Can you interrupt "Evolution"? With the right "selection pressure"?

[Gottservant]

You're not giving me any leeway here?

Helping Evolution, is "irrelevant" (viz. at least, to a linguistic definition) AND adapting at the right rate has no "specie defined morphology" (which is absolutely necessary for survival to mean "survival").

Moreover, you preclude there being a moral answer - which is necessarily evil, not benign.

We need to work on what you guys believe, it sounds like you are on the path to destruction - without a will to live?

 

[Gottservant]

It just dawned on me: with the right selection pressure, I could cause Evolutionists to forget Evolution...

Lol.

Imagine a world, where Evolution was "forgotten"! If the children refused to play, we would say "now... remember what happened to Evolution!".

 

[timewerx]

I'm not sure what a "right" pressure would be. Evolution can be affected by moral or immoral behavior of humans, but evolution is just the consequence, there isn't a right or wrong evolution.

Powerful people can definitely use it to their advantage. The have the means, money, and influence to do it. And very often, they do, mainly in commerce (making money). Even Gov't agencies do this through "Social Engineering".

They are "promoting" people who does not question authority (even if the authority is abusing his or her power). People who tolerate abuse, tolerate or indifferent to injustice, people who would not resort to the use of force (even if the situation calls for it), people who stick to the rules even in situations where the rules may cause more harm than good. People who are easy to scare and control.

 

[Shemjaza]

Powerful people can definitely use it to their advantage. The have the means, money, and influence to do it. And very often, they do, mainly in commerce (making money). Even Gov't agencies do this through "Social Engineering".

They are "promoting" people who does not question authority (even if the authority is abusing his or her power). People who tolerate abuse, tolerate or indifferent to injustice, people who would not resort to the use of force (even if the situation calls for it), people who stick to the rules even in situations where the rules may cause more harm than good. People who are easy to scare and control.

Not really operating on a scale that would effect evolution though.

Human civilisation is just too quick and too unstable to do much to human evolution.

 

[timewerx]

Human civilisation is just too quick and too unstable to do much to human evolution.

It's been the same for many thousands of years already.

Same pattern of promoting people who are easy to control (with money).

 

[Shemjaza]

It's been the same for many thousands of years already.

Same pattern of promoting people who are easy to control (with money).

Thousands is too short a time... and it is by no means universal and consistent enough to really alter the gene pool.

The cruel and powerful are breeding successfully, the weak and pliable are breeding successfully, people that are somewhere in between are breeding successfully.

All in all I'm not seeing any strong pressures on humanity.

 

[timewerx]

The cruel and powerful are breeding successfully, the weak and pliable are breeding successfully, people that are somewhere in between are breeding successfully.

All in all I'm not seeing any strong pressures on humanity.

You didn't read my post

I only made distinction to people who are easy to control.

It's not about who is powerful or weak... Even among the powerful, most are easy to control with money or by threat or by oppotunities from people even more powerful or richer than they!

Very powerful people who are impossible to control (with money, etc) and probably serving a noble cause are usually denied further opportunities, falsely accused, and even murdered!

Only easily controlled and easily manipulated people are promoted in this world, both big and small, rich and poor!

 

[Shemjaza]

You didn't read my post

I only made distinction to people who are easy to control.

It's not about who is powerful or weak... Even among the powerful, most are easy to control with money or by threat or by oppotunities from people even more powerful or richer than they!

Very powerful people who are impossible to control (with money, etc) and probably serving a noble cause are usually denied further opportunities, falsely accused, and even murdered!

Only easily controlled and easily manipulated people are promoted in this world, both big and small, rich and poor!

I'm dubious. It seems a weird distinction and I'm not sure it is even a common psychological trait let alone a genetic one.

 

[timewerx]

I'm dubious. It seems a weird distinction and I'm not sure it is even a common psychological trait let alone a genetic one.

You can breed behavior in dogs. It's a proven fact.

So it's quite possible you can do the same thing in humans too.

Society already does it indirectly. By discriminating against people who are the likes of "whistleblowers" and favoring "kiss-buts" (people who are easy to control).. Because kis-buts can't be whistleblowers!

They even do this in employee recruitment programs. I workd in Human Resources so I know!

If financial opportunities are bleak, it's a lot harder to establish a family in a safe environment. That's how you do it.

I don't blame for not noticing it.... "Whistleblowers" are a rare breed..... It takes less than a hundred years to establish a reliable dog breed.....

And we've been "bred" for thousands years. It's in your genes to "conform", don't challenge and don't whistleblow authorities and be blind to anything out-of-the-ordinary!

 

[Shemjaza]

You can breed behavior in dogs. It's a proven fact.

So it's quite possible you can do the same thing in humans too.

Society already does it indirectly. By discriminating against people who are the likes of "whistleblowers" and favoring "kiss-buts" (people who are easy to control).. Because kis-buts can't be whistleblowers!

They even do this in employee recruitment programs. I workd in Human Resources so I know!

If financial opportunities are bleak, it's a lot harder to establish a family in a safe environment. That's how you do it.

I don't blame for not noticing it.... "Whistleblowers" are a rare breed..... It takes less than a hundred years to establish a reliable dog breed.....

And we've been "bred" for thousands years. It's in your genes to "conform", don't challenge and don't whistleblow authorities and be blind to anything out-of-the-ordinary!

I don't buy it.

It's a very simplistic description of human interaction. Even the term you decided to use "Whistle blower" demonstrates the issue. If you have the ability to be a whistle blower you clearly have an external authority of some kind to alert to the problem... and in addition you have the people who are defying that authority who need the whistle blown on them.

I just don't see any reasonable reason to both apply a simple concept "controllable" to all of human society and even if I accepted it, see that there is a real pressure to match it.

