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

[Shemjaza]

If you are my friend, you are going to have different children, than if you are my enemy.

I believe in declaring everything, but you don't want to declare things that would make you look bad.

If you become my friend, you will start declaring things you previously did not want to: this will result in different expressions of the same offspring.

False.

Your children have the traits that a random selection of your own genetics and a smattering of mutations give them.

It isn't your choice... and whether we are friends or enemies changes nothing.

"It's not negative, it just means something is taken away (which is negative)"

Sorry, your comment is too loaded to process.

Try to assert negativity, without negating negativity.

You are missing what is important.

Evolution is relevant to advantages, not to traits. If losing a trait gives you an advantage, you have gained an advantage... that's it.

But if you have already designated Evolution a positive attribute, how can you make its opposite the same designation (and not negative)? It doesn't make sense - it's disingenuous!

Evolution is not an attribute. Evolution is a process.

An opposite of evolution is not a coherent concept.

Ask yourself what the most objective (scientific) approach would be: to attribute both positive and negative traits to the same word, thus limiting what can be observed; or to attribute positive to positive and negative to negative, thus broadening what can be observed..

This doesn't seem to make sense. Can you clarify what you mean?

We may move on from this subject, but I assure you I will not be forgetting the past wrongs of Evolution, over a conflation of expectations, that only add to the wrongs of Evolution.

Evolution is just a process... it doesn't have rights or wrongs in a moral sense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What if you adapted your children, as gifts to others without the capacity to have children of their own? Are you saying you would not be accountable in the slightest, to give those children the best chance they could have to survive?

To answer that I would need to know what you mean by me 'adapting my children', and what it has to do with evolution.

Children have been 'gifted' to (adopted by) others without children since records began, without being 'adapted', whatever that means.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I am instructing a new driver, how to manage a car: I say 'left' is left, 'right' is right. I don't say "south" is left heading west, "north" is left heading east. Both may be true, but the function of the words in their original state, are enough.

I am not trying to take your "Evolution" away from you, I am saying take it as far as make sense - and when we get there, I will help you get further, depending on what we agree on, at that point.

You seem to hold to Evolution, like its your ivory tower, or something - where only people with the right expectations are allowed 'in': it doesn't help your cause at all, that everyone who comes past your door, has to be told where they ought to stand, but aren't given a choice.

If you don't want to believe "Creation", that's fine - Jesus mentioned it twice (in relation to the world); He will not hold it against you if you basically remember everything else, but not that - He wants you to have words and the wisdom of those words, something that will save your life, in the end. I get that you want to be an authority on something and if you are able to be an authority on the human condition, all the better: but just think what the viability of what you remember will be, if no-one can offer their own interpretation or differ as to what they believe the wisest choice to be.

The fact you even think that you can take evolution away from someone, or that you think evolution is some sort of ideal or institution for a person to hold to, clearly shows me that you do not understand evolution.

 

[Gottservant]

one minute its adaptation

then next minute its specialization

is it concretion next?

Sorry, if that sounded arrogant.

I just mean, if we are amassing "Evolutions", in theory that means we are accepting partially finished adaptations?

You can see why that is flawed, right?

 

[Gottservant]

To answer that I would need to know what you mean by me 'adapting my children', and what it has to do with evolution.

Children have been 'gifted' to (adopted by) others without children since records began, without being 'adapted', whatever that means.

Oooh, true word ('without being adapted').

Children being gifted means the selection pressure on their design, is increased - we can only conclude that you would think them "more evolved".


I'm sure they would not object to greater favour - on that basis?

 

[Shemjaza]

Sorry, if that sounded arrogant.

I just mean, if we are amassing "Evolutions", in theory that means we are accepting partially finished adaptations?

You can see why that is flawed, right?

Amassing "Evolutions" doesn't make sense as a sentence fragment. Evolution is a general process... not an individual attribute.

Adaptations could only be defined as partially finished in a historical context. Evolution doesn't have a goal or destiny... in fact it's likely to vary over a population.

But choice and acceptance are not involved. We don't choose our own or our offspring's genetic traits.

So, no, it is not a flaw, because your statements are either simply false, or incoherent.

