Parallel Universes:, Do they exist?

I can if medicine halts it (or reverses it, even).

Nothing halts evolution.

The argument that medicine interferes with evolution is the same as the argument that pack behavior has interfered with the evolution of wild dogs.

This post has been edited by MadHatter on Nov 14 2009, 03:03 AM

Oh yeah, because spreading genes that cause shortsight, missing teeth or just about any congenital illnesses is totally in line with evolution.

Well I can't agree with the "nothing halts evolution" statement. Look what man has done to animals through domestication? Cats are feril creatures, who hunt for themselves in the wild and keep to their pride. Dogs are wild creatures who hunt in packs for survival.

...and now, at least the ones humans keep as "pets", require constant attention, feeding, and care. And if you have an animal that has never been out in the "wild", it can't care for itself in the least.

THAT is counter-productive to it's original evolutionary traits and survival. So the idea that evolution can't be halted is flawed. It can be diverted, altered, and even halted.

Humans are doing similar things to themselves... and while I don't like how it makes me sound, part of that IS keeping the sick alive beyond what their body could do without a medical device. I've had sick family members, who lay in a hospital bed dying, terminal... with little to no chance of survival without the machines they were hooked up to. It's not how I would want to live... and it only prolonged a life that was flickering out anyway. That is unnatural. And while I wouldn't have wanted to be the one telling them "pull the plug!", it was something that should have happened when it was determined to be hopeless.

Though that doesn't really have much to do with halting evolution, I thought I'd make that little side-point.

What DOES have to do with halting evolution, is the fact that man hasn't made any forward progress genetically, since as far back as the Middle Ages. Think about it... everything that one could attempt to call evolution, is nothing but a by-product of social culture, and technology.

Which, while a part of our cultural evolution, isn't the same as true evolution. Man is almost identical to how he was back when we were digging in the dirt, rooting around for food. The only change is we've learned how to use machines and tools we didn't know about a thousand years ago.

Yeah, keeping terminally ill patients alive is of no relevance to evolution since they will (generally) just be stuck in bed and not reproduce.
We're mostly talking of those genetic traits that would normally make it harder (if not altogether impossible) for one to live long enough to spread their genes.

I can guarantee you than nothing halts evolution. It's a force of nature like gravity. Yeah sure you can imagine that trampolines halt gravity, or or that swimming-pool water modifies gravity, or that when you ride a fast merry-go-round you've altered gravity at 90 degrees, but anybody who studies physics realizes that's just our own misunderstanding.

As far as the domestication of animals and the fact that they can't live on their own in the wild any longer... What would you guess the survival rate of wild animals is compared to pets? Evolution is about preservation of your genes by acquisition of beneficial traits. If you can pass your genes on better by being cute and cuddly and living as a quasi-parasite on humans then obviously it's an evolutionary advantage to become domesticated.

The fact that humans haven't changed in recorded history is first of all wrong (we have grown demonstrably taller), and second of all it is shortsighted. Evolution takes place over eons, not hundreds or even thousands of years. It can take place relatively quickly at times, but only when environmental pressures are extreme. See Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Finally, like I said earlier we can't tell what are positive evolutionary changes. Nobody would have guessed that sickle-cell anemia would have any positive effects. It turns out that in the right place, at the right time, in malaria-infested areas, it's a distinct advantage. Yeah it's true that right now we can't see how Asperger Syndrome could possibly be a benefit, but when WWIII comes and all of civilization is wiped away from anthrax and only the Asperger people survive due to genetic differences, then who'll have the last laugh? (That's just an example, Asperger people aren't really immune to anthrax).

The fact that we aren't all blond-haired blue-eyed Andonises of humanity doesn't mean we're as genetically inferior as the Nazis would like us to believe. Genetic drift allows a species to have variation within its population. There is necessarily some "bad" mixed with the "good." By having a widely variable population, when calamity strikes and 90% of us die, the 10% who may also have "bad" traits will live to pass genes on another day.

To put it more clearly, evolution isn't something that a genetically stable population uses to achieve an environmental benefit, evolution is the force that keeps genetically variable populations within the environmental "sweet spot." When that "sweet spot" changes due to external pressures, then evolution acts to preserve and modify those closest to the "sweet spot." If those closest to that spot have what used to be considered genetic maladies in the old "sweet spot" then so be it.

