Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What do you think about controlling our evolution?...

Evolotion is to change, and also to advance. All living beings evolve according to the changes of their environment.

A human being has sometimes to change or advance something in his live to become updated to the changes of the society.

Evolution is supposed to happen after several years, i mean centuries or millennia. But i think we can evolve everyday, because...

We evolve when we: Study and become more intelligent, work out and become stronger or faster. We evolve every time we practice something so much until we enhance an ability, sometimes a new ability.

So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

I think we can to some degree...yup.

^^ I agree.


And anyway, yes, we could control our evolution. If we wall moved to Antartica! We'd probably get all hairy!

Thanks for your opinios guys, and...

Have you ever see a movie which talks about people who become super after an special trainig?. These movies show us a type of evolution, normal and common human beings becoming super after a training.

This is a way how life show us in our face that we can control our evolution,, i mean becoming more than our nuture expect.

Why do you keep posting that picture when it has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about??

Originally posted by Cyd
What do you think about controlling our evolution?...

Evolotion is to change, and also to advance. All living beings evolve according to the changes of their environment.

A human being has sometimes to change or advance something in his live to become updated to the changes of the society.

Evolution is supposed to happen after several years, i mean centuries or millennia. But i think we can evolve everyday, because...

We evolve when we: Study and become more intelligent, work out and become stronger or faster. We evolve every time we practice something so much until we enhance an ability, sometimes a new ability.

So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

I don't think we as humans can control our evolution. The environment has so much to do with the course of evolution, and we are slaves to this environment.

Very likely by tightening the natural selection process.

By not focusing on the material things and by instead focusing on the mental/spiritual side.

By all accounts since human kind has raised itself largely above the environment and so forth apparently we have reached something of an evolutionary plateau. We no longer ascribe to "survival of the fittest", the is no reason for certain genetic makes ups to die out, most people have a good chance of passing on their genes.

But I say it is possible for us to control our evolution. With the understanding we have of genotype, biology and so forth, and by way of genetic engineering, controlling genetic mutation, even by way of transgenics we have a unique, and indeed unprecedented ability to logically and consciously control the changes of ourselves, and the species as a whole. And I think this is brilliant. Evolution is a blind process, with conscious decisions. Luck plays a part. But to be able to consciously control the evolution of our species could push so many boundaries, and expand on the realm of possibility. A wonderful thing I feel. After all, we have through selective breeding evolved animal species, so it's equally possible with the increases in knowledge that the same can be achieved for humanity.

Scientists can do there experiments, but ultimately, Mother Nature calls the shots.

Perhaps, but it hardly seems like "mother nature" is still lord of human destiny. While it is still an influence, it is far less of one then 100,000 years ago, 50,000 or even 20,000. We are not nearly as susceptible to natural selection, plague, famine, climatic conditions and so forth. Science has in a large part freed us from the most basic constraints of the the environment as the cause for human evolution.

In this sense I don't think nature, natural cause and effect, calls nearly as many shots as it once did.

What? Nature is chaotic and un-predictable. Man will never be able to control nature. Evolution doesnt occur from person to person, it occurs over generations of generations of generations of miniscule developments.

Originally posted by Cyd
So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

Of course. For example if we moved to the underground our eyes would soon adjust to it. In about a million years to to adaption our eyes would be like cats. I heard somewhere if we processed food for the next century our thumbs would go away.

Originally posted by Freaky Zeeky
Of course. For example if we moved to the underground our eyes would soon adjust to it. In about a million years to to adaption our eyes would be like cats. I heard somewhere if we processed food for the next century our thumbs would go away.


That wouldnt be humans controlling evolution. that would be nature conforming to our needs.

Maybe because of aliens.

Originally posted by Cyd
What do you think about controlling our evolution?...

Evolotion is to change, and also to advance. All living beings evolve according to the changes of their environment.

A human being has sometimes to change or advance something in his live to become updated to the changes of the society.

Evolution is supposed to happen after several years, i mean centuries or millennia. But i think we can evolve everyday, because...

We evolve when we: Study and become more intelligent, work out and become stronger or faster. We evolve every time we practice something so much until we enhance an ability, sometimes a new ability.

So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

We change, but it's not the same as evolution. For starters, we can't become infinitely smarter. Actually, we can't become smarter at all. We can learn more about a certain thing, but that doesn't make us smarter, just less ignorant.

Anyways, like I say, you shouldn't really call that evolution, since no matter how fast or strong you can train yourself to be, your children won't be born with that change.

Indeed

Wow, now that sounds interesting. Finally someone smart has writen.
It is true, we can not call avolution a normal change in the human body, but as a change in order to be better it could be named evolution.

I guess you could call it that, but it's not Darwinian evolution.

Originally posted by Cyd
Wow, now that sounds interesting. Finally someone smart has writen.

Thank you.

there is no such thing as evolution for the human species. We are the end.

Evolution is brought about in 2 ways, natural selection and mutation. Natural selection no longer exists in our species. There is no longer any such thing as survival of the fittest. Those who are to diseased or feeble to hunt their food do not die as nature intended, society feeds them. They live on to pass their inferior genes to the next generation.

According to natural law, the kid who eats too many paint chips (lacking in mental capacity) does not grow up to have kids of his own. We humans ignore that. We take him to the hospital, pump his stomach, treat him for the toxins in his body, then send him on his merry way to procreate.

Our species now covers the entire planet. This completely abolishes any idea of mutation. For mutation to work, a select group must be isolated and inter-bred to carry on the mutated trait....to make sure all individuals inherit it.

We are it gang.........as good as it's going to get. Instead of our race letting nature take it's course......making our race genetically stronger....we spend our time in science labs trying to figure out ways to keep people alive who nature has deemed unfit to survive. If a person has cancer......nature has intended for him to die. It is not our place to step in, save his life.........making sure he has children who will also carry the weak gene suseptible to cancer.

Originally posted by Darth Revan
We change, but it's not the same as evolution. For starters, we can't become infinitely smarter. Actually, we can't become smarter at all. We can learn more about a certain thing, but that doesn't make us smarter, just less ignorant.

Anyways, like I say, you shouldn't really call that evolution, since no matter how fast or strong you can train yourself to be, your children won't be born with that change.

Wouldn't you say intelligence is more about the capacity to learn more, rather the acting of learning more? I would say we as a race have evolved more in that we as a whole have gained more intelligence. Thin about it. Children today can not only learn at a faster pace, but be taught more information at one time, when compared with past generations. This is something natural passed on from generation to generation.

^ agreed.

Intelligence is not information. It is the capacity to learn information. Information is merely memorization. You read it in a book and remember it. Intelligence is the ability to discover information.......which can then be taught to others. Basically....problem solving ability.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
^ agreed.

Intelligence is not information. It is the capacity to learn information. Information is merely memorization. You read it in a book and remember it. Intelligence is the ability to discover information.......which can then be taught to others. Basically....problem solving ability.

And this growing capacity seems to be passed on. I'm not sold on evolution just yet, but it's definitely a form of genetic change.

Controlling human evolution is possible through selective breeding. That is the principle behind eugenics.

possible........but is not happening now nor will ever happen. Evolution it a change to the ENTIRE race or a large enough part of it to create a new race.........not a small population.

The problem is this:

Nature has already provided the perfect platform for evolution. The strong survive to pass on their strong genes to their children. Over time, all the weaker specimens of the species die off leaving only the strong and their strong genes. Those who develop cancer die....so do their inferior genes that are predisposed to cancer. Over thousands of years.....the number of specimens with the weak cancer gene die off until finally, our race no longer has to worry about cancer. We have evolved past it.........our genes are strong and cancer proposes no risk.

Our civilized world does not believe in nature. For some reason, people have chosen to put faith in many different gods........instead of putting that same energy into something that is not faith, nature. Nature is a fact. It created the earth......the trees.......the oceans...the continents...the mountains...............and have sustained them over millions upon millions of years. For nature to exist that long, the system must be working. Humans however are egotistical. The human race believes that it can come up with a better system. Let the weak survive....let the diseased survive. This has brought about several negative affects.

we have undermined the genetic structure of our own race. We let human emotion dictate that everyone should live to pass their genes along, no matter how unfit. Whereas nature's system is in place to provide a perfect balance that will keep everything going endlessly........humans have upset the balance to ensure that humans will remain endlessly, no matter how muddy the genetic pool gets. I guess nobody ever stopped to think that when nature's structure becomes too unbalanced it will become unstable..........and our existence depends soly on nature's stability to sustain us.

Here's just a quick example of how the human race could fix problems logically......but refuse to do so out of emotion.

