# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Evolutionwheres it leading us?

## The Unnamable

With the exception of certain people in some American states, you all believe this theory, I assume. Where do you think its leading us? The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.

----------


## beer good

That's assuming evolution is moving forward. Personally, I give us 5 generations - tops - before we're all sitting in caves, rubbing two sticks together to get fire for the night, and humming the "Super Mario" theme.

----------


## Sami

> The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.


  :FRlol:  Do you mean were merging into one single large super-head, or that each of us will someday become an individual legless Humpty Dumpty? In the former case, evolution could be said to be bringing us closer together, so I think its probable that you think there's a trend towards human beings becoming more and more isolated in our own egg-headedness? Seems fair to me!

----------


## hemial

Beer Good - I am totally with you. Please refer to http://www.online-literature.com/for...926#post149926 to read my poem "And What Next?" - wherein I deal with where evolution will lead us.

Sorry, Unnamable, but I don't think that evolution will bring us pretty much further than where we are now.

Greetings.

----------


## fayefaye

I imagine a world of people growing increasingly complacent and narrow-minded, wherein those in middle/upper class backgrounds become more and more interested in maintaining safe, comfortable lifestyles, and those in poverty are forgotten.

I'll try to be less cynical later.

----------


## Stanislaw

Well I imagine that mankind is actually devolving at this current point in time, but mario and fire aside...I think eventually humanity will evolve into different species, assuming we ever realize the ability to live on other planets, and terraform them or something as such. Personally though, I think we are a stagnant race in due need of an oldfashioned dinosaur-style meteor.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Mankind is not evolving at the moment because we are not under any evolutionary stress at the moment. 

When a catastrophic change occurs in the world environment, and certain humans are more suited to survive it than others, there will be an evolutionary step made. Currently, we are merely diversifying our genetic mix, widening the pool of phenotypes. This is the normal process according to Darwinian theory.

Those unlucky enough to survive in hemial's poem will be the next step in our evolution. 

I can't think what catastrophe would only be weathered by Humpty-Dumpty though.  :FRlol:

----------


## emily655321

lol @ Xamonas

I just hope mankind doesn't survive to evolve further.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

> lol @ Xamonas
> 
> I just hope mankind doesn't survive to evolve further.


I take that to mean that you accept me as the pinnacle of evolution. Thank you.  :Wink:  

 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## The Unnamable

Most of you here appear to be assuming that I consider a future of humpty heads as an improvement. Thats not necessarily how I see it. Its just that as our reality becomes more and more virtual, we wont need anything other than a housing for our brains. 

Sami,
I did assume that each of us would individually evolve into a head but I like your idea that we merge. Mind you, Im not sure what would be the result of a merging of between me and Virgil.

----------


## IrishCanadian

I think it might be necessary to go through at least some of this thread http://www.online-literature.com/for...ead.php?t=3868 
But evolution leading us ...i think I'm with The Unamable on this one.

----------


## The Unnamable

> I'll try to be less cynical later.


I'd prefer something _more_ cynical.

The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. 
George Bernard Shaw

----------


## mousemouse

As far as I know, the human brain hasn't really evolved since the stoneage, we just fill it up with more knowledge know ( some of it might even be usefull )
when talking about physical evolution I'm not sure where it is going. However since we have become more humane as a race, everybody gets a chance to survive... hereby I mean, that we do not kill of people with handicaps, because they are considered freak of nature or revenge of gods, as one could imagine it has been done previously in.
history.
Anyway... isn't evolution supposed to take millions of years?? or at least a lot more than five generations??

----------


## beer good

> Anyway... isn't evolution supposed to take millions of years?? or at least a lot more than five generations??


*E*volution, yes. *De*volution, on the other hand, works much faster. Consider the time and effort it takes to build a house of cards compared to the time and effort it takes to accidentally blow it down again.

----------


## Joakim

Taken into aspect the time it takes to evolve into another definition of a lifeform we stand no chance if we let natural evolution work its way.

Unless evolution comes in the form of planetary awakening, an evolution of the mind that will enable us to feel empathy and let go of the morals and restrictions that is holding us back created by society.

Then we might come to terms that our physical bodies restricts us from reaching our full potential.
Think about what the next logical step would be, either we remain in this fairly unevolved state and proceed to eradicate any lifeform or definition of our own species that may pose a threat to us right now or in the future.

Or we come to terms with the fact that this is simply not a sustainable situation and begin to experiment with genetic modifications on the human body.

What does evolution really mean to us at this stage when we can alter ourselves any way we like?
Even if we may not be able to do that right now science is moving at an infinite speed comapred to natural evolution, could evolution ever catch up to us now?

----------


## Sami

Theres a Canadian guy  hes called Steve Man I think  who reminds me of the humpty idea. Hes developed a type of computer that he wears on his body all the time, including an attachment directly on his eye for emails. He was in the news a while back because of the trouble he had with U.S. immigration officials when traveling back to Canada. The wearable computer involves some implants and the customs officers wanted them removed so they could check them. The problem was that a surgical procedure wouldve been necessary since the parts are directly inserted into his body. Maybe hes a sort of Neanderthal humpty?

For the rest of us, yes, our reality is becoming more virtual in some ways, but in other ways you could say that were becoming more and more focused on our bodies. For instance, the way that the wealthy west has recently become so obsessed with the food we eat. There are regular scandals over things like Mad Cow Disease, or GM foods (although thats a whole other thing  the ways that were starting to lead evolution rather than it leading us). Or, what about the huge fitness/health industry  many people spend a good deal of their time trying to get a stronger, younger-looking, more beautiful body.

----------


## Stanislaw

anybody watch startrek...I bet the future of our planet would be a borg-like existance.

----------


## Scheherazade

> The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.


Why do you think so?

----------


## beer good

> The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.


Of course, this would make sense if we were, as a species, using our brains more and more and our fists and boots less and less. And frankly, I don't see that happening. If anything, we're evolving the other way. I keep waiting for civilization to kick in, yet scratch the surface a little bit and it seems we're still cavepeople, except with more efficient clubs. 

Of course, I could be wrong. I hope so.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Why do you think so?


I dont actually think so. Thats not to say that the Humpty Dumpty image was one I just thought up to be facetious in any way. It was in my memory. When I was at school, I can remember discussing in Biology the question of how evolution might physically change human beings in the future. Most people believed that our intelligence probably meant that we would be able to lessen the need for significant physical change because of the extent to which we can already overcome any physical shortcomings through the use of that intelligence. We assumed that there would be no major catastrophes like global nuclear war or being hit by a meteor. Although the time span is relatively short, we have gone from being defined according to something physical, Homo erectus, to something primarily non-physical, Homo sapiens. Its hard to see where any physical changes in human beings might be able to exploit an evolutionary niche that we couldnt simply exploit through applying our intelligence. I can still remember the teacher suggesting that we might concentrate our thoughts on what would happen to the brain. This gave rise to my image of Humpty Dumpty. I know there have been other threads on the topic of evolution but the emphasis was very different and I didnt want to discuss it as a religious issue, especially given the results of the poll, which I find quite alarming if Im honest. 




