In Which The Forum Helps Pops With Critical Thinking
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-10-2015, 08:24 PM
In Which The Forum Helps Pops With Critical Thinking
Can evolution be seen as the advancment of life as a whole in its changing environment? Can survival of the fittest be attained without destruction and manipulation of other beings or species? Can we advance further peacefully with other life in unity with that life for the advancent of existence in general?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes popsthebuilder's post
02-10-2015, 09:52 PM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(02-10-2015 08:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can evolution be seen as the advancment of life as a whole in its changing environment?

No, that would be inaccurate.

Quote:Can survival of the fittest be attained without destruction and manipulation of other beings or species?

That would be Vastly unlikely. Most of life is not aware, so the blind, uncaring nature of evolution would not likely accommodate that

Quote:Can we advance further peacefully with other life in unity with that life for the advancent of existence in general?

Probably not unless we reduce the human population to a few million people who wish to live in harmony with nature and each other.

What is your definition of "the advancent of existence in general"? Evolution is not necessarily advancement.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-10-2015, 10:18 PM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(02-10-2015 08:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can evolution be seen as the advancment of life as a whole in its changing environment?

Change is a better word for advancement. Modern sloths are less advance to prehistoric sloths.

(02-10-2015 08:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can survival of the fittest be attained without destruction and manipulation of other beings or species?

Depends. Hyenas and lions are in the same niche, but are not to the point of destruction, yet some animals have gone extinct via other animals. Again it depends.


(02-10-2015 08:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can we advance further peacefully with other life in unity with that life for the advancent of existence in general?

This is not a question about evolution.

[Image: Guilmon-41189.gif] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Metazoa Zeke's post
03-10-2015, 04:41 AM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(02-10-2015 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 08:24 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Can evolution be seen as the advancment of life as a whole in its changing environment?

No, that would be inaccurate.

Quote:Can survival of the fittest be attained without destruction and manipulation of other beings or species?

That would be Vastly unlikely. Most of life is not aware, so the blind, uncaring nature of evolution would not likely accommodate that

Quote:Can we advance further peacefully with other life in unity with that life for the advancent of existence in general?

Probably not unless we reduce the human population to a few million people who wish to live in harmony with nature and each other.

What is your definition of "the advancent of existence in general"? Evolution is not necessarily advancement.
If we are the most fit and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 04:46 AM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
Change could technically be reversion to a more primitive state. Not exactly observable through evolution.

Also, if life in general advances or changes to accommodate and flourish within its environment or habitat then why can we not say that the advancement of life in general or the change of life in general as a means for it to be most efficient within its habitat is evolution? Why does there have to be separation of every species as opposed to just the advancement of life in general?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 05:14 AM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If we are the most fit and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?

The correct phrase in relation to evolution would be "best fit", not "most fit". Whichever individuals of a species are the best fit to their environment survive and breed more often than their worse-fit brethren. Thus the species changes over time to become a better fit to its environment.

Humans fill a particular ecological niche, one that is complicated by the fact that we manipulate our own environment to be a good fit to us as well as finding ourselves needing to fit into the niche we have created. But the niches of other species are also complicated. As each species changes to be a better fit to its own niche that affects the niches of other species. Thus life is constantly being tweaked and changed by the life around it.

(03-10-2015 04:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Change could technically be reversion to a more primitive state. Not exactly observable through evolution.

Very much observable. Inherited features are lost by species all of the time when they are not needed in the environment they find themselves in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_tetra

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Hafnof's post
03-10-2015, 05:17 AM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(03-10-2015 05:14 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If we are the most fit and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?

The correct phrase in relation to evolution would be "best fit", not "most fit". Whichever individuals of a species are the best fit to their environment survive and breed more often than their worse-fit brethren. Thus the species changes over time to become a better fit to its environment.

Humans fill a particular ecological niche, one that is complicated by the fact that we manipulate our own environment to be a good fit to us as well as finding ourselves needing to fit into the niche we have created. But the niches of other species are also complicated. As each species changes to be a better fit to its own niche that affects the niches of other species. Thus life is constantly being tweaked and changed by the life around it.

(03-10-2015 04:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Change could technically be reversion to a more primitive state. Not exactly observable through evolution.

Very much observable. Inherited features are lost by species all of the time when they are not needed in the environment they find themselves in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_tetra
Losing an unneeded trait is not reverting to a more primitive state.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 06:59 PM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(02-10-2015 09:52 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, that would be inaccurate.


That would be Vastly unlikely. Most of life is not aware, so the blind, uncaring nature of evolution would not likely accommodate that


Probably not unless we reduce the human population to a few million people who wish to live in harmony with nature and each other.

What is your definition of "the advancent of existence in general"? Evolution is not necessarily advancement.
If we are the most fit and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?

We're no more fit than any other species. All species are fit for their environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(03-10-2015 06:59 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-10-2015 04:41 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  If we are the most fit and aware then why can we not progress without destruction or without devouring other life completely?

We're no more fit than any other species. All species are fit for their environment.
Yet we dominate over all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-10-2015, 07:03 PM
RE: Ask some questions about evolution here.
(03-10-2015 04:46 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Change could technically be reversion to a more primitive state. Not exactly observable through evolution.

That would be one kind of change, not the only one.

Quote:Also, if life in general advances or changes to accommodate and flourish within its environment or habitat then why can we not say that the advancement of life in general or the change of life in general as a means for it to be most efficient within its habitat is evolution?

Life in general does not advance, it evolves to be more fit in its environment.
Environments change.

Quote:Why does there have to be separation of every species as opposed to just the advancement of life in general?

Because species are isolated gene pools that prosper or fail.

There is no "advancement of life".

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: