Evolution...positive Or Negative?

[watcher215]

I'd like to ask a question:


Has the process of evolution made mankind better? or worse?

 

[Rusticus]

Impossible to say.

The way I understand it, Evolution is not about better or worse, but about adaptation to a particular set of environmental conditions.

 

[rjw]

I'd like to ask a question:


Has the process of evolution made mankind better? or worse?

Gidday watcher215,


According to ToE, mankind arose via an evolutionary process. As such, humans are humans are humans who were "made by" evolution. Therefore why should evolution "make mankind better or worse"? Both the saints and the sinners came out of an evolutionary process.

Your question assumes there were non evolutionary humans against which we could measure "better or worse"?

Can you tell me who these humans were?


Regards, Roland

 

[rjw]

Gidday watcher215,


According to ToE, mankind arose via an evolutionary process. As such, humans are humans are humans who were "made by" evolution. Therefore why should evolution "make mankind better or worse"? Both the saints and the sinners came out of an evolutionary process.

Your question assumes there were non evolutionary humans against which we could measure "better or worse"?

Can you tell me who these humans were?


Your question is like me asking "did God make mankind better or worse?"



Regards, Roland

 

[Jet Black]

it has made us what we are.

 

[coyoteBR]

Evolution is a Force of Nature, one of the Laws that allow life on this planet. Like so, is not good or bad per se, they just... exist and do their job.

 

[watcher215]

Your question assumes there were non evolutionary humans against which we could measure "better or worse"?

no...i am not assuming 'non-evolutionary humans'...i am, at the least, assuming a common ancestor from which man has evolved.

Your question is like me asking "did God make mankind better or worse?"

in light of christianity's worldview of 'the fall of man', i would have to say God made man worse.

 

[Jet Black]

no...i am not assuming 'non-evolutionary humans'...i am, at the least, assuming a common ancestor from which man has evolved.

ok, so how are you defining better and worse?

 

[Nymphalidae]

Evolution is only concerned with passing on genetic material. Whether we think the product is good or bad is irrelevant.

 

[watcher215]

ok, so how are you defining better and worse?

if i understand evolutionary theory correctly,

better: more suited to our environment

worse: less suited to our environment

i'll just try to keep my definition within the framework of evolutionary theory...at least as i understand it.

 

[Rusticus]

Given enough time and otherwise favourable conditions a species will perfectly adapt to a given environment.

When there is (rapid) environmental change (as there is from time to time) the adaptation may in the short run no longer match the new conditions very well (or not at all, leading to extinction).
This is often the trigger for the rise of new species, because there may be new vacant environmental niches to be occupied.

 

[Jet Black]

if i understand evolutionary theory correctly,

better: more suited to our environment

worse: less suited to our environment

i'll just try to keep my definition within the framework of evolutionary theory...at least as i understand it.

it's rather difficult to say isn't it? since humans change the environment to suit them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'd like to ask a question:


Has the process of evolution made mankind better? or worse?

I vote better for the simple reason that we haven't gone extinct yet -- which certainly beats the alternative.

 

[tocis]

Has the process of evolution made mankind better? or worse?

In evolutionary timescales, humanity has existed for but some few seconds. Not much opportunity for evolution to kick in so far.
Let alone that due to our ability to apply abstract rational thought to our lives we are able to stop evolution from proceeding.... not saying that we do, or even that we have to do... just that we have the power to resist evolution if we choose to.

In other words... hard to answer that question.

 

[rjw]

no...i am not assuming 'non-evolutionary humans'...i am, at the least, assuming a common ancestor from which man has evolved.



in light of christianity's worldview of 'the fall of man', i would have to say God made man worse.

Gidday watcher215,

Your second point may be valid, i.e. your claim that God made man less than perfect because that is the Christian worldview. That is you can measure human nature (God's creation) against God's nature. But even then, there is the big, big problem. You show me one such unequivocal measure?


Your first point is still problematical.

Evolution is a natural process. How do you decide whether it made man "better" or "worse"? Better or worse than what? "Better" and "worse" are classifications humans apply to things.

If you believe that your god designed evolution and he designed it so that it could produce an inferior product then your question would have meaning. But then we would want evidence from you that:-

a) your god does exist and that

b) he/she/it did design evolution in such a way that it could only produce an inferior product.


Regards, Roland

 

[watcher215]

Hi Roland

Your second point may be valid, i.e. your claim that God made man less than perfect because that is the Christian worldview. That is you can measure human nature (God's creation) against God's nature. But even then, there is the big, big problem. You show me one such unequivocal measure?

I will leave this for now.

Your first point is still problematical.

Evolution is a natural process.

Does this natural process produce change in mankind that is advantageous to our survival?
Does this natural process produce change in mankind that is not advantageous to our survival?

Is advantageous a word that can be applied to evolution?

Better or worse than what? "Better" and "worse" are classifications humans apply to things.

Better or Worse than our common ancestor.

How do you decide whether it made man "better" or "worse"?

Better or Worse were defined in a previous post as 'more suited to the environment' or 'less suited to the environment' respectively.

If i am not mistaken these definitions exist within the framework of natural selection and the ToE.



Thanx for the feedback.

 

[watcher215]

In evolutionary timescales, humanity has existed for but some few seconds. Not much opportunity for evolution to kick in so far.
Let alone that due to our ability to apply abstract rational thought to our lives we are able to stop evolution from proceeding.... not saying that we do, or even that we have to do... just that we have the power to resist evolution if we choose to.

In other words... hard to answer that question.

are you saying that humans can overcome the influence of evolution upon the population by exerting the power of our mind?

wow!

 

[TeddyKGB]

are you saying that humans can overcome the influence of evolution upon the population by exerting the power of our mind?

Sort of. We have the ability to keep many otherwise debilitating or fatal diseases at bay, allowing those with less-than-robust immune systems to survive and reproduce. We can correct many congenital defects, not to mention developmental ones like failing eyesight.

All of these things are at least partially dependent on the power of the human mind.

 

[In A Perfect World]

Evolution isn't about what's better or worse in our sense. It's about aptitude for survival. In a survivalist sense, better advantages mean survival and boom in population, where bad advtanges usually means decline in population or extinction.

We simply "are" is how I can describe us. I think it is too bad our species is not more universally altruistic ("us" vs "them" mentalities), yet this is only my opinion.

 

[Nathan Poe]

it's rather difficult to say isn't it? since humans change the environment to suit them.

Although one could argue that we evolved the intellect and the desire to do so.