Is it possible evolution is dead, and we killed it?

[ForgedinHell]

If a group of dolphins, or apes, or bees, or big feet, evolved to possess mental and social skills that rivaled man's, such animals would recognize the threat humans posed. Conflicts would be inevitable. We humans, having thousands of years of technological advances in our pockets, would end up killing such beings.

Is it possible that evolution, from an order of beings prior to the human towards the human, is dead?

I think the answer is clearly yes. When we evolved, we began killing mammoths for food, and we began protecting ourselves from animals much more physically powerful than us, all because nothing was nearly as smart with complicated divisions of labor, possession of tools such as fire and weapons, etc. But this was tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We now have that much of a head start on the next animal who might be plunged by nature into the world of analytical, abstract planning. The type of brutal self-preservation that led to the invention of the city park and the tempurpedic pillow, just isn't going to happen again while we are around. True, meaningful evolutionary advances below us, are dead.

Any way out?

You could go back further and claim we evolved from light beams. It took awhile before hydrogen atoms formed. However, I would not define the process of hydrogen atoms being transfigured into other materials inside the interior of a star as part of evolution. Evolution deals with biological changes and adaptations. I understand what you are trying to get at though, just not sure if using the word evolution is the best word to use to describe the point.
Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.

[SpheresOfBalance]

If a group of dolphins, or apes, or bees, or big feet, evolved to possess mental and social skills that rivaled man's, such animals would recognize the threat humans posed. Conflicts would be inevitable. We humans, having thousands of years of technological advances in our pockets, would end up killing such beings.

Is it possible that evolution, from an order of beings prior to the human towards the human, is dead?

I think the answer is clearly yes. When we evolved, we began killing mammoths for food, and we began protecting ourselves from animals much more physically powerful than us, all because nothing was nearly as smart with complicated divisions of labor, possession of tools such as fire and weapons, etc. But this was tens if not hundreds of thousands of years ago. We now have that much of a head start on the next animal who might be plunged by nature into the world of analytical, abstract planning. The type of brutal self-preservation that led to the invention of the city park and the tempurpedic pillow, just isn't going to happen again while we are around. True, meaningful evolutionary advances below us, are dead.

Any way out?

You could go back further and claim we evolved from light beams. It took awhile before hydrogen atoms formed. However, I would not define the process of hydrogen atoms being transfigured into other materials inside the interior of a star as part of evolution. Evolution deals with biological changes and adaptations. I understand what you are trying to get at though, just not sure if using the word evolution is the best word to use to describe the point.
Just because some men differentiate, sub divide, doesn't mean I have to. I was making a point as to the meaning of evolution, which is change. In the greater scheme of things, what I said is correct, as without the change from the beginning there would be no change (evolution) of life. And I believe that it very clearly indicates the absurdity that evolution is deceased as it removes it from mans microcosm and places it in the macrocosm of the universe.


Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.

[ForgedinHell]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance
Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.

The problem is evolution is not simply change as you assert. A star may change, an animal may even change, but that is not evolution. Species evolve, which is based on mutations, negative selection, neutral selection, genetic drift and positive selection. Equating those biological processes with change is factually erroneous.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.

Our evolution did not start with hydrogen. That would be an arbitrary starting point, even if your definition of evolution were correct. Hydrogen atoms did not exist initially, so why would you start with hydrogen? And the stars fusing hydrogen into heavier elements has nothing to do with evolution. Had the heavier elements never formed into living beings, there would have been no evolution.
[/quote]

[SpheresOfBalance]

Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.
The problem is evolution is not simply change as you assert.
Yes it is!

A star may change, an animal may even change, but that is not evolution.
Incorrect, see definition:

ev·o·lu·tion /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, especially in close order drill.

Species evolve, which is based on mutations, negative selection, neutral selection, genetic drift and positive selection.
You have forgotten the importance of 'environment' as evidenced by epigenetics.

Equating those biological processes with change is factually erroneous.
You can split it into how ever many divisions you want, using different labels for each, but change is all there is, by what ever name, and is the basic concept here, which was my point.