 

[Shemjaza]

Oooh, true word ('without being adapted').

Children being gifted means the selection pressure on their design, is increased - we can only conclude that you would think them "more evolved".


I'm sure they would not object to greater favour - on that basis?

More evolved is not a sensible concept. An individual or family might be better adapted to a particular environment, but that doesn't mean more evolved.

A tree sloth is probably less intelligent than its ancestors, but that is an advantage to a creature adapted to an environment with extremely limited and sporadic food supplies.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sorry, if that sounded arrogant.

I just mean, if we are amassing "Evolutions", in theory that means we are accepting partially finished adaptations?

You can see why that is flawed, right?

That is flawed, because you are completely wrong.

A being does not 'amass "Evolutions"' and there are no such thing as 'partially finished adaptations'.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am not trying to take your "Evolution" away from you, I am saying take it as far as make sense - and when we get there, I will help you get further, depending on what we agree on, at that point.

Gottservant, anyone who understands the basics of evolution and who has read your own views on it is unlikely to agree with you on anything relating to evolution. You have been told this repeatedly, in many different ways, by many members, yet you insist upon constructing nonsensical concatenations of misunderstandings, irrelevancies, incoherences, ambiguities and drivel, then posting it as if it wasn't an affront to human intellect. It's time you reflected on the worthlessness of the effort.

 

[Gottservant]

Gottservant, anyone who understands the basics of evolution and who has read your own views on it is unlikely to agree with you on anything relating to evolution. You have been told this repeatedly, in many different ways, by many members, yet you insist upon constructing nonsensical concatenations of misunderstandings, irrelevancies, incoherences, ambiguities and drivel, then posting it as if it wasn't an affront to human intellect. It's time you reflected on the worthlessness of the effort.

EDIT: Sorry, I should not have let you get under my skin. I have worked out what I think was constructive and will direct my attention to it.

 

[Gottservant]

Hope that is seen is not hope, for how does one hope for what one has already seen?
Romans 8:24

 

[AV1611VET]

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

A potential death sentence.

 

[Brightmoon]

Negative evolution isn’t a term science uses . It’s all evolution even if a once useful trait is lost by a species . Blind cave fish don’t have functional eyes . Yet their ancestors did and living fish that are closely related but that don’t live in a cave do have functional eyes. The blind fish lose the part of the brain that controls vision as well as having non -functional eyes . Having less brain tissue to feed and nourish and not having useless eyes that also need to be nourished saves those nutrients for other body parts . The fish conserves energy by not having useless body parts . The fish has evolved to be blind because it doesn’t need eyes in its environment , inside a pitch black cave. This is evolution even if the trait is lost .

another trait like that is birds losing most of their fingers and the metacarpal bones attached to those lost finger bones . This is an adaptation for flight, birds with those extra fingers don’t fly as well. Hoatzins have them as juveniles and the adults aren’t great flyers . Most birds never develop them past buds which get reabsorbed during fetal development or they don’t develop at all. Hoatzins show their theropod ancestry by retaining a trait lost by most modern birds

 

[stevevw]

Hi there,

So simple question, really:

The point being, you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation - in principle, you need to start giving up adaptations, that are not suited to the entrance into a new paradigm?

I guess, I finally worked out, what the choice, to Evolution was. Good thing I didn't give up, because people said I was "chasing red herrings".

It's a simple Evolution of time: the longer you minimize your out-of-context adaptations, the more finely tuned your instinct will be, in the current one (the current context).

What you can't tell me, is that the opposite does not apply, since it is the gestalt, of the same theory.

Looking forward, to your reasoning.

I think when it comes to human evolution natural adaptations are less relevant. Through technology especially medicine humans have been able to survive almost any disease and situation that has been thrown at them. So any natural environment can be overcome by human intervention.

So now there is really no environment or condition we cannot overcome or at leaste survive and pass on our genes even though we may carry more dieseases and disorders and be living under increasingly non-life supportive conditions. I guess soon we will be able to live on other planets despite them being totally alien to the human condition.

Thats if its not too late and it gets to a point where our interventions are not able to keep up and overtake the changing environment and the earth starts to crack while diseases and disorders become too much to deal with.

