Devolution? How?

Hi spendius

I just chose slums as a contrast. I do get yer point as to maximizing the nation's human resources, it's an interesting view.

It opens the question of whether evolutions from social, scientific, medical, cybernetic, technological sources can supplant or enhance man's biological evolutionary imperatives, if the nepotism problem subjugates natural selection as you suggest.

In this case you argue nepotism = devolution.

0 Replies

Quote:

"One Hit WOnders" --DEVO

There speaks a fundamentalist evolutionist of the type Lola admires so much.The competitive type.The rate buster.

The anti-men brigade.The tough guys.They have supercharged racer bikes and big SUVs don't you know.

They are not up for initiation ceremonies mind you with sharp flints.

It's all talk.Under the auspices of Mum's apron strings.Comfort city with propaganda.

0 Replies

Hi Chummy-

It makes a change to interact with a few brains from time to time.

Quote:

In this case you argue nepotism = devolution.

If devolution means dumbing down yes.It seems obvious to me unless intelligence is hereditary which I rather doubt.

0 Replies

Whelp, human intelligence per se must be hereditary to some large degree (else we would not be able to vote, drive, or have consequential cerebral cortexes - oops bad examples!). I assume you mean relative human intelligence levels. In that case I will bow out after saying:

"nature versus nurture"
"nurture versus nature"

0 Replies

Now back to the question at hand:

Where are all the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, New Agers willing to discuss devolution in terms of their beliefs?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Chumly wrote:

Living creatures may go from a state of more fit to less fit......

Are you asking if the law of entropy is valid?
I'm not asking for information about the likelihood of entropy from a scientific perspective, I am asking if you (for example) eschew evolution in favor of a faith based belief, do you then apply the same conventions to devolution?

I would not go as far as to consider devolution as entropy (but you could if you wish make your points on that basis) but only that evolution (survival of the fittest) may go in reverse at times. I would maintain that entropy (the heat death of the universe) would take place pretty much equally during both evolution and devolution.

And yes I did suggest a humor element as the third point in my first post, but the question still has some merit, humor aside, because devolution can be argued to be a biological force (guided or not as you may argue).

Entropy (an observable phenomenon, not the state of 'heat death of the universe') is in contrast to evolution ( a postulated phenomenon which is not subject to observation.)

All living creatures will go from a state of more fit to less fit, if simply allowed to continue, no intervention is necessary. In fact, only intervention can slow, but not stop it since all living creatures will eventually die.

As for 'devolution' of living organisms, mutations causing living organisms to be less fit are observable phenomena (unlike evolution). Since it's observable, no faith is necessary (unlike evolution).

0 Replies

Hi Real Life,

If you read the sentence in which I use the term "heat death of the universe" you will see that both the word "entropy" and the term "heat death of the universe" are interchangeable in my context:

a) I would maintain that *entropy* would take place pretty much equally during both evolution and devolution.

b) I would maintain that *the heat death of the universe* would take place pretty much equally during both evolution and devolution.

I was not suggesting the heat death of the universe is the process of entropy per se, only it's net result, slow though it might be. Good for you for noticing!

Since you are contrasting entropy to evolution, would you be willing to say evolution is the opposite of entropy?

You state entropy is "an observable phenomenon" and I agree.

You state evolution is "a postulated phenomenon which is not subject to observation", I do not agree, and I ask you to provide a meritable alternate explanation for London's Peppered Moths http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a.htm

You state "as for 'devolution' of living organisms" it "is observable, no faith is necessary" and I agree.

Now I ask you why, if you accept that the randomization of less suitable genetic differentiation "is observable, no faith is necessary" why the same underlying randomization could not cause a more suitable genetic differentiation in light of the Peppered Moths data (as one example).

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Hi Real Life,

If you read the sentence in which I use the term "heat death of the universe" you will see that both the word "entropy" and the term "heat death of the universe" are interchangeable in my context:

a) I would maintain that *entropy* would take place pretty much equally during both evolution and devolution.

b) I would maintain that *the heat death of the universe* would take place pretty much equally during both evolution and devolution.

I was not suggesting the heat death of the universe is the process of entropy per se, only it's net result, slow though it might be. Good for you for noticing!

Since you are contrasting entropy to evolution, would you be willing to say evolution is the opposite of entropy?

You state entropy is "an observable phenomenon" and I agree.

You state evolution is "a postulated phenomenon which is not subject to observation", I do not agree, and I ask you to provide a meritable alternate explanation for London's Peppered Moths http://animals.about.com/cs/evolution/a/aa090901a.htm

You state "as for 'devolution' of living organisms" it "is observable, no faith is necessary" and I agree.

Now I ask you why, if you accept that the randomization of less suitable genetic differentiation "is observable, no faith is necessary" why the same underlying randomization could not cause a more suitable genetic differentiation in light of the Peppered Moths data (as one example).