> What does evolution really mean to us at this stage when we can alter ourselves any way we like?Even if we may not be able to do that right now science is moving at an infinite speed comapred to natural evolution, could evolution ever catch up to us now?


Can this not, almost by definition, be part of the evolutionary process? We tend to think of the process as something we can manipulate, perhaps even to the point of destroying ourselves. Perhaps that destruction is also simply a part of the process. Its too early to say and its not as if evolution has some goal in mind. 

*atiguhya padma* said in another thread on evolution that Richard Dawkins considers that there is a definite direction in evolution. From my reading of The Selfish Gene, that statement needs clarifying. To me it could suggest that there is movement towards some intended goal, which is not what I think Dawkins says. For the same reason, I dont think the term Natural Selection is particularly suitable. It once again makes it seem as if conscious selection is at the heart of the process.

*Sami*, I take your point that we are becoming more focused on our bodies. Part of this obsession is our fear of death and part of it is our obsession with image. We are less interested in our bodies as simple physical entities and more in their symbolic value. No-one needs well defined musculature so they can lift more but because we think it makes us attractive. 

*beer good*, I think we _are_ using our brains more, even if only to kill without having to resort to the relatively inefficient methods of using our boots and fists. If you say that we are evolving the other way, doesnt that imply we would become more armed physically? In other words, wouldnt we develop the physical characteristics necessary to kill more efficiently and defend ourselves from attack more effectively? Interestingly, you associate civilisation (or lack of it) with evolution, suggesting that the goal of evolution is to make us better in some way.

----------


## beer good

> *beer good*, I think we _are_ using our brains more, even if only to kill without having to resort to the relatively inefficient methods of using our boots and fists. If you say that we are evolving the other way, doesnt that imply we would become more armed physically? In other words, wouldnt we develop the physical characteristics necessary to kill more efficiently and defend ourselves from attack more effectively? Interestingly, you associate civilisation (or lack of it) with evolution, suggesting that the goal of evolution is to make us better in some way.


I wouldn't say "goal" - that would imply that there is a consciousness behind it, and I don't believe that myself. But I would certainly prefer it if the outcome of evolution (genetic or societal) would happen to be a better world. So far, evolution has gotten us bigger and bigger brains and (up to a point) more and more complex patterns of thought. Surely it's not impossible that sooner or later we'll become so smart that maybe we'll stop behaving like idiots rather than just perfect our idiocy.

I'm pessimistic, though.

As for using our brains - well, certainly, some people are. Question is, are _most_ people? Is literacy rising? Are people spending less time watching "reality TV"? Are people becoming more tolerant towards each other's differences? Or are we increasingly buying simple answers, bread and circus, us and them, etc? Are we solving national, international, economical, ecological etc problems by fine-tuned, well-researched methods, or by bludgeoning them over the head with a club, dragging them home by the hair and putting some nice flowers on them so our cavemates are impressed and entertained by our problem-solving skills?

OK, no politics on this board, and that's not really the point either, so I'll stop at that possibly confusing metaphor and correct my initial statement: you're right, we don't use fists and boots anymore. We're not evolving into those; we're evolving into giant index fingers, perfectly adapted for pushing remote control buttons and pulling triggers. Hopefully, at least a couple of people will evolve into middle fingers before then.  :Biggrin:

----------


## emily655321

> Its just that as our reality becomes more and more virtual, we wont need anything other than a housing for our brains.


Looking at and listening to the people around me (in real life, not here), I think it more likely that we'll evolve into gigantic stomachs with wee tiny little heads on top. Perhaps a giant mouth on it, too.

The discoveries and technological advancements of recent history have pretty much guaranteed that people don't _have_ to think. We've invented machines that do all the hard thinking for us (in matters of memory, mathematics, and entertainment). The only people who think are the people who produce and repair them. Perhaps the computer repairmen will become the Morlocks, and everyone else will just be big blob-like creatures.

----------


## Virgil

I have a completely different theory on this. It's my superficial observation that smart people have less children than the uneducated, crude people. Therefore the gene pool of the smart homo sapiens are shrinking while the that of the tawdry are increasing. Therefore the future of humanity will be men with huge deltoids and latoids with pea brains and women with large breasts (possibly all women will have double D's) and pea brains.  :FRlol:  I'm laughing here; don't take me seriously.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

You all seem to be confusing accepted, evolutionary theory with the "inheritance of acquired traits" ideas of Lamarck. He proposed that physical traits were emphasised by the continued use of particular parts of the body by successive generations. Hence, the giraffe grew a long neck because for generations giraffes stretched the neck to reach higher leaves. 

This theory is long discredited. Darwinism's explanation is that, in times of drought, those animals that are able to find food that others cannot, manage to survive and live to reproduce. Giraffes with varying neck lengths happily live side by side in times of plenty. But, comes the famine, only those that can reach sufficient food survive. Several famines later, the length of the average giraffe's neck has increased by a few inches. Several hundred famines later and it is several feet longer.

As a race, humans have been living in a time of plenty for thousands of years. It will take something severe that wipes out a significant proportion of the world's population to cause any evolutionary change. The only things that have caused such changes in recorded history have been plagues. The race has increased it's immunity to certain diseases due to the more succeptible dying out. Nowadays, even this doesn't happen, a dose of penecillin and you're good as new.

Of course, if the catastrophe is bad enough, the entire race dies out. Evolution is a delicate business.

----------


## The Unnamable

> You all seem to be confusing accepted, evolutionary theory with the "inheritance of acquired traits" ideas of Lamarck.


I hope I can answer some of the above objections/questions by responding to this.
Im not thinking in terms of Lamarck and probably more in terms of what Ive read of Dawkins than of Darwin. I dont see changes as occurring out of need in the way you suggest with giraffes. In effect, mutations are what lead to significant changes and if the environment isnt one in which those mutations are more likely to be advantageous, then they will not be passed on in the quantities they would if the environment is one that does favour the changes. 

In the absence of major changes to the environment from things like meteor crashes, the impetus for change (and by this I dont mean to imply any conscious desire on the part of evolution as a process) might come more from a sort of selective breeding on our part. We are starting that now, with the idea of designer babies. The environment will eventually be so messed up that all that will be able to survive will be those creatures best able to thrive under such conditions. For humans, survival might not just be dependent on physical adaptation but on the capacity to overcome physical shortcomings through ingenuity. Perhaps only those able to ensure safety from say, radiation will survive. Such safety can be achieved from an inbuilt physical immunity (perhaps well develop an external radiation-proof skin perhaps thats what the Humpty shell could be) or from developing the means to overcome it with technology. If humans evolved into a form that is not vulnerable to any environmental changes, that form is likely to be more successful in evolutionary terms. If we could evolve into pure consciousness, yet maintain the ability to manipulate our environment, we would have the best chance of survival. My Humpty image is meant to be grotesque and certainly not an advance in terms other than it makes us more likely to survive. 

