Login

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 10:21 am by The Grand Nudger.)

No, you don't "evolve to better survive". Some things are better evolved to survive a specific scenario (and they may have been so for a great span of time before this specific scenario presented itself). This has been the longest running popular misconception of what evolution is or how it is accomplished. It was once so codified in the minds of men that the picture of evolution was one of a steady march towards something resembling western scholars. IE, that given enough time all creatures would evolve into little Darwins and Einsteins, specifically that human beings were some sort of pinnacle in the evolutionary process. Directed towards the goal of survival by some unseen means. This is not the case. NS is not a director of life, it is a winnower of life.

FallentoReason · April 18, 2012 at 10:18 am

(April 18, 2012 at 10:16 am)Rhythm Wrote: No, you don't "evolve to better survive". Some things are better evolved to survive a specific scenario.

Well yeah that's what I mean. Adaptation to increase chances of survival.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 10:26 am by The Grand Nudger.)

Except that this is not why or how adaptations arise. I think I can explain this very well with a case that we are all familiar with. The rise of mammals. Now, mammals, or proto-mammalian creatures had been around for a hell of a long time. Trouble was, that another solution had already occupied most available niches. Dinosaurs. When they disappeared from the playground this left all of those niches open to us. We were already capable of exploiting them, the adaptations had already occurred. We were simply in a holding pattern until such a time as those adaptations became advantageous. We didn't become mammals to better survive this new environment, we already were.

FallentoReason · April 18, 2012 at 11:11 am

(April 18, 2012 at 10:26 am)Rhythm Wrote: Except that this is not why or how adaptations arise. I think I can explain this very well with a case that we are all familiar with. The rise of mammals. Now, mammals, or proto-mammalian creatures had been around for a hell of a long time. Trouble was, that another solution had already occupied most available niches. Dinosaurs. When they disappeared from the playground this left all of those niches open to us. We were already capable of exploiting them, the adaptations had already occurred. We were simply in a holding pattern until such a time as those adaptations became advantageous. We didn't become mammals to better survive this new environment, we already were.

Ah I see what you're saying! Yes, I agree completely.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 11:19 am by The Grand Nudger.)

It's not a satisfying way to weave a narrative though is it? The story has much more in the way of compelling drama if we interpret it along the lines of familiar human drives and values. I suppose that makes it a double edged sword. To get more people interested you have to spin a tale of triumph and struggle, but to better understand the actuality of it these things must be removed completely. Sucks. This is one of my two pet issues that I always harp on about, in the end, there's nothing wrong with weaving the narrative btw, so long as we understand that we are adding the narrative elements for impact, you know?

fuckass365 · April 18, 2012 at 11:54 am

So the question still remains, maybe not towards technology in particular but just evolution in general. Have we slowed our own evolution with the advent of modern medicine and science?

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 12:43 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

We (some of us, specifically) have relatively recent adaptations for dairy and grain. We also have a few statistical outliers in other more pronounced areas. So the consensus seems to be no. We may, however, have had some impact on the sorts of drastic and punctuated changes we see in the "evolutionary past". Only time will tell. Our current survival strategy could fail us at any moment (largely technology, and this is the best reason to avoid becoming complacent about it). We'd go down fighting that tooth and nail though wouldn't we?

**Minimalist** · April 18, 2012 at 12:49 pm

(April 18, 2012 at 9:43 am)Tiberius Wrote: Humans don't evolve to better use technology, technology evolves to better suit humans. The advantage of technological evolution is that it takes a fraction of the time human evolution does.

Plus, it is intelligently designed.

Well.... except for Vista.

**The Grand Nudger** · (This post was last modified: April 18, 2012 at 12:53 pm by The Grand Nudger.)

"Somewhat competently though by no means absolutely intelligently designed..except when it is neither competent or intelligent, which is often" would seem to fit better.

Chuff · April 18, 2012 at 1:39 pm

Evolution takes place over vast spans of time, so if we have arrested or altered the course of our own evolution(through the rise of technology), we are unlikely to see any repercussions for countless generations to come.

If our species survives for long enough as a technological civilisation it is indeed an interesting thought as to the outcome.

Morlocks / Eloi, anyone?

It appears that now we've stopped people from dying through the use of technology(medicine), we have halted the usual flow of the ill-adapted perishing before they can breed.

Our physical evolution is now a moot point, we've outsmarted it - Now we're seeing the evolution of culture and technology instead

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me