I give up: I'd rather go backwards, than forwards (in Evolution)

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You are basically fudging a very easy term to understand.

But I have turned over a new leaf: I no longer need a term of one kind or another, to determine what I share with people - I am simply going to share my best, whatever the consequences may be.

In the end, you will have no reason to insult me and I will have peace with God.

I'm not insulting you, I am simply pointing out a plain fact: you do not talk in understandable terms. You do not use the correct terms when talking about science, and when people try to ask for an explanation, you do not help yourself by talking in more nonsensical and non-understandable posts.

You, very simply and plainly, do not understand science, let alone evolution, and you seem hellbent on refusing to let people actually teach you and help you understand the error of your ways.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It may be a problem of levels of medication.

 

[FredVB]

Whatever evolution is happening among us will not effect an individual in that individual's lifetime, and the individual would have negligeable effect on such evolution. It is certain now that white skinned people are a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on. With any evolution this species will not continue, and there will be a world again without humans, but if we do not change from the destructiveness a world forever affected from this human presence with much less of other life left. But if there is as much life left, and we have any descendents from humans left from evolution, they would be something else not recognized as human, if biological evolution is a process that is happening.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Whatever evolution is happening among us will not effect an individual in that individual's lifetime, and the individual would have negligeable effect on such evolution. It is certain now that white skinned people are a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on. With any evolution this species will not continue, and there will be a world again without humans, but if we do not change from the destructiveness a world forever affected from this human presence with much less of other life left. But if there is as much life left, and we have any descendents from humans left from evolution, they would be something else not recognized as human, if biological evolution is a process that is happening.

Why are 'white skinned people a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on'?
Yes, pale skin is a relatively recent mutation because of ice ages but once that gene is set in the human genome it is is set. Yes, in the future it may become recessive and will probably only pop up in a population again as the climate changes and evolution does its job, but that comment... that doesn't even seem scientific to me.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why are 'white skinned people a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on'?
Yes, pale skin is a relatively recent mutation because of ice ages but once that gene is set in the human genome it is is set. Yes, in the future it may become recessive and will probably only pop up in a population again as the climate changes and evolution does its job, but that comment... that doesn't even seem scientific to me.

Pale skin is an evolutionary response to the need to generate vitamin D (melanin diminishes that capacity and solar exposure is less away from the equator) and the counter pressure to prevent skin damage including cancer (melanin helps this).

We have clothing, sun block, and simple skin cancer treatments that virtually eliminate any back pressure to evolve darker skin. Likewise we have nutritional supplementation of foods and knowledge of micronutrients that the pressure to evolve darker skin is non-existant. I don't really see any significant evolutionary pressures on skin pigmentation in our modern world.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Pale skin is an evolutionary response to the need to generate vitamin D (melanin diminishes that capacity and solar exposure is less away from the equator) and the counter pressure to prevent skin damage including cancer (melanin helps this).

We have clothing, sun block, and simple skin cancer treatments that virtually eliminate any back pressure to evolve darker skin. Likewise we have nutritional supplementation of foods and knowledge of micronutrients that the pressure to evolve darker skin. I don't really see any significant evolutionary pressures on skin pigmentation in our modern world.

The only thing I can think of is mass interracial marriages and larger numbers of interracial children but that would have be an absolutely mahoosive swathe of the population to make a sizeable dent. Or some sort of catastrophic climate change event that requires the change in skin tone to survive. But both of those ideas are... highly improbable to happen.

So yeah, that comment that I quoted is just... it makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Estrid]

Pale skin is an evolutionary response to the need to generate vitamin D (melanin diminishes that capacity and solar exposure is less away from the equator) and the counter pressure to prevent skin damage including cancer (melanin helps this).

We have clothing, sun block, and simple skin cancer treatments that virtually eliminate any back pressure to evolve darker skin. Likewise we have nutritional supplementation of foods and knowledge of micronutrients that the pressure to evolve darker skin. I don't really see any significant evolutionary pressures on skin pigmentation in our modern world.

Not likely enough to do anything.

I imagine evolution in humans is at a standstill,
with all the mixing, and medical care keeping
alive individuals previously eliminated frome
gene pool.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I imagine evolution in humans is at a standstill,
with all the mixing, and medical care keeping
alive individuals previously eliminated frome
gene pool.

No; as it happens, human evolution is proceeding apace.

 

[Estrid]

No; as it happens, human evolution is proceeding apace.

No need. Asian women are the apex already

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm still waiting on @FredVB to explain what they mean by "white skinned people a temporary phenomenon in the duration of human existence in this world and their presence as such would not continue on".

 

[Gottservant]

Backwards evolves, more than forwards.

 

[Kylie]

Backwards evolves, more than forwards.

That doesn't make any sense. Can you explain what you mean?

 

[Gottservant]

That doesn't make any sense. Can you explain what you mean?

Evolution with the past in focus, develops strength on the basis of the familiar (as opposed to the unfamiliar).

There will never be a point, at which "throwbacks" are no longer considered viable - because they increase adaptability in all but the most extreme cases.