It gets interesting when you start applying these thoughts about genes and evolution to ideas of morality and behaviour. Lots of older women moan that men prefer younger females. However, if we assume that this is because of some genetic coding, then its hardly surprising and shouldnt be morally condemned. I know this is very simplistic, but if we imagine that there is a gene that favours an attraction to older women, then that gene is likely to die out, as older women are less likely to produce offspring, therefore the gene that makes men prefer them will eventually cease to exist in the gene pool. Mind you, Im not sure how this would work if we all just looked like huge eggs.

----------


## Xamonas Chegwe

Unnamable,

I would agree with most of that but I'll take issue with one small point, if I may. 


> In effect, mutations are what lead to significant changes and if the environment isnt one in which those mutations are more likely to be advantageous, then they will not be passed on in the quantities they would if the environment is one that does favour the changes.


This thinning out of genes doesn't occur just because they are not advantageous, there has to be a definite _disadvantage_, either in terms of survival, or in the ability to breed and produce viable offspring, for this thinning to occur. Otherwise, the mutations just become a part of the general genetic mix, 'waiting' for a reason to either flourish or be purged - ie. they lie dormant until some change in environment means that, either having that characteristic, or not having it, becomes essential for survival.

It's a fine distinction, but I think it's an important one.

----------


## The Unnamable

> Unnamable,
> This thinning out of genes doesn't occur just because they are not advantageous, there has to be a definite _disadvantage_, either in terms of survival, or in the ability to breed and produce viable offspring, for this thinning to occur. Otherwise, the mutations just become a part of the general genetic mix, 'waiting' for a reason to either flourish or be purged - ie. they lie dormant until some change in environment means that, either having that characteristic, or not having it, becomes essential for survival.
> 
> It's a fine distinction, but I think it's an important one.


Im not sure I get this. I knew I should have stuck to Literature.  :Wink:  I think I understand the way the dormant gene works but in the bit from me that youve quoted, I say that if the environment is one that favours the mutation, more of those genes will be passed on than they would in an environment where they arent favoured. Isnt that the case? I know thats it not really possible to speak of an isolated gene for being attracted to older women but if we use my example above and reverse it, what happens? In the original example, the environment does not favour the gene in that older women are less fertile so the genes chances of being passed on are diminished. They are not _in_fertile, just less so. If we assume now that the environment does favour the gene in that older women are now more fertile than younger women, then wont more of the genes be passed on? If we start from the same base point with regards to number of men with that particular gene, then in the first situation, some of the men attracted to older women will not be able to reproduce their gene. In the second situation, if we assume exactly the same number of men try to reproduce, surely more will be successful because older women are now more likely to produce more offspring? Or is this simply my confusion over the differences between _dis_advantageous and _more_ and _less_ advantageous? But then would it be correct to say that a genetic predilection for older women is disadvantageous simply because its not as likely to thrive as a gene that promotes an attraction for younger women?

One thing I do like thinking about with regard to Richard Dawkins and evolution is a bats ear. If there is a God, thats one of Her (or His) finest moments. Even better than the strawberry in my opinion and the strawberry shows a God on very top form.

----------


## jessezzel

i agree with unnamable, our lives a becomeing by far more digital, but instead of having humpty dumpty bodys why not have our brains surgically removed and put into super duper robot bodys!!!

----------


## imaditzyreader

> What does evolution really mean to us at this stage when we can alter ourselves any way we like?
> Even if we may not be able to do that right now science is moving at an infinite speed comapred to natural evolution, could evolution ever catch up to us now?


how do you think that we have all of these horrible diseases?? they evolved much faster than humans (us) had a chance to get rid of them. 

However, it takes many many generations for there to be enough genetic change for them to want to change, for it to be beneficial. 

I think that it is far more likely to have something like "Brave New World"..where the "ruling" humans make what changes they will to our planet's population. In this way I concur with Joakim.

----------


## rachel

> I have a completely different theory on this. It's my superficial observation that smart people have less children than the uneducated, crude people. Therefore the gene pool of the smart homo sapiens are shrinking while the that of the tawdry are increasing. Therefore the future of humanity will be men with huge deltoids and latoids with pea brains and women with large breasts (possibly all women will have double D's) and pea brains.  I'm laughing here; don't take me seriously.


In my opinion the 'smart' people, the 'educated, wealthier' people, Virgil,
are NOT very smart whatsoever. To make an assumption that people less educated are automatically cruder is very sad. I have seen many of these latter specimens that live extremely selfish lives adding nothing to the betterment of mankind whatsoever. And I have seen many less educated 'crude' people who pour all they have into helping their neighbor.
And if the educated people, who-don't get me wrong are among my dearest friends, really thought about it, they would adopt or have many children that they could highly educate and send out there to greatly improve the literacy and thought of a very base and needy world.
just my opinion.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Virgil

> In my opinion the 'smart' people, the 'educated, wealthier' people, Virgil,
> are NOT very smart whatsoever. To make an assumption that people less educated are automatically cruder is very sad. I have seen many of these latter specimens that live extremely selfish lives adding nothing to the betterment of mankind whatsoever. And I have seen many less educated 'crude' people who pour all they have into helping their neighbor.
> And if the educated people, who-don't get me wrong are among my dearest friends, really thought about it, they would adopt or have many children that they could highly educate and send out there to greatly improve the literacy and thought of a very base and needy world.
> just my opinion.


Yes, Rachel. You are right. My grandfather, who didn't have any education would say something to the effect, "The more they teach them, the dumber they get." Usually he was referring to some stupid thing I did.

----------


## Kashkin

Evolution is taking us nowhere right? Because the sick are treated and the disabled are cared for. The fittest are not much better off than the weak (yes I know this opinion is biased, but still you get the point).

----------


## bhekti

> With the exception of certain people in some American states, you all believe this theory, I assume. Where do you think its leading us?


Ubermensch

----------


## The Unnamable

> Ubermensch


Der schneidende humor

----------


## Geoffrey

aren't we due for another mass extinction very soon...
We've gotten very lucky for a long time in terms of evolution - but in terms of evolution from here until our end:
Less body hair
Less fingers
No more wisdom teeth
The appendix should go away
And I'm ready for some great leaps and bounds in mental ability

I forgot that because we mess with things like diseases and disabilities by trying to beat them rather than letting them kill off the weak people we are not bound for toooo much natural change, I don't think. 

Evolution is a brutal process that takes no prisoners. Its not for the weak of hearT!

