Evolution #9

good post

[RJT]

This is getting somewhere for me. So emotions do/did have a reason. If true, do they still have a purpose?

(My dogs do seem to have emotions certainly, but never knew for sure scientifically speaking if they did or not. Good to know.)

Let me put it this way.

Wouldn’t we be a stronger species if we only had intellect with no emotions? No wars, no murders, etc. If we were like Spock.

(I don’t know that I agree with the thought that it aids successful reproduction part. I mean, sure it does. But, and this is what I mean when I use words like “better”. But if we had intellect without emotions, we could figure out that things work better if you have families - or not.)

This is also what I mean when I ask can we direct our evolution. If we are better off without emotions - that is we wouldn’t have wars for example - should be directing our evolution? Or to put it another way - should we be teaching ourselves to start behaving with less emotion or even no emotion?

Or the converse, if we still need emotions, how should we be making the best use of them?

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn’t we be a stronger species if we only had intellect with no emotions?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you had no emotional responses, what incentive would you have to want to choose a mate, produce offspring, and raise offspring through all the difficulties over years of its maturity? There is an intellectual need to sustain the species I suppose, but would the species be stronger for it, or don't you agree that "love" is one incredibly powerful drive which helps the species nurture, protect, and develop its next generations?

And anyway, you are missing all the points everyone is making to you. The goal of evolution isn't to build a stronger species, it is simply natural selection given the currrent environment. If men who are emotionless like Spock are less likely to find mates than men who are more emotional and nurturing, then the emotional traits have a greater chance of being passed on, even if the emotionless Spock is a "stronger" specimen.

[RJT]

I didn’t say we are no longer evolving (someone else said we stopped evolving.)

I understand it that we might be not evolving now, but we probably will or at least might evolve sometime in the future.

All I am saying is - It would seem to me that evolutionists would want to consider if information from other social sciences have any relation to their study. It sounds like they either think there is none or that they aren’t interested if there is, since they are only interested in the theory in and of itself.

[tolbiny]

" I understand it that we might be not evolving now, but we probably will or at least might evolve sometime in the future."

Not to be picky, but its not that we aren't evolving, there are genes still being selected for and against, and new mutations appearing and old ones dissapearing, and this process is vital to having a good mix that will allow the species to move on should an environmental change take place.

"It sounds like they either think there is none or that they aren’t interested if there is, since they are only interested in the theory in and of itself."

What i think you are referring to is that big picture evolutionists are not particularly interestd in humans, but more that they are interested in general evolutionary thoery. Thats just what they like- there are plenty of anthropologists and sociologists who are interested in evolution. I am actually taking an Anthro class this semester which is titled "human evolution: the fossil evidence" in which we will be tracing the physical changes in hominids while studying the the environment that they lived in and thier social interactions.

edit- here's a link to a brief description in case your interested class

[RJT]

So are you saying that evolution is only concerned with the here and now? (I realize I am personifying evolution here.) That it does not concern itself in natural selection with the future of species?

True for species other than humans I would assume.

But we have the ability to think past, present, and future.

If we are only beings that evolved and evolution is not concerned with building a stronger species, then why are so many of us concerned with the future of our species? And should we be at all? If so why (I ask rhetorically.)?

[RJT]

Perhaps because it is such a relatively new field they that have to get the basics down first. The - what happened so far in history and how stuff.

I am suggesting though that in the future, questions of why this? and why not that? and for what reason this and not that? and could this if? are good questions to look into.

Thanks all.

[Dan Mezick]

The theory of evolution is exactly that. A THEORY.

The evolutionist people are JUST AS dogmatic as the religionists. Hmmm. That's suspect too.

Evolution as described by Darwin is utterly dependent on mutation-- not exactly a robust path for genetic material to follow, into the next generation.

Clearly progress does take place. Existing species do change and adapt.

The "theory of evolution" provides a nice, safe, "everyone agrees on this" kind of consensus that everyone can get behind. Kind of exactly like a religion. Both types of dogma allow a very truncated thought process, since some else does the thinking FOR you.

There are many serious scientists that look askance at evolution as the explanation for origin of life and progression of species. Many of these same scientists now say that the origin of life on earth originated from outer space, theorizing that primitive life came in here on meteors and other fragments of matter that pierced our atmosphere. They then theorize (with strong evidence) that DNA is actually a kind of time-release capsule that activates dormant segments (certain "introns") into active use. Such activation is based on event-driven, environmental factors, i.e. when the environment is right DNA "knows" to activate certain introns. This is not mutation. It turns out DNA may contain a "program" of progress. As such, it opens up enormous new questions about the pre-existence of this self-adjusting process, and the hidden, dormant "programs" that are waiting to be activated by environmental forces.

Introns are over 97% of the DNA strand. (The human genome is coded in exons, comprising less than 3% of DNA.) Introns are often called 'junk DNA' because no one ACTUALLY knows what's inside introns, which do contain non-random coding that has not been translated. Yet.

If most of the above turns out to be correct, what looks like Darwinian evolution is actually just programmatic, self-adjusting DNA driving what looks like an "evolutionary" process. The kicker is that this process is NOT random per Darwin, but rather programmatic and pre-existing.


Darwin provides a nice neat package of explanations that tend to encourage some very lazy thinking. Some of the laziest thinkers convert convenience into dogma. The kind of thinking that promotes absolute Darwinian dogma is the same kind of thinking that asserted the world was 'obviously' flat.

Everyone accepted that one for a long time, also. Now we know better. It's as if, for the set of all humans, any explanation is typically better than none at all.

Use your head !! Challenge Darwinist DOGMA. Darwin IS religion. It just seems like science. Learn more about genetics and alternate views on these subjects.


See:
http://www.panspermia.org/faq.htm

See:
http://www.panspermia.org/

[siegfriedandroy]

Im pretty sure that within a few hundred million years, humans will begin evolving 'backward' into apes, reptiles, birds, etc. They will in turn regress into simpler, less complex organisms. Eventually, all that will be left on earth are the simple prokaryotes and eukaryotes. Finally, another pre-Cambrian type disaster will strike, leaving only one fortunate single celled organism on the earth. Then the process will repeat infinitely, even though the universe is not eternal.

[ QUOTE ]
So you are saying (and I am not being argumentative here) that most scientist work principally for the theory. I understand that most still would if that was the only reason at all. I just assumed most study also for the intent of some, not really the right word - useful - purpose. (Hopefully you know what I mean. I mean for reasons in addition to the knowledge.)

[/ QUOTE ]

May I recommend you read G. H. Hardy's A Mathematician's Apology? Though written from the perspective of a mathematician, I suspect it applies more generally.