Name one throwback, that became extinct, solely on the basis that the relevant species could survive without it.

 

[Kylie]

Evolution with the past in focus, develops strength on the basis of the familiar (as opposed to the unfamiliar).

There will never be a point, at which "throwbacks" are no longer considered viable - because they increase adaptability in all but the most extreme cases.

Name one throwback, that became extinct, solely on the basis that the relevant species could survive without it.

I still have no idea what you are saying. Evolution doesn't care what it has produced in the past, nor does it care about the future. It only cares about what it has in the here-and-now that it can work with to deal with selective pressures.

 

[Gottservant]

I still have no idea what you are saying. Evolution doesn't care what it has produced in the past, nor does it care about the future. It only cares about what it has in the here-and-now that it can work with to deal with selective pressures.

Yes but there is a temporal connection between the "what was" to the "what will be".

The temporal lobes evolved to deal with just such a relationship.

Your argument that Evolution develops without any contingency on the ready, is just imagination.

How does the imagination evolve, without something to focus the imagination on? Do you see what I am saying?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Backwards evolves, more than forwards.

There is no backwards evolution. We can have throwbacks, as in single things in an animals gene that earlier species had (like humans still having tails) but we have seen nothing to show that species can go backwards to a type of animal that already existed since the selection pressures for those animals rendered them extinct.

 

[Gottservant]

There is no backwards evolution. We can have throwbacks, as in single things in an animals gene that earlier species had (like humans still having tails) but we have seen nothing to show that species can go backwards to a type of animal that already existed since the selection pressures for those animals rendered them extinct.

But you said it yourself, the selection pressures only affected adaptation at one point, there is nothing to say going back and trying again will not be more and more successful - given how familiar with the pressure you become?

The more familiar you are with a selection pressure, the more likely you will beat it, right?

If I pass familiarity with a selection pressure on, to the next generation, the will adapt that much faster, in their own way?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

But you said it yourself, the selection pressures only affected adaptation at one point, there is nothing to say going back and trying again will not be more and more successful - given how familiar with the pressure you become?

The more familiar you are with a selection pressure, the more likely you will beat it, right?

If I pass familiarity with a selection pressure on, to the next generation, the will adapt that much faster, in their own way?

No, there is something to stop them going back - extinction. What has been cannot come again. Animals that existed and have gone extinct cannot come back. We can have things LIKE them, but we will never have those exact animals again.

The idea of becoming familiar with a selection pressure is... you are honestly on the right track but you are asking it in a very stupid way, I will say it simply. Animals can and do exist in biological and evolutionary niches because evolution made them adaptable to changes in such extreme ways that have existed for millions of year, the best examples being crocodiles, sharks, frogs and snakes, animals with body plans that have not changed for millions of years except have just gotten smaller to work with a changing world.

You need to stop thinking of evolution as something tangible. It's not.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Bear in mind, @Gottservant, I am not saying that you are even remotely right in the slightest.

 

[Gottservant]

You need to stop thinking of evolution as something tangible. It's not.

The whole thing is that if I become familiar with certain selection pressures, I become familiar with selection pressures like them - how can I believe that without hoping that "Evolution" will at least in part be something "tangible"?

It's not possible.

Say I learn to swim in shallow water, I learn to see water at a distance, I can walk at length to go from the creek to the lake - these things all hinge on adapting to water in its different expressions - if I had to adapt swimming in shallow water and seeing water at a distance and walking at length from the creek to the lake all at the same time, I would never get there: water at a distance would be confused with shallow water, shallow water would be confused with water at a distance -- the whole structure would break down.

Alternatively, I can believe there are many dimensions to aspects of my selection pressures - such that I cohere a progressive response to them. Jesus didn't go straight to the cross, He had to get help - at some point we are all going to need to get help from God, with our adaptations, there are just too many selection pressures working against us, all the time, to try and manually develop a response that agrees with where those selection pressures are going to have taken us.

I don't want to confuse you with philosophy, but there is something to be said for the value philosophy places on wisdom, despite what the current trend of "thinking" actually is - it is a lesson "Evolution" is going to have to learn at some point, very soon (I would argue) - from there you can make all the moral judgments it takes to keep Evolution viable. And that is where I think your remark that "Evolution" is not tangible, fails - if Evolution is not tangible, neither is it "viable".

Science works by subjugating elements of its ornamentation to tests of validity - I have done this, with the concept of the throwback, which opens a window to familiarity and from familiarity, I have confirmed that the speed of what is attempted, is governed by the enormity of what it is believed can be responded to, all within the grounds flourishing more or less successfully -- what I need from you is an understanding, that this is not all for nothing, God gives "Evolutional" strength to some and "Creative" strength to others and as stewards of the difference, we must work out what is most Attractive - we will be judged by how well we do this, for the good of what God presumes to rule over, in this way. I simply cannot and will not forsake that it is more God's doing than mine, for that which is coming and not yet merely manifest for self-satisfying reasons.

It is not much of a leap, from understanding that familiarity breeds appreciation, to having the compassion to nourish that familiarity, until it is strong (and hence, most survivable).