----------


## ClaesGefvenberg

> To make an assumption that people less educated are automatically cruder is very sad.


Good point rachel. 

Education should not be mistaken for intelligence. Some of the best educated people I have ever met have turned out to be... exceedingly stupid. I have also met some very bright people with absolutley *no* formal education whatsoever. 

Education may *boost* intelligence, however.

/Claes

----------


## Lily Adams

> I have a completely different theory on this. It's my superficial observation that smart people have less children than the uneducated, crude people. Therefore the gene pool of the smart homo sapiens are shrinking while the that of the tawdry are increasing. Therefore the future of humanity will be men with huge deltoids and latoids with pea brains and women with large breasts (possibly all women will have double D's) and pea brains.  I'm laughing here; don't take me seriously.


 :FRlol:  Somebody's seen Idiocracy.





> Evolution, yes. Devolution, on the other hand, works much faster. Consider the time and effort it takes to build a house of cards compared to the time and effort it takes to accidentally blow it down again.


 :Biggrin:  That is a great way to describe it.

I like this thread. Why'd it die?



DEVOlution through technology. It's a wonderful thing. Fully-grown humans rolling around in cribs, grabbing at trinkets...

We're all Dev-O.

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

Evolution is a theory regarding past progress, not future. Hence, it is not leading us anywhere. Species require several million years to exhibit noticeable change in their DNA structure, and such a change is not so much inherent to life itself, but rather very rare phenomena such as cell irradiation or a widespread catastrophe. In fact, single cell and some dumb multicellular organisms (algae, slime, etc) have occupied earth for 3-4 billion years, and the vast majority of biodiversity emerged during a 10 million year interval (approximately), about two orders of magnitude less than the history of life. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

As for natural selection, I am inclined to think it may be thrown out the window. Strength and weakness in terms of survival mean nothing when a species is smart enough to produce its own necessities as easily as humans can. Whether someone dumb enough to not wear a seatbelt and drive into a telephone pole is rather trivial when an even dumber person can murder a genius in his sleep. Biology, so to speak, is more or less in a state of insanity; the only way I can see humans surviving until the next worldwide catastrophe is if smart people martially rule the masses, or if the masses become smart enough to cooperate and limit reproduction.

----------


## crazefest456

if only humans _were_ smart enough...I agree, it was millions of years till a simple prokaryote became a eukaryote after its dramatic consumption of another simpler prokaryote...I really feel the theory of evolution isn't well developed anyway because our assumptions initially were sort of sketchy. Like the way the animals evolved, was it really that gradual as we suppose it to be or was it more abrupt (punctuated as the new theory dictates)? I'd like to research about that one day, AFTER I'm done with this college application stuff.

----------


## Midas

> Evolution is a theory regarding past progress, not future.


How do we arrive at this definition of the word 'evolution'.? Now the 'theory of evolution' which is generally connected to Darwin does tend to narrow, or focus, its meaning, but the word itself surely has a wider meaning? Yes/no?

----------


## Midas

While I can see, and accept Darwin's findings in his theory, and will continue to do so until someone puts up a convincing argument for an alternative theory, there is something that has always intrigued me.

I can visualise the gradual rearing up onto our two legs, and I can see the bone structure changing gradually. I can also see the body becoming less hairy from the use of wrapping it in fur for extra warmth.

However, what I struggle with is - if our spine is the last trace of that part of our anatomy on which our tail was connected millions of years ago, at what point, or how, did we suddenly stop being born with a tail?

I mean, did some mother one day suddenly start throwing up her hairy arms in anguish as her offspring emerged with no tail? How many were killed as freaks until so many were born without tails, and the 'fashion' caught on and was accepted?

Just a thought. (smile)

----------


## Pseudōnumos

I came across an article a while ago where an evolutionary theorist seemed to think HG Wells was onto something. So I thought I would share.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

And I can most certainly invision the "underclass" humming the mario theme Beer Good!

----------


## Dark Star

> While I can see, and accept Darwin's findings in his theory, and will continue to do so until someone puts up a convincing argument for an alternative theory, there is something that has always intrigued me.
> 
> I can visualise the gradual rearing up onto our two legs, and I can see the bone structure changing gradually. I can also see the body becoming less hairy from the use of wrapping it in fur for extra warmth.
> 
> However, what I struggle with is - if our spine is the last trace of that part of our anatomy on which our tail was connected millions of years ago, at what point, or how, did we suddenly stop being born with a tail?
> 
> I mean, did some mother one day suddenly start throwing up her hairy arms in anguish as her offspring emerged with no tail? How many were killed as freaks until so many were born without tails, and the 'fashion' caught on and was accepted?
> 
> Just a thought. (smile)


If I recall correctly from my anthropology class it wasn't an issue of tails magically disappearing. They just got shorter and shorter over time until they finally disappeared. Not a large jump from say....two inch stump of a tail to no tail.

----------


## Midas

> If I recall correctly from my anthropology class it wasn't an issue of tails magically disappearing. They just got shorter and shorter over time until they finally disappeared. Not a large jump from say....two inch stump of a tail to no tail



I can see this as a possiblity. There could be another, and both could be possible at the same time. There is a small island that lies between England and Ireland called the Isle of Man, and their people, are known as Manx.

There is a breed of cat for which the island is famous called Manx cats. Their distinctive feature is that they have no tails. As we know, cats in general
have retained their tails.

Looking at the possiblity suggested in your anthropology class, why do you feel the tail started to grow shorter? Other animals that don't use their tails to aid in swinging from trees have retained their tails.

There must, therefore, be another very important use for the tail that animals need, but which humans felt they didn't. 

(assuming one accepts Darwin's theory)

----------


## Dark Star

I'd have to do some more research on this, but I'm guessing there was some sort of selective pressure that worked _against_ having a tail after a certain point in human development.

----------


## Midas

I have been giving the matter some thought, as it has begun to interest me.

Not all animals have tails, but like all animals they have a spinal column, of sorts. Some have a very small tail which appears neither use nor ornament as the saying goes. So, did these have tails at one time, and then they grew shorter?

Gorillas, which look more like man to me than monkeys, or chimps, don't have tails. Perhaps here is the answer.

Maybe tails were never intended and only developed in the species that needed them. In other words, it was the other way round - certain animal species didn't discard tails - they never had them. They developed only in the species that had a need for them.

Then we have that all life developed from the sea. If this is so, then we were all fish at one time. Now fish have tails. They really need them to propel them through the water. So, through the survival of the fittest. when they got washed ashore - millions dying, but just one or two surviving and adapting, then breeding, this is perhaps where the different species divided as they adapted in different ways - some with wings into birds. Most birds have tails which they use in flight.

You can see how it was so much simpler to sell people thousands of years ago
on humans coming from two people who were made out of clay by a supreme being and set to wander in a beautiful garden.

Or was it? I find I can swallow Darwin's theory much easier - it's a much more believable 'tale'.