It's all chemistry my friend! You're just nit picking.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.
Our evolution did not start with hydrogen. That would be an arbitrary starting point, even if your definition of evolution were correct. Hydrogen atoms did not exist initially, so why would you start with hydrogen?
It was the first element, which in turn formed all others. Name one thing in the human body that is not elemental. "all known chemical matter is composed of these elements." --wikipedia-- So my selection was not arbitrary, as you can see.

And the stars fusing hydrogen into heavier elements has nothing to do with evolution.
Without elements there would be no evolution, as they are not only a part of that which changes, but are also that which causes change.

Had the heavier elements never formed into living beings, there would have been no evolution.
Now you've got it.

[ForgedinHell]

Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.
The problem is evolution is not simply change as you assert.
Yes it is!

A star may change, an animal may even change, but that is not evolution.
Incorrect, see definition:

ev·o·lu·tion /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, especially in close order drill.

Species evolve, which is based on mutations, negative selection, neutral selection, genetic drift and positive selection.
You have forgotten the importance of 'environment' as evidenced by epigenetics.

Equating those biological processes with change is factually erroneous.
You can split it into how ever many divisions you want, using different labels for each, but change is all there is, by what ever name, and is the basic concept here, which was my point.

It's all chemistry my friend! You're just nit picking.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.
Our evolution did not start with hydrogen. That would be an arbitrary starting point, even if your definition of evolution were correct. Hydrogen atoms did not exist initially, so why would you start with hydrogen?
It was the first element, which in turn formed all others. Name one thing in the human body that is not elemental. "all known chemical matter is composed of these elements." --wikipedia-- So my selection was not arbitrary, as you can see.

And the stars fusing hydrogen into heavier elements has nothing to do with evolution.
Without elements there would be no evolution, as they are not only a part of that which changes, but are also that which causes change.

Had the heavier elements never formed into living beings, there would have been no evolution.
Now you've got it.



The dictionary definition does not help you because the question originally proposed was based on the biological concept of evolution, and your ideas fall outside the theory of evolution.

[chaz wyman]

We may have changed the course of evolution, but we didn't kill it. The animals and plants that are still alive will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

There is no 'course of evolution' as if it were predetermined. We are the result of evolution and so in that sense we, like all other forms of life determine the next steps. We are no more immune to taking a path that would destroy us than any other living thing.

Evolution is not a cause of change, it is a thing that happens when things change. Successful things are what have evolved. Thus evolution is a thing that cannot be killed. Species come and go, as do their environments, but evolution is a consequence of this regardless.

I think the person was telling a joke, Comrade Chaz.

I don't give a flying fuck what you think, Adolf

[SpheresOfBalance]

Evolution is simply change. While I see no end to change in the universe, it doesn't mean there won't be. I also see, that of the billions of permutations, things, paths, that varying change has created, any particular path, thing, can be killed (stopped), but it's really just a matter of definition as to constitution.

The problem is evolution is not simply change as you assert.

Yes it is!

BELOW, IN SEQUENCE:
ForgedinHell in: color.
SpheresOfBalance in: color.
Definition in: color.
ForgedinHell in: color.
SpheresOfBalance in: color.

A star may change, an animal may even change, but that is not evolution.
Incorrect, see definition:

ev·o·lu·tion /ˌɛvəˈluʃən or, especially Brit., ˌivə-/ [ev-uh-loo-shuhn or, especially Brit., ee-vuh-]
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved: The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology . change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements: the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
8. Mathematics . the extraction of a root from a quantity. Compare involution ( def. 8 ) .
9. a movement or one of a series of movements of troops, ships, etc., as for disposition in order of battle or in line on parade.
10. any similar movement, especially in close order drill.

Species evolve, which is based on mutations, negative selection, neutral selection, genetic drift and positive selection.
You have forgotten the importance of 'environment' as evidenced by epigenetics.

Equating those biological processes with change is factually erroneous.
You can split it into how ever many divisions you want, using different labels for each, but change is all there is, by what ever name, and is the basic concept here, which was my point.