AIDS is an epidemic that wreaks havoc on those afflicted with it. Want to do away with it for good? Instead of spending billions of dollars on research to find drugs to help treat it's symptoms.........just get rid of it by getting rid of it's carriers. AIDS is caused by the HIV virus, the virus is a parasite. No more host = no more parasite. Take the money you are going to spend on research and spend it on manditory aids tests for every person. Every person inflicted with the disease should be quarantined together in a large area (pick any state, province, region). Let these people live their lives and die a natural death.......but quarantine them from spreading the disease to others. Low and behold.......35 years from now there is no such thing as aids.

Not often in the philosophy section but this looked interesting so...

In terms of the thread starter's initial thoughts, there is really no such thing as personal evolution, what is being described bears a slight resemblance to an old theory called Lamarckism. Evolution is generally a term applied to entire species rather at the level of individual organisms. Classic Darwinian evolution is still widely accepted and no better all-encompassing theory has supplanted it to my knowledge.

A person has a certain genetic potential and they cannot evolve to exceed that. How much of that potential a person reaches, usually depends on that person's environment.

Someone who is very intelligent, (which rather than defined as purely capacity to store information is probably better defined as a combination of the abilities to remember, comprehend and store information, and the speed at which these processes occur,) has always had the genetic potential for such a level of intelligence. Someone who has trained themselves to be run very fast has always had it within their genetic potential to run very fast, and cannot exceed the limits of their potential (without the use of performance enhancing drugs.)

In reading this no one can becoming more intelligent, however they may become more informed.

Human beings are relatively unique in that although we are still to an extent "slaves to the environment", we have the ability to alter the environment to suit us. We also now have the ability to alter the basic building blocks of life, giving us direct access to controlling our evolution. Whether or not we should be taking advantage of this ability is a whole 'nother question altogether.

From a purely biological standpoint the practice of medicine has been controlling human evolution potentially to the detriment of the human species as a whole, in the manner stated in the post above mine. Of course it shouldn't be ignored that the base cause of this fundamental altruistic part of human nature is also attributed to evolutionary processes.

Irregardless of human interference, left to nature some disease would not necessarily be eradicated. Genetic disease often has more complex interactions, for example Sickle Cell Anaemia requires two copies of a certain gene, but a carrier of a single copy of the mutant gene that causes this disease has a certain immunity to Malaria. The gene is maintained in the population due such beneficial effects.

To be brief the evolution you describe is phenotypical evolution(building up yours muscles etc..) genotypical evolution takes a much much longer time but I suppose If we all moved to antartica for thousands of years we could control that type of evolution as well and grow fur or something.

Originally posted by Oswald Kenobi
I agreed with you until that last part. I believe our evolution can be controlled to a certain point, but the environment has more control. Not really slaves, but more like employees, I would say.

One more point. Evolution appears to be based on the need to adapt. I'm not sure it is possible for us to force this need unnaturally.

in a way it is possible. when a human being is in space for too much time their body starts to change according to the gravity and what is needed from itself. so in a way it evolves but not to the extremes most people might think of.

I think we can force the evolution. Just go to a different enviroment, and them you will envolve to adapt to that enviroment you moved to

evolution is progress. When astronauts are in space too long w/o the proper exercise regiment, their muscles atrophe from being used less due to the lack of gravity. that is not progress. that is a crippling ailment. That's like saying hitting your fingers with a hammer is evolution................you seem to not grasp the concept. Evolution is a progression in a species.............not a degression in one human.

Ok I haven't read all the posts but here's my two cents.
Can we control our evolution? Yes of course we can, because species' evolve to survive in their environment and we have the ability to alter our environment, indirectly altering our evolution.

Originally posted by gls
in a way it is possible. when a human being is in space for too much time their body starts to change according to the gravity and what is needed from itself. so in a way it evolves but not to the extremes most people might think of.



Evolution requires a change in the DNA of a species until it is something totally different, its not a physical change of one creatures body due to a change in the enviroment.

can't imagine humans controlling anything.

that didn't make a bit of sense. Humans being able to control our environment is one reason humans will never again evolve to suit changing environments. If it gets warmer.......go into the air conditioning. If the planet cools......crank up your heaters.

for evolution.........a species must die off, except for those members of the species with the new evolved trait......which allows them to survive (survival of the fittest). Humans will not let humans die off no matter what. We spend time and money trying to "cure" or "help" those that nature has deemed unfit to carry on their genes.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
that didn't make a bit of sense. Humans being able to control our environment is one reason humans will never again evolve to suit changing environments. If it gets warmer.......go into the air conditioning. If the planet cools......crank up your heaters.

for evolution.........a species must die off, except for those members of the species with the new evolved trait......which allows them to survive (survival of the fittest). Humans will not let humans die off no matter what. We spend time and money trying to "cure" or "help" those that nature has deemed unfit to carry on their genes.