----------


## blazeofglory

Indeed there is something interesting about this theory of evolution. But I am unsure whether it is degeneration or devolution man will undergo with this ever increasing pollutions and the earth will really be an uglier place to live in, with more and more intoxicant or poisonous gases filling the earth. Indeed it is really threatening and if we can not do anything we will find the earth really an ugly and very unhealthy abode. 

Man will of course live like a very weak creature.

Indeed there are dimmer or gloomier sides that can not be called evolution. Evolution leads to progression or growth.

----------


## Bakiryu

we'll probably kill ourselves and destroy the planet. this earth will be empty and desolate, an empty memory of life. evolution is destroying us. Maybe in the end the earth will be ruled by giant cockroaches who will eat each other to survive.

----------


## Dark Star

How is evolution destroying us, exactly...?

----------


## Bakiryu

> How is evolution destroying us, exactly...?


look at what we are doing to our planet for example.

----------


## NikolaiI

> we'll probably kill ourselves and destroy the planet. this earth will be empty and desolate, an empty memory of life. evolution is destroying us. Maybe in the end the earth will be ruled by giant cockroaches who will eat each other to survive.


LoL!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, that's too funny.

----------


## thescholar

I believe that the human race will evolve to the point at which a "person" will be made up of many minds in a mental conference type thing, which will allow our 6.1 billion people to occupy the space of a billion.

----------


## RichardHresko

Evolution, as understood in biology, does not have a direction. So it would not "lead" anyone anywhere.

Directed development of a species is breeding, not evolution.

----------


## Mr. Dr. Ralph

> Evolution, as understood in biology, does not have a direction. So it would not "lead" anyone anywhere.
> 
> Directed development of a species is breeding, not evolution.


Exactly. Evolution is not a factor that influences future development, but instead a biological model of the origin of species.




> How do we arrive at this definition of the word 'evolution'.? Now the 'theory of evolution' which is generally connected to Darwin does tend to narrow, or focus, its meaning, but the word itself surely has a wider meaning? Yes/no?


Obviously. Are you being serious?

----------


## blazeofglory

Do you think evolution is hundred percent biological? Is there no transformation or evolution in thoughts?

----------


## wilbur lim

Evolution is ceaseless and approximately one hundred years later it will wholly end because of the damage bestowed to Earth.Earth would shattered and explode like a bright sparking circuit,and therein would formed a black hole.




> With the exception of certain people in some American states, you all believe this theory, I assume. Where do you think its leading us? The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.


If we are akin to Humpty Dumpty,the harrowing problem is that our genes are infected with an obscure disease.

----------


## RichardHresko

Biological evolution, as has been pointed out by several people here, lacks intentionality. The process does not have a "direction." The natural selection process does not necessarily pick out more "advanced" organisms. Consider the simple example of the Black Death in Europe. In many areas of Eastern Europe the ones who survived had a slight mutation in their immunological system that made them more resistant to bubonic plague. This was not an advance since if the pathological agent were different that mutation would have been worthless.

Intentional evolution has existed for thousands of years, and is known as "breeding." Attempts at segregating the gene pools in human society stretch back to Biblical days and probably earlier, and have continued to exist ever since. The United States, for example (selected because I am familiar with it, not because it is exceptional in this regard), had a Florida law requiring sterilization of "imbeciles" (sic) upheld in the Supreme Court in the 1920s (O.W. Holmes delivered the majority opinion). The law against miscegenation in New York was passed in 1907 and is STILL on the books. It was recently invoked to prevent the recognition of gay marriages. I am sure many will be able to supply further examples from other countries and cultures.

Whether more vigorous/effective forms of human breeding will occur is an open question. Certainly one can imagine uses of DNA mapping that would make the dystopia of Huxley seem like Disneyland on the 4th of July.

----------


## blazeofglory

I am foreseeing a deadly future in point of fact and man is in a way digging a big pit for himself so that he can have a great fall.

In point of fact we all in unison towards destruction and we are busing ourselves with producing self destrcutive things. 

I do not find signals and indicatives to be happy and all are in a way in perpetual combats and we do it perpetually.

We are empting this planet of life sustaining and maintaining substances and now this planet is exposed to hazards, and we have already punctured ozone layers and any raditions that can cause deadly diseases are rampantly spreading now and now if we do not take steps there are too many likelihoods that we will fall to annihilations and there will be no rescue as a matter of fact.

There are fewer things to take pride in point of fact than to be sadder at in this world.

----------


## idiosynchrissy

*Evolution works when the strongerst of the species mate to continue to propagate the strongest traits. That's not the case anymore, it seems. For example, those of us with seriously poor vision would have perished back in the hunter/gathering day and probably not had many offspring. So the gene for bad eyesight would have eventually died out. But I don't hunt or gather, and I have contacts to help me buy my food at the store. I could have plenty of children to which I could pass my crappy sight. So is evolution coming to a standstill in humans due to technology and tolerance?*

----------


## DapperDrake

> With the exception of certain people in some American states, you all believe this theory, I assume. Where do you think it’s leading us? The way I see it, human beings will eventually evolve into a single, large head, possibly resembling Humpty Dumpty but without the arms and legs.


A very amusing image  :Smile:  

The single and defining attribute of evolution that must be appreciated is that it is a process facilitated by procreation. My point being that the only direction that evolution has is that given to it by pressures on procreation. 

In ages past those pressures were, for example, survival of the fittest - those who were fit enough for a given environment would survive to procreate and their offspring be more numerous and more likely to survive etc.. This sort of pressure naturally weeds out weak genetic strains and more than that actively selects strong ones (for a given environment).

Now what pressures are there on procreation today? Having weak genetics (for survival) is no longer stopping people procreating, even infertility is no longer an obstacle with modern fertility treatments. In modern society the weeding out of weak genetic strains is greatly reduced, environmental pressures have become irrelevant and now you have to look at social pressures - Which leads up to the other set of active selection pressures which _are_ still active. 
The natural process of sexual attraction plays an important role in procreation. So, to workout where we are headed in evolutionary terms you only have to look at what qualities men find attractive in women and what qualities women find attractive in men. Of course even sexual attraction hasn't escaped the ravages of civilisation unscathed, make-up, cosmetic surgery, perfume etc.. are all devices designed to hoodwink nature and give the individual sexual advantages that they don't actually possess genetically. 

So what will our future descendants be like? I could guess at less intelligent, less beautiful, with less than robust health but otherwise the same as we are today. You may wonder why I say _less_, simply because it seems to be the case that social evolution works in inverse with procreation, the less intelligent/attractive you are the poorer you will be and the poorer areas of society have more kids.
Of course that's only with the selection pressures of today, who knows what new radical pressures will be created by technology and medicine in the future. Not forgetting that it takes tens of thousands of years for evolution to really begin working its magic, or even longer. In short who knows? there are far to many unknown variables in our future to be able to make a prediction of what evolution will do to us in the long run.