Covid-19 seems like the latest example of a disease that is the result of our meddling with nature and if and when we can combat this one there may be greater diseases and viruses in the future we cannot combat.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think when it comes to human evolution natural adaptations are less relevant. Through technology especially medicine humans have been able to survive almost any disease and situation that has been thrown at them. So any natural environment can be overcome by human intervention.

So now there is really no environment or condition we cannot overcome or at leaste survive and pass on our genes even though we may carry more dieseases and disorders and be living under increasingly non-life supportive conditions. I guess soon we will be able to live on other planets despite them being totally alien to the human condition.

Thats if its not too late and it gets to a point where our interventions are not able to keep up and overtake the changing environment and the earth starts to crack while diseases and disorders become too much to deal with.

Covid-19 seems like the latest example of a disease that is the result of our meddling with nature and if and when we can combat this one there may be greater diseases and viruses in the future we cannot combat.

Evolution isn't only about scraping through survival by the skin of our teeth. It's also about traits being favoured and only slightly more statistically increased than the vagaries of genetic drift.

Covid-19 is only a massive problem because we travel a lot, internationally communicate a lot and because the prospect of millions of us dying upsets us. If we had Covid-19 outbreaks in ancient times it would be exactly as devastating for the population it hit... but it would be unlikely to spread very far and we probably wouldn't notice it against the back drop of hardships.

 

[pitabread]

Covid-19 seems like the latest example of a disease that is the result of our meddling with nature and if and when we can combat this one there may be greater diseases and viruses in the future we cannot combat.

There's not really any meddling with nature re: Covid-19. It's just like many diseases, they can be carried by animals and passed onto humans.

 

[Ophiolite]

There's not really any meddling with nature re: Covid-19. It's just like many diseases, they can be carried by animals and passed onto humans.

If the outbreak site-zero was the Wuhan wet market then that would be, in some views, a reflection of - at least - abusing nature, if not meddling with it. Moreover the consensus view among epidemiologists is that the emergence of ebola and other viruses is a consequence of environment destruction bringing humans in contact with carriers. I think it is highly probable (unlikely as this seems) that Gottservant may be correct for once.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I think it is highly probable (unlikely as this seems) that Gottservant may be correct for once.

I think it was stevevw rather than Gottservant.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Gottservant may be correct for once.

At last something goes Gottservant’s way. After all these posts. Hurrah

I think it was stevevw rather than Gottservant.

Ah well. Maybe next time.

 

[stevevw]

Evolution isn't only about scraping through survival by the skin of our teeth. It's also about traits being favoured and only slightly more statistically increased than the vagaries of genetic drift.

I was responding to Gottservant saying that
"you cannot simply be adapted for every possible eventuation - in principle, you need to start giving up adaptations, that are not suited to the entrance into a new paradigm?

I was saying that despite evolution favouring ever so slight beneficial adaptations humans are one species that can be adapted (adapt themselves) to just about any new environmental situation regardless of whether its a benefit genetically. Becaue they can overcome most conditions thrown at them and survive which then allows non-beneficial genetic changes to tag along rather than be weeded.

Thats because the self created conditions made by humans that over come the changing environments/conditions are more beneficial and therefore the harmful genetic effects are overshadowed and the full effects are never realized.

Covid-19 is only a massive problem because we travel a lot, internationally communicate a lot and because the prospect of millions of us dying upsets us. If we had Covid-19 outbreaks in ancient times it would be exactly as devastating for the population it hit... but it would be unlikely to spread very far and we probably wouldn't notice it against the back drop of hardships.

That could be said about most things compared to past with changing environments. Isnt that the point of evolution in that environments and conditions change and it is about whether organisms can adapt to those changing environments. So the world becoming closer is a changing environment. I am sure that similar events would have happened on a smaller or greater scale throughout history where small isolated villages were frequented by more people as populations grew or where a creatures habitat was destroyed by a natural disaster.

The point is even if a disease hit a small village today or a natural disaster happened humans can respond and overcome most situations. Recreate environments that allow them to survive and come up with ways that will slow the spread of diseases. This allows them to survive despite what environments throw up at them for the most part.