|
RJT: 1, 21 Credit Semester: 0 (pg. 13)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Zild
But most things didn't naturally evolve. For instance the animals we use for livestock and the grasses we grow for grain wouldn't actually exist without human intervention. We chose the fat ones or the ones with swollen udders or the ones that tasted better and killed off the rest.
That math problem looks like I should convert it into polar coordinates. |
evolution takes hundreds and thousands of years for animals. (for a significant difference to be noticed.) |
|
|
| Zild |
To tell you the truth I believe that we were made to synthesize things, and thats natural, but then again I'm a godless chemistry fan.
I actually believe the evolution is telescoping. But at the same time there are three types of evolution. It's an idea I stole from a Chemistry professor at UT Austin.
(A very intense man is talking in front of a fish tank, gesturing wildly - Eamonn Healy, Chemistry professor at University of Texas at Austin)
If we’re looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you’re looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological — development of the cities — and cultural, which is human expression.
Now, what you’ve seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that are involved here — two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it — you’re beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you’re looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. Uou’re seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it’s gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation.
The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog. The digital is artificial intelligence. The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external.
And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human, okay, with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that’s only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until we reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual, the multiplication of individual existences. Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.
And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That’s the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It’s sterile. It’s efficient, okay? And its manifestations of those social adaptations. We’re talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These will be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. And that is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.
From the Linklater film, Waking Life |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
evolution takes hundreds and thousands of years for animals. (for a significant difference to be noticed.) |
| quote: | | The annual changes in influenza viruses and the emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria are both products of evolutionary forces. Indeed, the rapidity with which organisms with short generation times, such as bacteria and viruses, can evolve under the influence of their environments is of great medical significance. Many laboratory experiments have shown that, because of mutation and natural selection, such microorganisms can change in specific ways from those of immediately preceding generations. |
|
|
|
| Sunsnail |
Bacteria isnt an animal :p
Anyway, its a stupid argument, because a "noticeable" change could be anything. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
evolution 'made' us what we are, creatures that are capable of controlling our own environment (to an extent), deeming us 'righter' than the rest of the animals for this point in time, at least as a generalization.
|
fair enough.
| quote: |
you're basically suggesting that something natural when combined with some other natural thing creates something unnatural. a bit like saying that one plus two equals something that isn't a number. |
this is true. thats why you have mutations. Look at the side effects of people who live in hiroshima with their genetic disorders due to human influenced selection.. Im telling you that this genetic change is not evolution by nature but evolution imposed by our change on the environment.
Human influence on the environment creating branches for evolution is not more right. Its just more uncontrolled randomness that spurts.
Besides you wont be able to tell if evolution will create something thats more RIGHT in the future. IT takes hundreds and hundreds of years.
I can guarantee though the future simply holds more genetic problems with complex organisms and thus by your definition the most RIGHT organisms of this world are the insects and bacteria that continue to flourish and have remained unchanged for millions of years. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
Bacteria isnt an animal :p
Anyway, its a stupid argument, because a "noticeable" change could be anything. |
you can only notice noticable change within a short span with bacteria. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Psy-T
influenza virus |
thats why i said animals |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
fair enough.
this is true. thats why you have mutations. Look at the side effects of people who live in hiroshima with their genetic disorders due to human influenced selection.. Im telling you that this genetic change is not evolution by nature but evolution imposed by our change on the environment.
Human influence on the environment creating branches for evolution is not more right. Its just more uncontrolled randomness that spurts.
Besides you wont be able to tell if evolution will create something thats more RIGHT in the future. IT takes hundreds and hundreds of years.
I can guarantee though the future simply holds more genetic problems with complex organisms and thus by your definition the most RIGHT organisms of this world are the insects and bacteria that continue to flourish and have remained unchanged for millions of years. |
What makes an organism or a change RIGHT? There's no right or wrong, its just change. |
|
|
| Zild |
| Yeah theres no right or wrong. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
| quote: | Originally posted by Sunsnail
What makes an organism or a change RIGHT? There's no right or wrong, its just change. |
well the original argument was that Evolution depcits whats right and i said
How can evolution be right when the environment is wrong.
so im just saying RIGHT to define psy-t's stance (which i am arguing) |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
How can evolution be right when the environment is wrong. |
1. Evolution is always 'right'. It forces organisms to adapt to their environment
2. An environment can't be wrong. |
|
|
| Psy-T |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
fair enough.
this is true. thats why you have mutations. Look at the side effects of people who live in hiroshima with their genetic disorders due to human influenced selection.. Im telling you that this genetic change is not evolution by nature but evolution imposed by our change on the environment.
Human influence on the environment creating branches for evolution is not more right. Its just more uncontrolled randomness that spurts. |
i think this has gone on long enough: humans are a part of the environment as are all other creatures we know of, we are internal to it, we are it, and as most everything else, we affect everything else. the fact that we do some of it consciously as opposed to other animals doesn't mean much in this discussion.
by your backwards reasoning, the moment a living organism preformed an action, any action, the environment became unnatural, because the organism affected the environment.
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
Besides you wont be able to tell if evolution will create something thats more RIGHT in the future. IT takes hundreds and hundreds of years. |
who said i want/need to?
| quote: | Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit
I can guarantee though the future simply holds more genetic problems with complex organisms and thus by your definition the most RIGHT organisms of this world are the insects and bacteria that continue to flourish and have remained unchanged for millions of years. |
first of all, it's not my definition, i just threw us a bone to play with.
second of all, which insects or bacterias have remained unchanged for millions of years?
third of all, the most "right" organisms at any point in time are the ones living. |
|
|
|
|