----------


## NikolaiI

There are several sources I have come across which speak of evolution as something with a purpose. Gopi Krishna has a great book about Kundalini, the guardian of human evolution. Sri Aurobindo also wrote extensive works about evolution, he said that we are being drawn or attracted towards a perfection of the spirit and body. Gopi Krishna and Sri Aurobindo both had great ideas about the goals and direction of evolution. 

Aurobindo said, and I've found this said similarly in writings and speeches by a Kabbalist, that we are at a unique point because we are consciously aware of ourselves, our past, and we can for the first time become instruments in our own evolution. For instance we can consciously choose how we will live. Our environment and everything we take into our selves affects our being; what we hear and see, what we touch, smell, feel, as well as everything we speak, do, sing, act, etc.

There is yet another idea of evolution that says all the possible species are already in existence somewhere in the universe. It says that we as souls transmigrate bodies, throughout creation we go from one to another; in this way evolution exists.

----------


## RichardHresko

> *Evolution works when the strongerst of the species mate to continue to propagate the strongest traits. That's not the case anymore, it seems. For example, those of us with seriously poor vision would have perished back in the hunter/gathering day and probably not had many offspring. So the gene for bad eyesight would have eventually died out. But I don't hunt or gather, and I have contacts to help me buy my food at the store. I could have plenty of children to which I could pass my crappy sight. So is evolution coming to a standstill in humans due to technology and tolerance?*


There is no such thing as the "strongest traits" in an absolute sense, only relative to an environment. This would include an artificial environment like society. There is no reason to expect what would be an important trait for survival in one environment to be important in a very different one.




> There are several sources I have come across which speak of evolution as something with a purpose. Gopi Krishna has a great book about Kundalini, the guardian of human evolution. Sri Aurobindo also wrote extensive works about evolution, he said that we are being drawn or attracted towards a perfection of the spirit and body. Gopi Krishna and Sri Aurobindo both had great ideas about the goals and direction of evolution. 
> 
> Aurobindo said, and I've found this said similarly in writings and speeches by a Kabbalist, that we are at a unique point because we are consciously aware of ourselves, our past, and we can for the first time become instruments in our own evolution. For instance we can consciously choose how we will live. Our environment and everything we take into our selves affects our being; what we hear and see, what we touch, smell, feel, as well as everything we speak, do, sing, act, etc.
> 
> There is yet another idea of evolution that says all the possible species are already in existence somewhere in the universe. It says that we as souls transmigrate bodies, throughout creation we go from one to another; in this way evolution exists.


The problem here is a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. Just because intelligence emerged does not mean that it was because of an intentional preceding evolutionary path. 

The metempsychotic idea of evolution doesn't really accomplish much, does it? It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it requires extra premises (such as intentionality, and the existence of souls that can survive the loss of bodies and re-inhabit other ones). Philosophically it appears to be a non-starter.

----------


## NikolaiI

> The problem here is a _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy. Just because intelligence emerged does not mean that it was because of an intentional preceding evolutionary path. 
> 
> The metempsychotic idea of evolution doesn't really accomplish much, does it? It explains nothing, it predicts nothing, it requires extra premises (such as intentionality, and the existence of souls that can survive the loss of bodies and re-inhabit other ones). Philosophically it appears to be a non-starter.


No, post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't apply at all. First-- since I brought up and mentioned two main ideas, let us narrow it down to the first one, since the second is kind of a different way of looking at it, and really addresses it separately. 

Now again, there are variations in the idea-- one part of it is, as I said, related to what Gopi Krishna wrote about, the goddess Kundalini, guardian of human evolution. The second variation is simply that we _are_ evolving, that we are continuing to evolve. As I said, we are unique in that we are aware of ourselves, and our conscious decisions which include this awareness affect our evolution, and so we are instrumental in our evolution, and not simply blindly led by our environmental factors. 

So this understanding or beginning of understanding of evolution does not require a controlling agent, or any kind of guided purpose of nature. It simply means, "we are now consciously aware, so what does this mean?"

The other part isn't based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at all. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means "This, therefore, because of this." And I am not saying that the ideas are necessarily true; I am not saying that because we are intelligent, there was an intelligence which guided us. I simply said that these writers proposed that we have been guided along a path, which is not yet complete.

I would suggest for anyone reading "Kundalini; Empowering Human Evolution" by Gopi Krishna. I did not agree with all his views, for instance his view of Alan Watts, yet I learned a lot by reading it and it broadened my horizons.

After you reply or maybe some other time, we could discuss about transmigration of souls, or reincarnation, but not here; one thing at a time.

----------


## RichardHresko

> No, post hoc ergo propter hoc doesn't apply at all. First-- since I brought up and mentioned two main ideas, let us narrow it down to the first one, since the second is kind of a different way of looking at it, and really addresses it separately. 
> 
> Now again, there are variations in the idea-- one part of it is, as I said, related to what Gopi Krishna wrote about, the goddess Kundalini, guardian of human evolution. The second variation is simply that we _are_ evolving, that we are continuing to evolve. As I said, we are unique in that we are aware of ourselves, and our conscious decisions which include this awareness affect our evolution, and so we are instrumental in our evolution, and not simply blindly led by our environmental factors. 
> 
> So this understanding or beginning of understanding of evolution does not require a controlling agent, or any kind of guided purpose of nature. It simply means, "we are now consciously aware, so what does this mean?"
> 
> The other part isn't based on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy at all. Post hoc ergo propter hoc means "This, therefore, because of this." And I am not saying that the ideas are necessarily true; I am not saying that because we are intelligent, there was an intelligence which guided us. I simply said that these writers proposed that we have been guided along a path, which is not yet complete.
> 
> I would suggest for anyone reading "Kundalini; Empowering Human Evolution" by Gopi Krishna. I did not agree with all his views, for instance his view of Alan Watts, yet I learned a lot by reading it and it broadened my horizons.
> ...


The _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy in your argument is due to your implication that our self-awareness is due to evolution, not because of any implication of an intelligence guiding the development of self-awareness. That we developed an awareness at some point down the evolutionary random walk does not mean that evolution somehow selected for it. All it means is that the process (so far) has not yielded a circumstance that made self-awareness disadvantageous enough to lead to our extinction. (I will point out here that when we do become extinct it may have virtually nothing to do with our self-awareness at all.)

We'll leave the transmigration for a different thread.

----------


## NikolaiI

> The _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ fallacy in your argument is due to your implication that our self-awareness is due to evolution, not because of any implication of an intelligence guiding the development of self-awareness. That we developed an awareness at some point down the evolutionary random walk does not mean that evolution somehow selected for it. All it means is that the process (so far) has not yielded a circumstance that made self-awareness disadvantageous enough to lead to our extinction. (I will point out here that when we do become extinct it may have virtually nothing to do with our self-awareness at all.)
> 
> We'll leave the transmigration for a different thread.