It's all chemistry my friend! You're just nit picking.

Keep in mind that our evolution started with Hydrogen, as it fused (changed) to create all the other elements, compounds, and finally life forms, since the beginning of time.
Our evolution did not start with hydrogen. That would be an arbitrary starting point, even if your definition of evolution were correct. Hydrogen atoms did not exist initially, so why would you start with hydrogen?
It was the first element, which in turn formed all others. Name one thing in the human body that is not elemental. "all known chemical matter is composed of these elements." --wikipedia-- So my selection was not arbitrary, as you can see.

And the stars fusing hydrogen into heavier elements has nothing to do with evolution.
Without elements there would be no evolution, as they are not only a part of that which changes, but are also that which causes change.

Had the heavier elements never formed into living beings, there would have been no evolution.
Now you've got it.



The dictionary definition does not help you because the question originally proposed was based on the biological concept of evolution, and your ideas fall outside the theory of evolution.
Incorrect! My point encompasses, from a greater original truth, and is actually one in the same thing, merely from the perspective, of the greater time-line, such that it demonstrates, without question, the absurdity of his assertion, as to a mere mortal human, being capable of killing evolution, as life is a part of the evolution of the entire universe.

[Dimebag]

I think the example of humans struggle against viruses is proof we are both part of evolution and have not killed it. That is but one example. It is true we have more potency, more awareness of threats to our species, and therefore can circumvent challenges. I think what is more interesting is to wonder what reproduction in different societies and different social groups might be selecting for. Social aptitude is obviously one key attribute, as impressing a mate is now more social than ever. Not necessarily intelligence, as similar people seek each other out, including people of similar intelligences. I'm sure there might be some interesting differences between social and societal groups.

[chaz wyman]

I think the example of humans struggle against viruses is proof we are both part of evolution and have not killed it. That is but one example. It is true we have more potency, more awareness of threats to our species, and therefore can circumvent challenges. I think what is more interesting is to wonder what reproduction in different societies and different social groups might be selecting for. Social aptitude is obviously one key attribute, as impressing a mate is now more social than ever. Not necessarily intelligence, as similar people seek each other out, including people of similar intelligences. I'm sure there might be some interesting differences between social and societal groups.

There is definite potential for engineering other species - probably far more than would be morally acceptable in humans.
A grant was issed today for research that, if successful, develop a strain of wheat that would not require fertiliser.
The details are not clear but I assume that genes that would give the plant the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen would reduce chemical industry and the massive pollution of nitrates in the water supply from fertilisers.

The Frankenstein scenario has to be rejected though.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think the example of humans struggle against viruses is proof we are both part of evolution and have not killed it. That is but one example. It is true we have more potency, more awareness of threats to our species, and therefore can circumvent challenges. I think what is more interesting is to wonder what reproduction in different societies and different social groups might be selecting for. Social aptitude is obviously one key attribute, as impressing a mate is now more social than ever. Not necessarily intelligence, as similar people seek each other out, including people of similar intelligences. I'm sure there might be some interesting differences between social and societal groups.

There is definite potential for engineering other species - probably far more than would be morally acceptable in humans.
A grant was issed today for research that, if successful, develop a strain of wheat that would not require fertiliser.
The details are not clear but I assume that genes that would give the plant the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen would reduce chemical industry and the massive pollution of nitrates in the water supply from fertilisers.

The Frankenstein scenario has to be rejected though.

I agree chaz. Man is still too young to take on such great responsibility.

[LuvPimpinYou]

as if humanity is the goal of evolution...

-Imp

agreed...evolution is forever, just because we were to kill of something, it doesn't mean that it didn't evolve.

[chaz wyman]

I think the example of humans struggle against viruses is proof we are both part of evolution and have not killed it. That is but one example. It is true we have more potency, more awareness of threats to our species, and therefore can circumvent challenges. I think what is more interesting is to wonder what reproduction in different societies and different social groups might be selecting for. Social aptitude is obviously one key attribute, as impressing a mate is now more social than ever. Not necessarily intelligence, as similar people seek each other out, including people of similar intelligences. I'm sure there might be some interesting differences between social and societal groups.