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, but what is it that starts or stops Evolution, if it is not life? Can the soul stop and start Evolution??

remove all pressures is only way to stop evolution, as that is what drives evolution from the first living cell to us. mutations provide the variations and the world and other life drive evolution that acts upon those variations.

 

[loveofourlord]

Then you can evolve a moral? Or resistance to one??



Ok, so if there is less evolution going on, and more is needed, then less is "wrong". Am I right?



Surely you can wait before reproducing, if you have not had a chance to compare your "mate" with other "mates". That would result in greater "cognitive" assonance, with desireable traits - a subjective Evolution, if you will.



Isn't this why people work to stop species becoming instinct? What instinct is that - what word do you give that?

of course humans can evolve morals, animals have them already in simpler forms. Individuals can't 'evolve' morals as it's been repeated evolving is something populations do not individuals. Most of our morals can have evolved, as those that have inclinations against certain behaviours are more likly to not get killed, or octricized there fore they can't procreate and pass on potential genes that effect their bad behaviour. in the past if you murder someone or steal you were very often killed or kicked out of the tribe, meaning those that abhor such behaviour were more likly to survive. We still have bad behaviour but they tend to be exception not the norm, and even then many of them know they are doing wrong, but they do it anyway.

 

[loveofourlord]

It just dawned on me: with the right selection pressure, I could cause Evolutionists to forget Evolution...

Lol.

Imagine a world, where Evolution was "forgotten"! If the children refused to play, we would say "now... remember what happened to Evolution!".

you really are bizzare to watch with these insane leaps of logic. Evolution is a process, what we think, or know, or understand about evolution is meaningless to it's process. Creationist could win and kill everyone that accepts evolution and erase all knowledge of it from books and internet, and it still be there, heck you could kill all humans and it still be there.

 

[timewerx]

If you have the ability to be a whistle blower you clearly have an external authority of some kind to alert to the problem

It's possible to have quite unique concept of morality that an external authority supporting such concept does not exist!

Note, I'm not talking about God or religion. I'm simply talking about a mindset that is ever questioning on how we do things or even how we think.

If you can make a choice on things you want to be or want to have and you are able to acquire them, but the choices you make, the things you want in life is about the same as everyone else...

Are you actually free? Are you even in control of your mind?

Get an ant, put it on the ground, make 10 radiating pheromone paths around the ant. But make the paths all lead to the same destination.

The ant think it has freedom of choice when it is you who provided the choices. Whatever the ant chooses, it will lead to the same outcome.

Sounds familiar in politics? Are we really free to choose? Do we really have "free will"?

The vast majority of people don't care.....Because we've all been bred!

 

[Gottservant]

you really are bizzare to watch with these insane leaps of logic. Evolution is a process, what we think, or know, or understand about evolution is meaningless to it's process. Creationist could win and kill everyone that accepts evolution and erase all knowledge of it from books and internet, and it still be there, heck you could kill all humans and it still be there.

Yes, it would still be there: but in what sense?

That's what I am asking: "how do you interrupt Evolution?" - not start or stop, both!

 

[loveofourlord]

Yes, it would still be there: but in what sense?

That's what I am asking: "how do you interrupt Evolution?" - not start or stop, both!

Thats a stupid question like most of yours, show a complete lack of understanding in any of the subjects your attacking. Asking can you stop evolution is like saying can you stop weather, you might redirect it at times, put up a wall to prevent it in one area, but it will always happen because it's a consequence of nature.

Not even sure what interupting evolution would even mean, don't think you even do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thats a stupid question like most of yours, show a complete lack of understanding in any of the subjects your attacking. Asking can you stop evolution is like saying can you stop weather, you might redirect it at times, put up a wall to prevent it in one area, but it will always happen because it's a consequence of nature.

Not even sure what interupting evolution would even mean, don't think you even do.

A lighter touch might be advisable. Gottservant's posts are typically disordered, confused, or opaque, which may reflect the thinking behind them.

 

[loveofourlord]

A lighter touch might be advisable. Gottservant's posts are typically disordered, confused, or opaque, which may reflect the thinking behind them.

Thanks :> Was just starting to get frustrated with the level of arguments, it be nice if they at least argued agaisnt what science says heh.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks :> Was just starting to get frustrated with the level of arguments, it be nice if they at least argued agaisnt what science says heh.

You're asking a lot

Some deliberately misrepresent the scientific arguments; some honestly misunderstand or are ignorant of them; some occupy their own strange reality. The problem with the second group is where to start - a forum isn't ideal for teaching the basics of evolution.

 

[Kylie]

Hi there,

So this is basically a test of whether something is real or not. Something that is real, can be interrupted. Gravity causes a fall, but the fall can be interrupted; electricity causes shock, but the shock can be interrupted. Most laws, if the are genuine, follow this simple pattern.

The question is "can you interrupt 'Evolution'?" - if so, how?

To my simple mind, Evolutionists would have to accept Evolution can be interrupted, if the selection pressures acting on Evolution, are the right selection pressures? So basically you could have a case, where something was pressured one way and then was pressured another way and it wouldn't be clear that Evolution was working. Like the butterfly, one minute its a caterpillar with certain selection pressures and then it becomes a butterfly, with different selection pressures again - what matters is that somehow Evolution can be interrupted, meaningfully.

The fact that the caterpillar has certain selection pressures, does not change the need to become a butterfly and the butterfly does not need to forget having caterpillar eggs, because the selection pressures on it, have changed.

Do you see what I am getting at here?

How do you know, when to interrupt Evolution? And when not?
What is the capacity to respond to selection pressures (adapted or evolved)?

So you are asking whether we can improve a process by stopping the process?

That's like saying that you can run faster by standing still. It makes no sense.