Evolution...positive Or Negative?

[watcher215]

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

Hey Nathan,

is there any proof that evolution is influencing our mind as well as our biology?

 

[David Gould]

Hey Nathan,

is there any proof that evolution is influencing our mind as well as our biology?

Our minds are the result of our biology - our brain is biological and our mind is a process of the brain.

In other words, there is no dichotomy between our mind and our biology.

 

[rjw]

Hi Roland



I will leave this for now.




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 our common ancestor.



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.

Gidday watcher215,

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?

You need to be warned that I am not a scientist so just be a bit careful about what I may say.

Humans have a lot of variation within their genes – between individuals. Some of this is potentially advantageous, some is potentially disadvantageous, and a lot is neither (it is neutral). Some is so disadvantageous that the individual who is born with those genes may be disabled, or die sometime after birth. Some is so advantageous that the individual born with those genes may be a great artist or sports person.

If the environment is such that the individual having those genes survives better than the individuals without those genes, then that individual will probably survive better, reproduce more offspring etc.

This is a brief description of the conventional Darwinian view of evolution.

There are competing non-Darwinian theories. One is a neutral theory of evolution. It concerns itself with that huge variation which is neither advantageous nor disadvantageous. However I do not know much about it.

“Advantageous” can be applied to evolution. However be careful, don’t confuse the word with “better”. It has to do with surviving in the environment the animal finds itself in.

Better or Worse than our common ancestor.

“Better” or “worse” than our common ancestor is perhaps not a good way of putting it.

Certainly we have bigger brains and therefore can put men on the moon, philosophize, create cities, be religious, make cars, develop maths etc. However, we can also build hydrogen bombs, destroy the planet’s environment etc.

But then our ancestors could probably climb trees better than us, hunt better than us, care for each other better than us, and so on.

Our ancestors survived. We survive.

Our ancestors went extinct. So could we.

We evolved from our ancestors. Something could well evolve from us.

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

If better/worse means more/less suited to the environment, then refer back to the beginning of this post.

With respect to our ancestors? Take yourself – minus all your modern widgets, back to the past. Maybe then you are far less suited to survive than our ancestors. Take your ancestors forward to today. Maybe they could not survive in our world.



Regards, Roland

 

[tocis]

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.

You beat me to it - I'd have posted pretty much the same