Hi,
The other thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that so many people have subscribed to the 'technology and modern life is not natural'. This is just the Luddite position put forward by ignorant people. The intelligence and tool using ability that gave us technology is the direct outcome of the evolutionary processes that selected for those characteristics hundreds or thousands of millenia ago. That we are still evolving, and evolving to better fit the environment we have created, has been indicated in some recent studies.
Yeah, most of us aren't fit to live in the woods and fight grizzlies for our meals. If that is your idea of natural, and you think that the attributes useful then are what we should have today, you are overlooking that that is no longer our niche. We are evolved to live in some form of civilization, and to use the tools we've developed to improve our life. Stephen Hawkins with his strong brain and weak body is better suited to our modern environment than is Schwarzenegger, in spite of his bulging muscles and loud ignorant mouth. The only drawback I see is that we've become too successful, intelligence coupled with tool use is too much of an advantage. We're driving out other species and ruining the overall environment. But we're not unique, the barrenness of the Middle East and much of North Africa is as much due to goats as to any other force. Locust devour all in their path making the local environment unsuited for themselves, which s part of the reason that they swarm only every so many years. Other examples abound.
--Pete
PS "I restate everything simple for your little brain." is precisely the kind of comment that makes me think you don't know crap. And that should get you shut down for a cooling off period -- or even permanently.
Ghostiger,Apr 6 2006, 09:33 AM Wrote:I disagree.This time, I think, you're the one that doesn't understand. It is not survival of the individual that matters, it is survival of the species. There are many examples in nature of species that die in the course of reproducing. As long as the next generation at least replaces the population that died, that species survives. There are even many cases in which a species has a 'handicap' (usually in the male) that is selected for when the opposite sex is looking for a mate (examples are the peacock and the long tailed sparrow as well as many fish). The basis is that the individuals of that species having the greatest handicap and surviving to reproduce are the hardiest and thus the best mating partners.
Also that is not the definition of survial. Survivial has a rather simple definition - not dying.
You dont really seem to understand the defintion of defintion.
[right][snapback]106402[/snapback][/right]
The other thing that bugs me about this whole debate is that so many people have subscribed to the 'technology and modern life is not natural'. This is just the Luddite position put forward by ignorant people. The intelligence and tool using ability that gave us technology is the direct outcome of the evolutionary processes that selected for those characteristics hundreds or thousands of millenia ago. That we are still evolving, and evolving to better fit the environment we have created, has been indicated in some recent studies.
Yeah, most of us aren't fit to live in the woods and fight grizzlies for our meals. If that is your idea of natural, and you think that the attributes useful then are what we should have today, you are overlooking that that is no longer our niche. We are evolved to live in some form of civilization, and to use the tools we've developed to improve our life. Stephen Hawkins with his strong brain and weak body is better suited to our modern environment than is Schwarzenegger, in spite of his bulging muscles and loud ignorant mouth. The only drawback I see is that we've become too successful, intelligence coupled with tool use is too much of an advantage. We're driving out other species and ruining the overall environment. But we're not unique, the barrenness of the Middle East and much of North Africa is as much due to goats as to any other force. Locust devour all in their path making the local environment unsuited for themselves, which s part of the reason that they swarm only every so many years. Other examples abound.
--Pete
PS "I restate everything simple for your little brain." is precisely the kind of comment that makes me think you don't know crap. And that should get you shut down for a cooling off period -- or even permanently.
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?