.if the results of evolution happen to be a bunch of intelligent apes who can invent things like seat-belts that happen to save lives, then so be it - they are the species best adapted to survival in their environment.
Isn't this a direct interference in the natural process of evolution? — TheMadFool
... that is not necessarily the best adaption to our environment? — Javants
There are no such things as 'evolutionary rejects' - or rather, the only 'evolutionary rejects' are dead species. If you're alive, you're winning. That's the game. — StreetlightX
The whole idea of 'evolutionary rejects' or that medicine and social innovations have somehow 'interfered' with some supposedly more 'natural' course of evolution is junk science and needs to be discarded at once. — StreetlightX
This seems like saying that an airplane interferes with the natural process of gravity. — Michael
Of course there are (evolutionary rejects) - some unfortunate people are genetically prone to disease. Is it wrong to label them as evolutionary rejects. — TheMadFool
Natural evolution pits one's genetic composition (its strengths and weaknesses) against the environment (from bacteria to lions)
This isn't the case with humans. We use medicines to shore up our immune systems, thereby prolonging our lives - making it more likely to bear children who then are carriers of a particular genetic defect. How is this not interfering with natural evolution?
Yes, because "evolutionary rejects" doesn't seem to mean anything. Evolution is simply "change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations". How does it make sense to pair the term "evolutionary" with the term "reject" ("inadequate, unacceptable, or faulty")?
At best you could perhaps use the term "evolutionary reject" to refer to any organism which doesn't contribute towards the evolutionary process, which would just be any organism that doesn't reproduce, but even that's a stretch. — Michael
No, that would be closer to natural selection, which is the commonly accepted means by which evolution occurs. — Michael
Would you say the same about animals building nests or sleeping in caves to avoid freezing to death?
And I don't understand how you can equate being susceptible to disease with having defective genes. — Michael
No, evolution does not 'pit one's genetic composition against the environment' because individuals and 'people' are not the subjects of evolution. Populations of species, or more specifically, developmental systems are. 'Particular genetic defects' are only relevant to evolution once they begin to manifest at the level of speciation, otherwise they are totally evolutionarily irrelevant — StreetlightX
Evolution is indifferent to what is 'natural' or not: if the results of evolution happen to be a bunch of intelligent apes who can invent things like seat-belts that happen to save lives, then so be it - they are the species best adapted to survival in their environment. 'Natural' doesn't come into it, except as an extrinsic consideration from without the process of evolution itself. — StreetlightX
I don't understand. Isn't a population composed of individuals? The collective drama must be, invariably, played out at the level of the individual. Am I wrong? — TheMadFool
Why? Provide a reason, not just just state an opinion. — StreetlightX
3) The natural/unnatural distinction between human societies and nature out there is false. — Chany
Yes I disagree. The Nature/culture divide is bad philosophy spliced onto perfectly indifference science. — StreetlightX
Cite a reason, in principle, why it isn't. The onus is on you here. Your disbelief means nothing.. — StreetlightX
Ok, thanks for joining. — StreetlightX
Evolution is defined by heritable changes in the gene pool from generation to generation. Doesn't matter how they get there. Genes come and go. That's it. — Baden
To the degree that the unit of evolution is a developmental system, then yes, there is nothing in principle that would rule out technology from being part of the process of evolution. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.