There is definite potential for engineering other species - probably far more than would be morally acceptable in humans.
A grant was issed today for research that, if successful, develop a strain of wheat that would not require fertiliser.
The details are not clear but I assume that genes that would give the plant the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen would reduce chemical industry and the massive pollution of nitrates in the water supply from fertilisers.

The Frankenstein scenario has to be rejected though.

I agree chaz. Man is still too young to take on such great responsibility.

You misunderstand. Engineering a nitrogen fixing wheat plant is happening now, and when I said the 'frankenstein scenario' has to be rejected, I mean its rubbish. The plant will not turn around and kill us. A failed solution is a dead plant, with no hope of success, it will not take up legs and walk.
All the technology does is to combine pre-existing naturally occurring genes in a novel combination. It either works of does not, end of story.
But the potential benefit would be a massive reduction in pollution.
Until we address the big problems such as population and the continued destruction of the environment for ever more human buildings, then we have to find these solutions if we are to avoid further mass starvation.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I think the example of humans struggle against viruses is proof we are both part of evolution and have not killed it. That is but one example. It is true we have more potency, more awareness of threats to our species, and therefore can circumvent challenges. I think what is more interesting is to wonder what reproduction in different societies and different social groups might be selecting for. Social aptitude is obviously one key attribute, as impressing a mate is now more social than ever. Not necessarily intelligence, as similar people seek each other out, including people of similar intelligences. I'm sure there might be some interesting differences between social and societal groups.

There is definite potential for engineering other species - probably far more than would be morally acceptable in humans.
A grant was issed today for research that, if successful, develop a strain of wheat that would not require fertiliser.
The details are not clear but I assume that genes that would give the plant the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen would reduce chemical industry and the massive pollution of nitrates in the water supply from fertilisers.

The Frankenstein scenario has to be rejected though.

I agree chaz. Man is still too young to take on such great responsibility.

You misunderstand. Engineering a nitrogen fixing wheat plant is happening now, and when I said the 'frankenstein scenario' has to be rejected, I mean its rubbish. The plant will not turn around and kill us. A failed solution is a dead plant, with no hope of success, it will not take up legs and walk.
All the technology does is to combine pre-existing naturally occurring genes in a novel combination. It either works of does not, end of story.
But the potential benefit would be a massive reduction in pollution.
Until we address the big problems such as population and the continued destruction of the environment for ever more human buildings, then we have to find these solutions if we are to avoid further mass starvation.

OK, I stand corrected, I obviously misunderstood your meaning. So I say this: I think it more appropriate to address these issues that you've raised by calling into question mans selfishness. It is more intelligent to regulate mankind's numbers and technologies, as continued unregulated breeding and dirty, wasteful technologies is sure, one hundred percent, to continue to raise even more complicated concerns that we are as yet unaware, as our biosphere is indeed limited. Balance is the key, and I'm not talking on the point of a needle.

[Satyr]

Let's begin by slaughtering all the brain-dead morons like SheresofBalls.
His brooding, dark, gaze is frightening me.

He's my new pet-project.
He volunteered himself with those large colorful words...no not their meaning the actual font.
Their meaning were reflections of a simpleton: bland, dull, small.

[mtmynd1]

Let's begin by slaughtering all the brain-dead morons like SheresofBalls.
His brooding, dark, gaze is frightening me.

He's my new pet-project.
He volunteered himself with those large colorful words...no not their meaning the actual font.
Their meaning were reflections of a simpleton: bland, dull, small.

Satyr... I find it difficult to grasp that you are still stalking this site. One could easily conclude from this latest post (nasal drip) that, indeed!, evolution has died within you and we're left with faint remnants of idiocy ricocheting on the board.

Your seemingly endless attempts at frightening thinking people is proof of evolutionary death within a select few... this lesser ego, Satyr, included.