In this way you can see that evolution never stops acting on the population even though they appear to go through periods of stability within "sweet spots." The analogy can be drawn to a marble stuck on a cliff. Sure it looks like gravity has ceased to act on the marble since it is no longer falling, but simply remove the rock that blocks its way and the marble will continue to fall.

This post has been edited by MadHatter on Nov 14 2009, 07:57 PM

Speaking of other life-forms, & Evolution, I find it *SO AGGRAVATING*, when people think we are somehow *ABOVE-&-BEYOND* protists, plants, fungi, & other animals, etc, etc...

I think that other life-forms are just as good as us, & another thing I *HATE*, is when we humans say that our species is the only 1 on this planet capable of being spiritual...

& on that note, I really must apologize to Con for my outburst towards him...

I never meant to call him a bigot *PERSONALLY*, it's just, since, (as Serkol said), he *IS* 1 of the more reasonable people on these boards, & he was the very last person I would have expected to be supporting that sort of prejudice...

I find it *SO ANNOYING*, that we disregard plant-life as somehow *DEVOID OF INTELLIGENCE*...

I've even started a thread/poll at Zelda Universe on the subject...

Plant I.Q. @ the ZU Forums, started by *YOUR'S TRULY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!

Part of my belief-system is animism, & I think plants have a life-force, & a memory all their own!!

Say MadHatter, you have a great knowledge about those thingies... do you also study biology?

I remember a bird species (could be honeybird or so) in which both traits exist: a couple of males are monogamous, the other part is promiscous. Nature calculates absolutely hard: females lay, let's say 5 eggs. The monogamous male can rise all kids because both parents feed. The promiscous male mate with maybe 10 females, but most chicks die due to the lack of nourishment, and thus the females alone can rise all together also only 5 chicks. In common: if you see bird species in which both genders look similar (parrots, swans, geese) they are mostly monogamous. If you see birds in which both genders look different (chicken, peacocks...) they are mostly promiscous. But also monogamous birds are getting new genes through extra-pair mating.
In the end, there is only one "real" monogamous species; the pairleech shistosoma, but this species is forced: both genders grow together

When it comes to rape: well what do male soldiers after conquering a country...? Yes, and this happenes almost in every war. Rape, unfortunately can be a evolutionary stable strategy, because most females rise the offspring even though the father is hated. The thought road gets dangerous if you imagine that most behaviour is steered by genes, and there's a good chance that the offspring has the father's genes.

As for "artificial" evolution, I do agree with MadHatter that there is no "artificial" but only "natural" evolution; mean we follow traits that enables us to live longer and rise more offspring in a cold, life-unfriendly and dangerous environment, means on earth. Therefore, we develop science, medicine and gene engineering. If humans do no fatal mistakes, these techniques can help improving our abilities to survive. And yes, medicine is a result of eveolution and you would wonder what animals do to cure themselves (e.g. eating mud in parrot is not only for mineral uptake but also a worm-cure)

In the end I think every more developed /intelligent species changes environment to have a chance to survive: beevers, bees, woodpeckers; they all change natural environment just as we do.

As for traits which are advantegous or not. There are non-sense traits which can only be explained psychologically (complexes, personality disorders, pedophily), others can be only explained in a more broad biological view (existance of monopause in women, homosexuality); but all in all there's a trait-off like there is no egg lying wool-milkpig. Our evolution is (since natural selection does more or less not exist anymore except some deseases, property) mainly steered by sexual selection which is mainly steered by women through the higher investment. Some women go for intelligent traits; they mate with academians because they mainly earn more money. The trait off is maybe that intelligent people are less healthy and less muscular since they spend their time and energy in thinking than in hard, body work on fresh air. Other women favour these traits.

But this IS also evolution. Fitness is measured by the amount of offspring that can survive until maturity. And fitness is directly linked to evolution. Yes, we eat cows. But imagine how many cows are in wild and how many are domesticated and live through mutualism with human? We do take care about them, heal and feed them, protect them from predators and yes, eat them. But: we do help them to contribute their genes to the next generation. Mainly we steer the contribution by choice of the best milk giving or best tasting cow and exactly this is evolution, in this case not natural evolution but man-made evolution. In the end ti's the same. Many (if not all) apecies are dependent on the help of another. How many plants species would die if bees extinct?! So both species do steer the evolution of each other. And also cows steer our evolution (lactase e.g.).

