, that is congenial with positive evolution - to a greater degree, not a lesser one.

Maybe that will go someway to explaining negative evolution, as fits with your (evolutionary) "schema".

Can you define "positive" and "negative" evolution for us, please? Maybe give a specific example of each?

 

[ewq1938]

PLEASE READ THE SOP SO THERE AREN'T OF TOPIC POSTS

​

 

[Hans Blaster]

And yet you say: mutations are "welcome".

Who gave you the right to determine what interpretative tools, were and were not permissible, anyway?

Evolution perpetrates a lie (that macro evolution goes through micro evolutionary changes), therefore: motive is in question, as are the works it justifies in its name.

No. I never said 'mutations are "welcome"'.

Mutations happen. Some help. Most don't, of those some are harmful.

Any changes from a mutation that affect the ability of creatures to reproduce and thrive will alter the survivability of individuals within the population and cause the population to change -- to evolve.

As for "Evolution perpetrates a lie" I'm not quite sure what you are getting at. Two possibilities seem likely:

1. The biological process lies. This is nonsense. A mindless process can't lie.

-or-

2. the science of evolution (and specifically the scientists who do the work) lies. This is an unjustified libel of a group of people.

So which is it?

----

The last part of you post implies that evolution is some sort of diabolical dogma.

Evolution is not a dogma. It is a science.
Evolution is not a faith. It is a science.
Evolution is not a political philosophy. It is a science.
Evolution is not a lie. It is a science.

 

[Gottservant]

What I am asking, is really, very, very simple:

If Evolution is adapting positively, what is adapting negatively?

If a more refined mate is presented, compared to a mate with no specific distinction: the refined mate, will win every time.

You could even say its "belated" Evolution, since you first have to cognize the typology of the species in question - but that still wouldn't change that it is a category in its own right.

 

[Gottservant]

There's already a principal in nature for creatures that aren't able to evolve and adapt enough to surviv[e]: survival of the fittest.

Fitness of the choosiest: is above and beyond standard survival.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What I am asking, is really, very, very simple:

If Evolution is adapting positively, what is adapting negatively?

If a more refined mate is presented, compared to a mate with no specific distinction: the refined mate, will win every time.

You could even say its "belated" Evolution, since you first have to cognize the typology of the species in question - but that still wouldn't change that it is a category in its own right.

Since most of us aren't clear what you are designating as positive and negative (One fears it is some sort of nebulous quality measure.) I will try to guess.

Positive or negative the adaptation may be it is all evolution. Evolution does not set "value" to things as it makes no "judgement".

 

[Gottservant]

Since most of us aren't clear what you are designating as positive and negative (One fears it is some sort of nebulous quality measure.) I will try to guess.

Positive or negative the adaptation may be it is all evolution. Evolution does not set "value" to things as it makes no "judgement".

That is so disingenuous.

Positive Evolution you will identify.

Negative Evolution, you treat as foreign!

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is so disingenuous.

Positive Evolution you will identify.

Negative Evolution, you treat as foreign!

What are you talking about: Define positive and negative evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

What are you talking about: Define positive and negative evolution.

Positive Evolution: adding adaptations, to the species.

Negative Evolution: subtracting adaptations, from the species.

Positive Evolution pros: greater variety, more consistent pressure.
Positive Evolution cons: less certainty, possibly overkill.

Negative Evolution pros: stronger essentials, less provoked.
Negative Evolution cons: possibly over repeated, less enthusiastic.

So you see, there are reasons for both. The manner in which it is a choice, remains open to question - but if they exist at all "positive" or "negative" they can be adapted to: there is no exclusively consequent adaptation, in most cases.

 

[Gottservant]

Maybe what you need is a catchphrase?

"Leadership, with revival of the population, can sustain greater variability (of the existing)"

Meaning: Evolution can be subjective, to the current adaptation

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Fitness of the choosiest: is above and beyond standard survival.

Except that the potential mate chooses the fittest of the same species to mate with.
Choice only comes into play in humans because we have the ability to be choosy. Literally every other animal species in the world lacks the cognitive ability to do that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Positive Evolution: adding adaptations, to the species.

Negative Evolution: subtracting adaptations, from the species.

Positive Evolution pros: greater variety, more consistent pressure.
Positive Evolution cons: less certainty, possibly overkill.

Negative Evolution pros: stronger essentials, less provoked.
Negative Evolution cons: possibly over repeated, less enthusiastic.

So you see, there are reasons for both. The manner in which it is a choice, remains open to question - but if they exist at all "positive" or "negative" they can be adapted to: there is no exclusively consequent adaptation, in most cases.

You're still not making sense. What is an example of negative evolution, in your mind?

 

[Gottservant]

Except that the potential mate chooses the fittest of the same species to mate with.
Choice only comes into play in humans because we have the ability to be choosy. Literally every other animal species in the world lacks the cognitive ability to do that.

You're not making sense?

The fittest of the fit, is fitter?

Animals are choosier, if anything??