Again, we are in disagreement. I did not make any claim about causes at all. 

"That we developed an awareness at some point down the evolutionary random walk does not mean that evolution somehow selected for it."

No, and I did not say that it did. It might be that evolution is guided by intelligence. But saying that it might be is not saying that it absolutely must be, nor that it is because of the fact that we are intelligent.

But I would like to point out, that had I said this anyway, it is not a _post hoc_ fallacy. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ refers to two things that _did_ happen. It means blaming something that did happen on something else that did happen. In this case, your only objection can be that one of the two events did not happen. _Post hoc_ would be if you agreed the two things happened, but disagreed with my saying the first caused the second, or rather, necessarily and would always cause the second.

Let me explain. In this situation, the one of your statement, two things would need to be true for _post hoc_ to apply. First, we would need to have developed an awareness. Second, evolution would have had to select us for it. A _post hoc_ fallacy occurs if you say, "Because evolution selected us for it, we have awareness." But _that is not a fallacy_. If evolution selected us for it, then it selected us for it. You are saying it did not. You are saying one of the two things is not true. A _post hoc_ fallacy would occur if I asserted that something that was coincidence was actually cause. I am not saying that a coincadence is actually a cause, therefore, no _post hoc._ 

Evolution selecting us for intelligence and us having intelligence are not unrelated. If it is true, it is true; if it is false, it is false. But it is not false by necessity, because it breaks the rules of logic. It's true or false but it's logically coherent.

Now, that little bit of logic aside, I again urge you to read the books for yourself, so you can get an idea of the meaning of the ideas involved. 

The idea I am referring to is that we are guided by intelligent forces, that evolution is being guided. You may disagree with the objective truth of this statement, but I hope you see that within my statement, I am not making logical fallacies.

The other part of this, and it is separate, is that we are consciously aware of our evolution now, and are a part of it. For instance if I choose to be a good swimmer and dedicate myself to that, presumably I encourage this good trait-- or if I consciously decide to do something harmful to myself, this would presumably encourage devolution or what not. So the two things I mentioned were A) the fact that we are involved in our evolution, as opposed to being blindly driven by environmental forces based on survival gives us a greater hand for possibility; and second, B) the possibility or likelihood that nature does have intelligence, that there is a plan. 

I'm saying we are consciously aware of our evolution, and this gives us a greater hand in our evolution (compare: we could eliminate ourselves which would stop evolution, or we could learn to live in peace and then perfect our bodies and minds, which would presumably bring us toward a perfection of the spirit and body.]

Not only can we eliminate ourselves, which species have done in the past, but we can do so in greater magnitude (blow ourselves up several times over). So what I am saying is that we could go either way-- without our intelligence we could not destroy ourselves so easily or quickly, but perhaps our intelligence can be used for good, and for positive improvement. In the individual level oftentimes it is, although sometimes it can create problems. That's all I wanted to say, and can you agree with me on any part of it, now that I tried to explain it a little better?




> The problem here is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Just because intelligence emerged does not mean that it was because of an intentional preceding evolutionary path.


_Post hoc_ is a fallacy which occurs when you state a coincadence as a cause. If what I have said is true then it is not a coincadence, and if it is false then it is not a cause. 

But your position is not that I am stating a coincidence as a cause, because you don't believe it's a coincidence, that is; you don't believe one of the two parts is true. _Post hoc_ means "after this, therefore because of this" when what happens "_after this_" occurred, and the original "this" occurred. You are saying the "this" didn't occur, so you can't then say that it happened out as a part of a coincidence rather than the cause of our current state.

----------


## RichardHresko

> Again, we are in disagreement. I did not make any claim about causes at all. 
> 
> "That we developed an awareness at some point down the evolutionary random walk does not mean that evolution somehow selected for it."
> 
> No, and I did not say that it did. It might be that evolution is guided by intelligence. But saying that it might be is not saying that it absolutely must be, nor that it is because of the fact that we are intelligent.
> 
> But I would like to point out, that had I said this anyway, it is not a _post hoc_ fallacy. _Post hoc ergo propter hoc_ refers to two things that _did_ happen. It means blaming something that did happen on something else that did happen. In this case, your only objection can be that one of the two events did not happen. _Post hoc_ would be if you agreed the two things happened, but disagreed with my saying the first caused the second, or rather, necessarily and would always cause the second.
> 
> Let me explain. In this situation, the one of your statement, two things would need to be true for _post hoc_ to apply. First, we would need to have developed an awareness. Second, evolution would have had to select us for it. A _post hoc_ fallacy occurs if you say, "Because evolution selected us for it, we have awareness." But _that is not a fallacy_. If evolution selected us for it, then it selected us for it. You are saying it did not. You are saying one of the two things is not true. A _post hoc_ fallacy would occur if I asserted that something that was coincidence was actually cause. I am not saying that a coincadence is actually a cause, therefore, no _post hoc._ 
> ...


It seems we are talking past each other.

We both agree that self-awareness occurs. We both agree that evolution occurred before self-awareness. I interpreted your remarks to mean that you believed that the prior event (evolution) stood in causal relation to the occurrence of self-awareness. I believed this because of your reference to some sort of nebulous guiding force for evolution (spooks in the genes?). If you did believe that that was the relation between the two then you would have fallen into _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ since you offered nothing concrete to show that evolution caused self-awareness other than that it preceded self-awareness and that humans evolved. 

So since you do not apparently avow the spook-gene theory you do not commit the fallacy. Also, you can not commit a fallacy if you do not make a claim as to truth-value. It was the fallacy into which Gopi and Sri Aurobindo fell, as far as I can tell from what I have read in your post. For them to avoid the fallacy they would have to provide evidence that the causal connection exists. From the way the material is described they take for granted that the causal connection exists and look for some sort of explanation of the mechanism.

----------


## blazeofglory

> Sri Aurobindo also wrote extensive works about evolution, he said that we are being drawn or attracted towards a perfection of the spirit and body. Gopi Krishna and Sri Aurobindo both had great ideas about the goals and direction of evolution. 
> 
> Aurobindo said, and I've found this said similarly in writings and speeches by a Kabbalist, that we are at a unique point because we are consciously aware of ourselves, our past, and we can for the first time become instruments in our own evolution. For instance we can consciously choose how we will live. Our environment and everything we take into our selves affects our being; what we hear and see, what we touch, smell, feel, as well as everything we speak, do, sing, act, etc.
> 
> There is yet another idea of evolution that says all the possible species are already in existence somewhere in the universe. It says that we as souls transmigrate bodies, throughout creation we go from one to another; in this way evolution exists.