Are you referring to this?

http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/scienceandnature/0,6121,713294,00.html

0 Replies

Well not to the claims of fraud. You would need to argue why such a set of circumstances would be fraudulent in its essence, let alone it's data. I have seen no such argument from you.

Would you like other examples of natural selection in our own historical framework? Do you own a dog? Do you consider dogs a fraud too?

What about my other queries and points? You have responded only briefly and indirectly to the last one. I would expect much better.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote-

Quote:

What about my other queries and points? You have responded only briefly and indirectly to the last one. I would expect much better.

And a little earlier wrote-

Quote:

Whelp, human intelligence per se must be hereditary to some large degree (else we would not be able to vote, drive, or have consequential cerebral cortexes - oops bad examples!). I assume you mean relative human intelligence levels. In that case I will bow out after saying:

"nature versus nurture"
"nurture versus nature"

I would expect much better too.Does the nepotism=degeneration idea bother you Chum?

What do you think revolutions are for?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Interpretation: We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.

Like falling off a log? Smile

Or maybe falling from grace; in which case I would guess that christians not only agree with devolution, but *depend* on it.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Chumly wrote:
Interpretation: We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.

Like falling off a log?

Or maybe falling from grace; in which case I would guess that christians not only agree with devolution, but *depend* on it.

Not really Ros. Christians don't generally believe that man was created as 'pure consciousness' and fell to an existence with material bodies after sinning. Man was created with a material body from the beginning.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Chumly wrote:
Interpretation: We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.

Like falling off a log?

Or maybe falling from grace; in which case I would guess that christians not only agree with devolution, but *depend* on it.

Not really Ros. Christians don't generally believe that man was created as 'pure consciousness' and fell to an existence with material bodies after sinning. Man was created with a material body from the beginning.

Did you miss the point on purpose?

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I would expect much better too.Does the nepotism=degeneration idea bother you Chum?

What do you think revolutions are for?

I have not given it much thought, but in the bigger picture, from an historical perspective I can see the merit in your premise.

It does sadden me some to think of this as an unbreakable, inevitable cycle.

0 Replies

Nepotism is kind of what the whole viviparous, raising-your-young thing is all about. Mammals and birds have done pretty dang well with it. Now, if we could sling off a few thousand offspring at a go, there'd be no need for it (and thank god for that), but if you're only going to have the little biggers one or two or three at a time, it does behoove one to put a little effort into ensuring their future. The biological imperative isn't to make a fitter population, it's to propagate oneself.

0 Replies

Hi Patiodog,

I would argue that the more completely correct premise for the premier biological imperative is to survive, and to accomplish this, life relies on genetic mutation in it's progeny to maximize the potential for survival of the fittest, of which devotion represents a partial departure.

As to how apt my argument is to the social implications of Spedius' premise, that is certainly open to dialogue.

0 Replies

I'm most concerned that my progeny reproduce with someone with a very different MHC. Put the mutations in the past, close the ozone hole, and make cancer-free cigarettes.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Interpretation: We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.

Interpretation: Living creatures may go from a state of more fit to less fit, do those who dismiss evolution also dismiss this?

I'm also kind'a poking fun at the thread "Evolution? How?'

I think there may be more fun here than meaning. No problem with that of course.

Evolution indeed is a scientifically observable phenomenom. Moreover not all of the randomly-generated mutations of species are beneficial: some are indeed retrograde, but they are usually quickly eliminated in the competition for survival. Some that are beneficial in the short run can be found to have later contributed toi the eventual extinction of the species as external conditions change. With this in mind one can see some locally entropy-decreasing aspects of natural selection, contained within a system that, in the large, may well comply fully with the Second Law.

As to the idea of devolution from a spiritual state, one must first accept the converse, namely that evolution is itself proceeding to such a state. It seems to me that this implicitly implies Intelligent design of the whole thing, one that may employ evolution in the fulfillment of its purpose.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Moreover not all of the randomly-generated mutations of species are beneficial: some are indeed retrograde, but they are usually quickly eliminated in the competition for survival. Some that are beneficial in the short run can be found to have later contributed toi the eventual extinction of the species as external conditions change.

As long as sufficient isolationism exists retrograde variants may survive and propagate for extended time periods witness Australia.

As to the spiritual view, I'll have to give it more thought before I respond.

I can't help the fun, it's the only way I can survive A2K Smile

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

As long as sufficient isolationism exists retrograde variants may survive and propagate for extended time periods witness Australia.

I agree. In part, that's what I was trying to get at with my perhaps awkward references to short term advantage and local entropy decreases in a system with monotone increasing entropy.

Quote:

As to the spiritual view, I'll have to give it more thought before I respond.

Please do. I find this the evident key to a mindless dispute over poorly defined issues by equally blind (and deaf) parties on both sides.

Quote:

I can't help the fun, it's the only way I can survive A2K

Don't stop. The site is interesting, but too often suffers from a surplus of invective and a serious deficit in irony.

0 Replies

Devolution? How?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know