Let's see: if a species is drugged, drugged Evolu; but one of a species is drugged, no drugged Evolu

[Gottservant]

Hi there,

So this is basically a thought experiment:

• If a species is drugged, its Evolution is affected - and drugged Evolution results
• But... if a member of the species is drugged, its Evolution is not affected - and no drugged Evolution results

How do I reconcile these two facts, without appealing to leadership? Leadership would stipulate to what extent the species is able to cope with the drug, give or take how ever much it affects their Evolution.

I guess what you would say is "while the drugs affect the species, the selection pressure on them to respond to the drug is ambivalent - so the greater selection pressure of the day will hold" - but don't you see this as refusing to answer the question?

What I am after, is a sense that "yes, my current focus, will agree with Evolution, without disclaiming the importance of being 'wise'"? Not everything Evolution propounds is gold (as you might say 'not everything that glimmers is gold') - I want to be able to engage more or less, with the focus I have on my current 'Evolution', something I cannot do, while speculation continues that if I go back the way I came, I am abandoning my "humanity"? I should at the very least, be able to split the difference, lament that I have fallen and commit the more greatly to perfecting my humanity - such as if I had done, I might never have thought to argue with Evolution, not taking offence?

Drugging an entire species, to watch it evolve, might sound extreme, but at its core, it asks the fundamental question: even if a species is entirely drugged, what does it take as its foundation "Evolutionally"?

 

[SkyWriting]

Hi there,

So this is basically a thought experiment:

• If a species is drugged, its Evolution is affected - and drugged Evolution results
• But... if a member of the species is drugged, its Evolution is not affected - and no drugged Evolution results

How do I reconcile these two facts, without appealing to leadership? Leadership would stipulate to what extent the species is able to cope with the drug, give or take how ever much it affects their Evolution.

I guess what you would say is "while the drugs affect the species, the selection pressure on them to respond to the drug is ambivalent - so the greater selection pressure of the day will hold" - but don't you see this as refusing to answer the question?

What I am after, is a sense that "yes, my current focus, will agree with Evolution, without disclaiming the importance of being 'wise'"? Not everything Evolution propounds is gold (as you might say 'not everything that glimmers is gold') - I want to be able to engage more or less, with the focus I have on my current 'Evolution', something I cannot do, while speculation continues that if I go back the way I came, I am abandoning my "humanity"? I should at the very least, be able to split the difference, lament that I have fallen and commit the more greatly to perfecting my humanity - such as if I had done, I might never have thought to argue with Evolution, not taking offence?

Drugging an entire species, to watch it evolve, might sound extreme, but at its core, it asks the fundamental question: even if a species is entirely drugged, what does it take as its foundation "Evolutionally"?

Every animal has 100's of chemicals, or drugs, that work to keep the body in working condition. Environmental changes result in the evolution of groups, and less impact, individuals.

If rabbits experience drought, the offspring will be born drought-resistant to some extent.
Mostly, it's the group or population that changes or evolves.

 

[Gottservant]

Every animal has 100's of chemicals, or drugs, that work to keep the body in working condition. Environmental changes result in the evolution of groups, and less impact, individuals.

If rabbits experience drought, the offspring will be born drought-resistant to some extent.
Mostly, it's the group or population that changes or evolves.

That smacks of disingenuity, which I am prepared to overlook: if you can give me an Evolutional reason that 'mostly its the group or population that [...] evolves'.

Specifically what does a drug ingested by a species, affect, in terms of Evolution?
EDIT: (Maybe you will say 'we don't know, until "after" it has evolved', but that is not strictly speaking Evolutional?)

I understand that you can just say "the greater selection pressure will prevail", but that is not strictly speaking 'Evolutional'?

If I had just a reason, even half a reason, to believe Evolution could save me from something - I could understand it in the light of Jesus on the Cross, who saved me from everything!

 

[SkyWriting]

That smacks of disingenuity, which I am prepared to overlook: if you can give me an Evolutional reason that 'mostly its the group or population that [...] evolves'.

Specifically what does a drug ingested by a species, affect, in terms of Evolution?

I understand that you can just say "the greater selection pressure will prevail", but that is not strictly speaking 'Evolutional'?

If I had just a reason, even half a reason, to believe Evolution could save me from something - I could understand it in the light of Jesus on the Cross, who saved me from everything!

The individual changes slightly due to environmental pressures and this effects the offspring.
But on the larger scale, the animals that are drought tolerant live, the others don't. So the population evolves into a more drought-tolerant species as the generations pass.

Or we can say pesticides (drugs) affect the entire population and the drug-resistant ones live and reproduce.

 

[Gottservant]

The individual changes slightly due to environmental pressures and this effects the offspring.
But on the larger scale, the animals that are drought tolerant live, the others don't. So the population evolves into a more drought-tolerant species as the generations pass.

Or we can say pesticides (drugs) affect the entire population and the drug-resistant ones live and reproduce.

Yes, that! That is what I am asking for... what varies between the individual and the species - besides their number?

I wish I could help you answer, but I don't want to confuse you?

What is at stake, is whether you perceive the species as evolved, or the one who believes Evolution is evolved?