(January 22, 2015 at 3:39 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't agree that humans can change evolution, humans are just part of evolution. Evolution is "what happens". If you want to say we are changing it, you have to redefine it to mean "what happens without someone fucking around with it too much". May be semantics, but I think it's important.

It's basically a question of whether you consider humans as part of nature or not, no? I think in the old days there was this prejudiced idea to divide the world into nature and culture. Nature was ruled by culture, which was not really part of it.

Yeah. I totally do. We evolved from nature, we are nature. Sure, we impact things in much more obvious ways and interfere with environments on a massive scale. But everything has the potential to change the environment, we just do it more. Every species' evolution can interfere with others, they don't happen in a vacuum.

I don't see an argument for humans not being natural. I'm not having a go at you, but how can natural suddenly become something else? I understand a philosophical divide as we are so different, but not a scientific one.

I suppose I look at it that "evolution" is the entire model. It involves all life on the planet, along with the environment. You can look at a particular species' evolution and try and call it separate, but that's not reality. You could talk about it's "hypothetical evolution" I suppose. Maybe my language isn't meeting up with general scientific language, I'm not sure. But to me, it's all one big system.

(January 22, 2015 at 4:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah. I totally do. We evolved from nature, we are nature. Sure, we impact things in much more obvious ways and interfere with environments on a massive scale. But everything has the potential to change the environment, we just do it more.

I don't see an argument for humans not being natural. I'm not having a go at you, but how can natural suddenly become something else? I understand a philosophical divide as we are so different, but not a scientific one.

It's not my opinion at all, I'm merely reproducing what I think was the general attitude up until at least the 19th century, and which is only slowly changing ever since.

Ah OK Cool. I wasn't trying to be confrontational, just interested in discussing that. I think calling us "super nature" or something is very woo like. (Not saying you are doing this!)

---

Would you agree that "evolution" is the model as a whole? As in, everything continues to evolve together, in whatever environments it finds itself in? It's from that point of view I say that evolution can't be altered, because we are simply part of this process.

I mean, one could say that we, as opposed to any other species we've encountered, actually are able to plan our long-term involvement in nature on a big scale, which could be construed as something that transcends the usual definition of coevolution (?)

(January 21, 2015 at 7:55 pm)Chas Wrote: The bolded statement is not controversial. Homo sapiens is the only species that understands evolution and can counter it and/or guide it.

I think it's pretty ironic how you have to develop a relatively high level of mental acuity to be dumb enough to deny the reality of evolution.

Or, maybe that's not ironic at all and rocks are literally more intelligent than creationists. I can't really decide.

Yeah. I know what you mean. Personally I think that to say we are altering evolution is to assign some sort of natural goal or rules to evolution, that it's meant to only happen a certain way.

The way I look at it, evolution of life on earth is just a subset of everything that happens in the universe. So for something to "alter" evolution, from my point of view, would take something actually external to earth. Like aliens coming down and screwing around. But in that way, evolution has changed only in as much as our sphere of interest was too narrow to take in the universal change.

Maybe science doesn't look at it that way, I'm not totally sure. Maybe I'm making totally pointless points, hehe. I don't deny that humans appear to fuck with "evolution" like never before, but it depends on the precise meaning of the words. And I guess you could take either stance. But to say we alter the evolution of other species... is to just say that we altered what would have happened were we not here. Which is the same deal for any other form of life which inadvertently affects such evolution.

I agree, we are probably the only form of life capable of being aware of evolution happening.... my brain hurts. I hope I got my point across

I guess I'm saying evolution is just a description of what happens. To say it has "changed" is to have assigned it some sort of path ahead of time.

(January 22, 2015 at 4:22 am)robvalue Wrote: Yeah. I know what you mean. Personally I think that to say we are altering evolution is to assign some sort of natural goal or rules to evolution, that it's meant to only happen a certain way.

The way I look at it, evolution of life on earth is just a subset of everything that happens in the universe. So for something to "alter" evolution, from my point of view, would take something actually external to earth. Like aliens coming down and screwing around.

Or giant meteors hitting us...

Quote:But in that way, evolution has changed only in as much as our sphere of interest was too narrow to take in the universal change.

Maybe science doesn't look at it that way, I'm not totally sure. Maybe I'm making totally pointless points, hehe.

No, I think no one can deny you to be inclusive, the activities of the human mind might just be beyond the mechanisms that are usually assumed to be active in neodarwinian evolution.

Quote:I don't deny that humans appear to fuck with "evolution" like never before, but it depends on the precise meaning of the words to say whether this is true or not. And I guess you could take either stance. But to say we alter the evolution of other species say... is to just say that we altered what would have happened were we not here. Which is the same deal for any other form of life which inadvertently affects such evolution.

I agree, we are probably the only form of life capable of being aware of evolution happening.... my brain hurts. I hope I got my point across

Yes. And we do evolve further, no doubt. If we survive, (and assuming we don't mix things up on purpose using genetic engineering), in a million years or few we will nevertheless look at some quite different species of humans.

Cool Thanks for your patience. I think we're on the same page then. I'm glad, I was worried I was going off into fringe paranoid conspiracy territory and having to make my own brand of "robscience" with matching coats and shoes.

(January 22, 2015 at 4:32 am)robvalue Wrote: Cool Thanks for your patience. I think we're on the same page then. I'm glad, I was worried I was going off into fringe paranoid conspiracy territory and having to make my own brand of "robscience" with matching coats and shoes.

You mean like that



I think this whole idea, that we are part of nature, has gained a lot of traction culturally with the whole Gaia hypothesis business, and the space age.