@Tuffy: don't mind

Spirituality... hm, believe is a strong force which acts on group selection (which is a very weak evolutionary force in comparison to natural, sexual and kin selection), similar to national believe in 3rd reich. I think spirituality is nothing else but a new word for religion; religion if not abused like church did in middle age is a strong force to open concciousness and also helps to develop science and medicine, indirectly. I also believe that some spiritual techniques (reiki, believe, asf.) can force powers, like healing.
In the end, the forces opened by spirituality can better be explained by psychology than by biology. As for animals being religeous/spiritual? I find it strange to imagine, because I think that the consciousness of animals and plants is less developed than that of mankind.

And which outburst do you mean? Don't mind

Spirituality... hm, believe is a strong force which acts on group selection (which is a very weak evolutionary force in comparison to natural, sexual and kin selection), similar to national believe in 3rd reich. I think spirituality is nothing else but a new word for religion; religion if not abused like church did in middle age is a strong force to open concciousness and also helps to develop science and medicine, indirectly. I also believe that some spiritual techniques (reiki, believe, asf.) can force powers, like healing.
In the end, the forces opened by spirituality can better be explained by psychology than by biology. As for animals being religeous/spiritual? I find it strange to imagine, because I think that the consciousness of animals and plants is less developed than that of mankind.

And which outburst do you mean? Don't mind

I was reffering to my outburst in my "Plant Intelligence" thread/poll...

& I also feel that other life-forms are just as developed as us, spiritually only through different filters...

I find the idea that we humans are somehow "more spiritual" than other life-forms to be *SHEER BIGOTRY!!*

I never meant any offense towards you personally...

I just could'nt fathom how a tolerant reasonable person such as yourself could back up such awful rhetoric, & I sort of overdid it, I'm afraid to say...

No hard feelings...

EDIT: I define spiritualitty as an unorganized form of religion, & I feel that it is shared by *ALL* life-forms, (not just humans)...

This post has been edited by Tuf Pic on Nov 16 2009, 01:29 AM

Sort of. I began university studying biology but in the end I only minored in it...
I have a particular love for the topic of evolution and I try to study it in my spare time, but sadly my school career today has drawn me far from my scientific background. I miss the science curriculum greatly. Especially biology. *sigh*

@Tuffy, well this was a time and I think I throw enough back to you...

You mean something like in "circle of life" in the lion king? Well, I do not say that there isn't something like spirituality in animals/plants, however for me it is hard to imagine; but you can explain your point of view if you like to.

@ MadHatter: I am really impressed by your knowledge. Why didn't you become biologist?

EDIT: Madhatter more or less beat me to what I was going to say, so I won't go in to detail. There are a lot of misconceptions about evolution.

This post has been edited by coinilius on Nov 16 2009, 02:00 PM

@Con: Thanks, you are too kind. I switched from Biology to my other love (English Literature) with the intention of switching back and ultimately getting a double major, but the university said it would delay my graduation by a year because I missed the deadline to reapply to Biology.

At the time I thought it would be better to just graduate and be done with it, but then when I decided to go back to grad school I ended up getting into a field that is completely unrelated to either. Why I did this, I have no idea. It was not my best decision...

Thanks Con, for not *BASHING* me...

& I'm also grateful that you say it's *POSSIBLE* for plants/animals to have spiritual/psychic/magical capabilities...

Anyways, my view is this: if it's alive, it most certainly has some sort of conciousness...

I mean, all living things contain

Dimethyltryptamine, (DMT), &/or other similar substanses,

& what's the point of having something like that if it just sits there doing *ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!*

Besides, since animism is a big part of my belief-system, I'm *POSITIVE* that I'm correct!!

Those are just a few of my reasons, as well as my deep-seated intuition I've had all my life, & probably in previous ones as well...

@Con: I just wanted to say something I said to Serkol, but didn't say to anyone else...

I modified it not only by UNDERLINING/ITALICIZING/BOLDING the text, but by putting "deed" in it's plural form "deed(s)"...

HAIL TO NAYRU, HYRULIAN GODDESS OF WISDOM!!

GNOSIS KARDIAS...

(The latter means "Knowledge of the Heart", in ancient Greek, & was the [SPOILER]SAVING GRACE OF THE GNOSTIC SECTS!![/SPOILER])...

Just a few inteesting notes for at least some of your information...