| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Blind Joni wrote:
I use the word MYTh beacuse it is unprovable and undisprovable MYTH seems to fit that description perfectly So, do you have a Love "myth" for your wife and family. Love also can't be proven be scientific method. Maybe not yet, but progress is definitely being made http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375709223/ |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
Kurt Albershardt wrote:
wrote: I don't see that destiny as inevitable or positive. It can be avoided. I don't see it happening another way. I believe everyone thinks that all should be as educated as they choose but a simple process to implement.. I haven't seen it so far. I would find that a worthy cause to join. There is no simple implementation. There is no easy road. It will be along, hard, uphill climb for everyone if we as a species are to accomplish it. If it's part of the human condition to yearn for something, how is it helpful to expect to reinvent the human? I think we have to keep re-inventing ourselves, or we're dead as a species. We don't need to physically evolve Given the rate of increase of environmental change and toxins, physical evolution may be on the agenda rather soon (at some cost to our population levels, of course.) We would have to lose our travel abilities, and have some sort of event which keeps individual populations from inter-breeding. Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. -- Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer JF4-4-C5 phone: 503-712-3212 Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
come see me at greyfox I am engineering family pavillion all the time
and dance tent on occasion George Where and when is this? John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
come see me at greyfox I am engineering family pavillion all the time
and dance tent on occasion George Where and when is this? John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote in message ...
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Bob A couple of notes here- First, rather than ask aborgman for a cite on his claim, I'll simply note that we are all part of a contained, distinct population. The planet we live on, and have failed to escape, provides plenty of containment to satify this requirement. Secondly- as to Mr Cain's assertions- this reflects an incomplete view of "evolution." ( I am assuming that were are all speaking more specifically of a Darwinian natural selection here) First off, you can't undo evolution. While we like to think of it as an inexorable march to our "improvement" as a species, it is nothing of the sort. We could very clearly "evolve" into much less intelligent creatures under the right circumstances. Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. R |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote in message ...
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Bob A couple of notes here- First, rather than ask aborgman for a cite on his claim, I'll simply note that we are all part of a contained, distinct population. The planet we live on, and have failed to escape, provides plenty of containment to satify this requirement. Secondly- as to Mr Cain's assertions- this reflects an incomplete view of "evolution." ( I am assuming that were are all speaking more specifically of a Darwinian natural selection here) First off, you can't undo evolution. While we like to think of it as an inexorable march to our "improvement" as a species, it is nothing of the sort. We could very clearly "evolve" into much less intelligent creatures under the right circumstances. Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. R |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote in message ...
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Bob A couple of notes here- First, rather than ask aborgman for a cite on his claim, I'll simply note that we are all part of a contained, distinct population. The planet we live on, and have failed to escape, provides plenty of containment to satify this requirement. Secondly- as to Mr Cain's assertions- this reflects an incomplete view of "evolution." ( I am assuming that were are all speaking more specifically of a Darwinian natural selection here) First off, you can't undo evolution. While we like to think of it as an inexorable march to our "improvement" as a species, it is nothing of the sort. We could very clearly "evolve" into much less intelligent creatures under the right circumstances. Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. R |
|
#95
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote in message ...
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Bob A couple of notes here- First, rather than ask aborgman for a cite on his claim, I'll simply note that we are all part of a contained, distinct population. The planet we live on, and have failed to escape, provides plenty of containment to satify this requirement. Secondly- as to Mr Cain's assertions- this reflects an incomplete view of "evolution." ( I am assuming that were are all speaking more specifically of a Darwinian natural selection here) First off, you can't undo evolution. While we like to think of it as an inexorable march to our "improvement" as a species, it is nothing of the sort. We could very clearly "evolve" into much less intelligent creatures under the right circumstances. Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. R |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
And a correlation between survivability traits and actual
survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. This is my point..we better learn the best ways to work with what we got...instead of thinking a utopia is going to materialize. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
And a correlation between survivability traits and actual
survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. This is my point..we better learn the best ways to work with what we got...instead of thinking a utopia is going to materialize. John A. Chiara SOS Recording Studio Live Sound Inc. Albany, NY www.sosrecording.net 518-449-1637 |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob The definition of fitness is sorta circular - if there's more next year than this, that's fitness. It is a descriptive, not proscriptive metric. -- Les Cargill |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob The definition of fitness is sorta circular - if there's more next year than this, that's fitness. It is a descriptive, not proscriptive metric. -- Les Cargill |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Assume I wrote a diatribe here and figure out what it might have been.
-- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Bob Cain" wrote in message ... R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
Assume I wrote a diatribe here and figure out what it might have been.
-- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Bob Cain" wrote in message ... R Tyck wrote: Further, as to your claim that we are removing the forces that selection requires, this isn't true. It is only from the mistaken perspective that evolution is trying to make us stronger, hardier, more intelligent individuals that we can perceive things this way. The intermediation of technology and society modify the forces which cause selection, but don't remove them. Interesting point, but if fitness is no longer, or at least much less, of a factor then what happens to the concept of "survival of the fittest"? Bob -- "Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
In 100 years Darwinism will be just as laughable
as "spontaneous generation" is to us today. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
In 100 years Darwinism will be just as laughable
as "spontaneous generation" is to us today. |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
Assume I wrote a diatribe here and figure out what it might have been.
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... In 100 years Darwinism will be just as laughable as "spontaneous generation" is to us today. Hey, you got it! g -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
Assume I wrote a diatribe here and figure out what it might have been.
"Richard Crowley" wrote in message ... In 100 years Darwinism will be just as laughable as "spontaneous generation" is to us today. Hey, you got it! g -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Or at least stop them - of course, humans have been a mobile enough population for a large enough period of time that this is nothing new. -- Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer JF4-4-C5 phone: 503-712-3212 Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Bob Cain wrote:
wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Or at least stop them - of course, humans have been a mobile enough population for a large enough period of time that this is nothing new. -- Aaron Borgman HE Design Engineer JF4-4-C5 phone: 503-712-3212 Disclaimer: All above opinions are mine... not Intel's |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
at wrote on 7/12/04 4:54
PM: Bob Cain wrote: wrote: Evolution requires contained, distinct populations. And a correlation between survivability traits and actual survival. We are effectively eliminating the mechanisms which selection requires. Not that I really see any other choice but the effect on the species is to reverse the forces of evolution. Or at least stop them - of course, humans have been a mobile enough population for a large enough period of time that this is nothing new. Very interesting article in DISCOVERY about a limited study looking at what happens to a species when it's in a controlled environment and protected from major predators... in effect when a wild species is domesticated and thoughts about what the mechanism in play is and why it's productive in the long run. It's likely we can't see what we're in the middle of. -- John I-22 (that's 'I' for Initial...) Recognising what's NOT worth your time, THAT'S the key. -- |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Fahrenheit 9/11 | Pro Audio | |||
| 9/11 Families Lambaste Clarke | Audio Opinions | |||
Linear Mode