I have read Aurobindo and he was a mystic. He said we are in an evolutionary process and evolutionarily going upward. But now the way we all are indoctrinated into a particular set of beliefs and behave irrationally and violently we are not climbing up the ladder of evolution but down the steep ladder of evolution considering today's human situations.

----------


## Swamidragon

evolution of a species depends on one or many factors and requires a LONG period of time. and as i have been reading some of your posts i saw that you forgot the most important factor: because as we know evolution will take at least million years till then our planets resourses will be depleated and because of that i think there will be two posibilities - one: we will remain the same as we are now and will try to survive as our ancestors did for thousands of years; or as it is written in many science fiction novels we will leave in space and then major changes can happen because of zero gravity and high radiation level we will become. and its possibloe of course that we will find till then an inhabittable planet to live on. Oh and because all of you like to point to some scientific work i can tell you that you can find out more about this watching discovery channel video dedicated especially to human evolution

----------


## NikolaiI

> It seems we are talking past each other.
> 
> We both agree that self-awareness occurs. We both agree that evolution occurred before self-awareness. I interpreted your remarks to mean that you believed that the prior event (evolution) stood in causal relation to the occurrence of self-awareness. I believed this because of your reference to some sort of nebulous guiding force for evolution (spooks in the genes?). If you did believe that that was the relation between the two then you would have fallen into _post hoc ergo propter hoc_ since you offered nothing concrete to show that evolution caused self-awareness other than that it preceded self-awareness and that humans evolved. 
> 
> So since you do not apparently avow the spook-gene theory you do not commit the fallacy. Also, you can not commit a fallacy if you do not make a claim as to truth-value. It was the fallacy into which Gopi and Sri Aurobindo fell, as far as I can tell from what I have read in your post. For them to avoid the fallacy they would have to provide evidence that the causal connection exists. From the way the material is described they take for granted that the causal connection exists and look for some sort of explanation of the mechanism.


I gave it my best, to explain _post hoc_ fallacy and why it didn't apply. I'm pretty sure I understood what you were saying, you stated I used a logical fallacy with several different wordings of statements. Now, you were simply wrong about the fallacy, but you haven't addressed it at all, so, I am through with this.

Last ditch effort; the truth, in contrast to the fallacy, if a fallacy is used, _does assume_ that _two things happened._ If your position is that one of the two things _did not happen_; i.e., _evolution did not intelligently guide us_, then you cannot then say that evolution did guide us, but we are intelligent by a _coincidence._ Again, _Post hoc_ occurs when you incorrectly state a coincidence as a cause; but you can't say this if you don't believe one event in question (the one which is either a coincidence or a cause) exists or happened.

I am not very much interested in this debate anymore, so I am not replying to the thread again.

----------


## RichardHresko

> I gave it my best, to explain _post hoc_ fallacy and why it didn't apply. I'm pretty sure I understood what you were saying, you stated I used a logical fallacy with several different wordings of statements. Now, you were simply wrong about the fallacy, but you haven't addressed it at all, so, I am through with this.
> 
> Last ditch effort; the truth, in contrast to the fallacy, if a fallacy is used, _does assume_ that _two things happened._ If your position is that one of the two things _did not happen_; i.e., _evolution did not intelligently guide us_, then you cannot then say that evolution did guide us, but we are intelligent by a _coincidence._ Again, _Post hoc_ occurs when you incorrectly state a coincidence as a cause; but you can't say this if you don't believe one event in question (the one which is either a coincidence or a cause) exists or happened.
> 
> I am not very much interested in this debate anymore, so I am not replying to the thread again.


The difference is now isolated:

You are saying that the antecedent factor is intelligently guided evolution and that the post factor is self-awareness. You deny my charge of post hoc because you say that since I deny your antecedent factor I can not therefore claim post hoc.

My argument is that your discussion of what type of evolution is responsible for self-awareness presupposes that evolution not only precedes self-awareness but must in some way cause the self-awareness. 

I do not believe that you have or could show that evolution causes self-awareness, and that your imputing causality without justification to a prior event (evolution period) is post hoc.

Before discussing how evolution brings about self-awareness it should first be shown that it does in fact cause self-awareness.

----------


## Mr Hyde

The future of existence is the extinction of all existence. How do I know this?

I know this from physics. Physics tells us that when energy is created eventually it will exhaust itself into entropy.

Physics specifically shows us how all of the universe will fall into entropy by the writings on cosmic degeneration. Not even the delusional primate known as homo sapiens will be able to escape this inevitability.

So by understanding the future of all existence as being extinction it would appear that evolution is without purpose or motive.

----------


## RichardHresko

> The future of existence is the extinction of all existence. How do I know this?
> 
> I know this from physics. Physics tells us that when energy is created eventually it will exhaust itself into entropy.
> 
> Physics specifically shows us how all of the universe will fall into entropy by the writings on cosmic degeneration. Not even the delusional primate known as homo sapiens will be able to escape this inevitability.
> 
> So by understanding the future of all existence as being extinction it would appear that evolution is without purpose or motive.


Whether the universe undergoes "heat death" is dependent on whether or not there is enough matter in the universe to reverse the expansion due to the Big Bang. Since there is a question of how much so-called 'dark matter' is in the universe, the fate of the universe is an open question. It could, in theory, end in a Big Crunch which would obliterate all trace of the current universe. 

Still kind of sobering.

As Keynes once remarked, "In the long run we're all dead."

----------


## Mr Hyde

> As Keynes once remarked, "In the long run we're all dead."


And life is a joke.

----------


## blazeofglory

Every thing is symbolic in this universe and out of disorder or entropy emerged order. What we call order is a result of what is disorder. Of course out of disorder order came and this logic is symbolic of the fact that order and disorder are not two differentiating things and both are one and the same thing but only different manifestations of the same entity as a matter of fact.

At the deepest level there is no division between good and bad. 

What we call evolution is something that has to do with devolution too for what we call civilization is against nature and for that matter environmentally and ecologically we are devolving.

Therefore man's evolution is the cause of man's devolution. Or for a better word, degeneration.

Today man seems at the pennacle of civilization and at the same time he is in debacle too.

----------


## skasian

Evolution is a change in a population over time that is directed for maximum benefit for that specific population.
Evolution occurs in the population where the variant that possess a component that is most adapted to the change is most favoured, and its frequency is increased in comparasion to other variants that are not adapted to the change. Over long periods of time, the favoured variant begins to become most common in the population, and causes to conquer over all other variants, making that favoured variant the official total population. 
In other words, the least adapted variants are eliminated from the population and lost from it.

----------


## blazeofglory

Evolution goes internally and externally. We see external mutations and can not visualize the internal one.

----------


## skasian

> Evolution goes internally and externally. We see external mutations and can not visualize the internal one.


True. The external component is our phenotypes where we can visually see, whereas the interal component is our genotypes where we cannot, therefore genetic test crossing is required to identify the the internal component.

----------

