This is an excellent description.

Evolution is about adaptation to promote survival in a particular environment. The better adapted an organism is to a particular environment, then the greater its chances of survival and the greater the opportunity for it to pass its genetic code on to new generations. Because there are many different environments, there are many organisms that have adapted to flourish within them.

Consider the camel. Camels are supremely adapted to life in arid regions - horses, for example are not are not. Polar bears are another great example. Supremely adapted for the environment in which they live. It can hardly be said that humans are well adapted for life in sub zero temperatures. But if you swap camels and polar bears, then suddenly, the positive adaptations become negatives, and impact on the organisms survival.

Genetic mutations are entirely random, and there are many that cause an adaptation would not benefit a an organism - club feet for example. There are also neutral adaptations adaptations that neither benefit nor disadvantage the organism - colour blindness. Very rarely, however, a genetic mutation will occur that will provide an organism with an adaptation that gives it an advantage in the environment in which it lives. It may only be a really small thing, but if it helps an organism survive, then the chances are that it will be carried through into future generations. Darwin studied the development of finches in the Galapogas islands, and noted how their beaks changed over time to allow them to access different nuts present on particular islands. The evolution of Horseshoe moths during the industrial revolution is also another documented case of evolution in action.

Evolution in man is something of a different kettle of fish, as instead of adapting to the environment, we use technology to change the environment to suit us. In many ways, this is stifling our evolution, as instead of adapting to the environment we find ourselves in, we use technology to overcome it. When placed in the arctic with the polar bears, naked we probably wouldn't last very long. But we would take clothes, shelter, food with us for the trip. Consider how a 5 year old child would survive in that environment, if you dumped him there, completely naked.

Another human impact on evolution is that in the name of humanity, we allow defective genes to be carried through by caring for offspring that are born with disadvantageous adaptations. In nature, these would mostly be cast aside by the parents, and they would not survive very long. Humans, because we like to think of ourselves as civilised, will make great efforts to provide a 'quality of life' for disadvantaged children, who may go on to reproduce themselves, thus perpetuating the defective genetic code.

(I am not suggesting that we should rush out and start exterminating any children with autism, downes syndrome etc, just looking at the ideas in terms of evolution)


S

Jonny Five is Alive! Reconstruct, Stephanie! That was one of my favourite films as a kid, can't believe I didn't think of that one either. Was clearly not on form this morning!! I blame the heat.

But we do change to adapt to the environment and I don't think that technology is shielding us from 'evolving', if anything technology is making the rate of change accelerate, for example: increased height due to good nutrition, eugenics breeds out defective genes, people living longer due to better health and medical intervention.

Re your last point about so called defective genes not being bred-out of the population. How do you think an organism adapts to its environment over generations? have you considered the possibility that defective genes are caused by the environment and that an organism uses those defects so it can adapt?

What if Autism is the natural human condition and we're breeding it out, would Homo Sapiens have gained dominance over other species without it?

well I wouldn't mind a robot husband!! Bit like stepford wives!! When you've had enough, just turn them off!! Or trade them in for a new model!!! ha ha ha

>>But we do change to adapt to the environment and I don't think that technology is shielding us from 'evolving', if anything technology is making the rate of change accelerate, for example: increased height due to good nutrition, eugenics breeds out defective genes, people living longer due to better health and medical intervention.<<

I think the increased height argument is false - I might be wrong, but wasn't that the Lysenko argument?

There's an awful lot of muddled thinking and misplaced "logic" in this thread (*My* quotes).

Science has nothing to say about the existence of a supposed "god" - it cannot. The very word "existence" is meaningless if you have a god that cannot be - at least in principle - seen, heard, smelt or otherwise intercepted by human senses. Therefore a "god" can't be investigated. Any scientific theory can, and is, investigated. Eventually it may be proven false, sometimes improved and re-investigated and sometimes proven over and over again. Good science makes predictions: if those predictions are not upheld by observation or prove unrepeatable by peers they make the underlying theory less valid.

Belief just accepts what some ancient book says, in essence. Trying to put it in the same ballpark as science may make the believer feel clever but in reality merely makes him look foolish.

No, I'm sticking to that. It makes sense. My argument is not what they are and whether they can evolve or not. My point is that if something as basic as inert non-living objects that have been put together require some form of intelligent approach to create it, to any logical mind, something of infinitely more complexity would require at least that.

Na mate. As long as people have consciousness they will remain superior. A digital machine cannot of itself ever acquire consciousness, for the simple reason that in it there do not arise hierarchical conflicts of operation.

You sound rather like a machine yourself <g>.

Argh! I've been rumbled! Initiating escape functions!

Except for I Robot....

Aren't humans essentially very complex organic computers? Each cell has its own very special set of instructions which it will follow.

Naaaaaaaah maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaate, that's like saying cake is nuffin butta delicious pc innit!

Ok, now you've completely lost me.

What's the weather like on your planet today?!

It's raining jelly beans again

Not again!

Explain the reasoning that we are biological computers. What makes us human would be emotion and what we're made of. The ability to develop new ideas and concepts. A computer is just a calculator on steroids. You can say we're like in some ways but you can relate pretty much anything that way. The appendix is like burtreynoldsisonit because we don't know what it does. It's just there and is harmful when popped. See?