And you dont think thats a way of controlling it? Stopping it is a "control" isn't it?

- yawn -

There will be a change in order to make us better.
A Change that will stars with only one human, and will continues with the others.
An evolution initiated by a single man.

well, when evolution occurs, the previous no longer exists. instead, there is something new. the problem is finding theline between the previous and the new. one cannot be partially evolved, since one would still be human. and one cannot be partially the previous, since they have crossed the line and become something non-human. so we cannot control evolution because we evolve when our genetic structure crosses the line, and we cant control that

not yet anyway

Evolution is bullcrap, evolution emplies we grow better. I cannot call a one time strong as hell primate transofrming into a meek little cubical working man "better", nor on that note a dangerous T-Rex morphing into a midget counterpart called a "gator" better..

We are actually growing meeker, and weaker. Our universe runs on it's own system of time, if you listend to quantamn physics you'd know this. It's almost a religon, we believe that the universe will implode into nothingness because of lack of energy, then re-ammerge brand new through a "big-bang" and start anew. This is the nature of all things cosmic and not so cosmic..

Originally posted by Cyd
What do you think about controlling our evolution?...

Evolotion is to change, and also to advance. All living beings evolve according to the changes of their environment.

A human being has sometimes to change or advance something in his live to become updated to the changes of the society.

Evolution is supposed to happen after several years, i mean centuries or millennia. But i think we can evolve everyday, because...

We evolve when we: Study and become more intelligent, work out and become stronger or faster. We evolve every time we practice something so much until we enhance an ability, sometimes a new ability.

So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

Remember, evolution is not always "a step forward". The term advancement has little to do with evolution. In fact, most "leaps" in evolution are really just steps to the side.

Originally posted by Evil
Evolution is bullcrap, evolution emplies we grow better. I cannot call a one time strong as hell primate transofrming into a meek little cubical working man "better", nor on that note a dangerous T-Rex morphing into a midget counterpart called a "gator" better..

We are actually growing meeker, and weaker. Our universe runs on it's own system of time, if you listend to quantamn physics you'd know this. It's almost a religon, we believe that the universe will implode into nothingness because of lack of energy, then re-ammerge brand new through a "big-bang" and start anew. This is the nature of all things cosmic and not so cosmic..

See my previous post.

Originally posted by Cyd
What do you think about controlling our evolution?...

Evolotion is to change, and also to advance. All living beings evolve according to the changes of their environment.

A human being has sometimes to change or advance something in his live to become updated to the changes of the society.

Evolution is supposed to happen after several years, i mean centuries or millennia. But i think we can evolve everyday, because...

We evolve when we: Study and become more intelligent, work out and become stronger or faster. We evolve every time we practice something so much until we enhance an ability, sometimes a new ability.

So,,, that means that we can control our personal evolution?, what do you think?.

We are ony human and some times it takes people longer to do that then others.So it matters on the person.JM

Are you telling me that we have to change to another kind of species in order to experience the evolution?

Originally posted by Cyd
Are you telling me that we have to change to another kind of species in order to experience the evolution?

Yes, because that's the definition of evolution. Do a search in the GDF for "evolution" and go in the really long thread titled, appropriately, "evolution".

You people always forget that evolution isn't always a step forward. More often is is a step to the side. Survival of the fittest is really about who can survive what is going on at the time.

I never forgot that... no2

Okay, we can and cannot control our evolution. No one has tried it before. So, we might have to wait a while to find out.

Theoretically, it is possible to control our evolution. Theoretically, it isn't possible to be around to find out the end reults of our own experiment. But, it's also theoretically possible to see the need for our evolution produce results. So, where are we now?

I beleive we can change the way we evolve, none of us will be around to even notice a change. We can delay it by not screwing our earth up, which may affect the enviroment and agriculture. But then again Humans didn't cause the Ice Age. I beleive taht the way we continue to advance in technology could alter the way we evolve, because of the different foods or substanses we consume. Then again in evolution there are a few theories, one being that its almost like a predicted scale, Theres a large period of time full of life and evolution, then a mass extiction period, then a Large Period of time full of life and evolution, and etc etc etc going on and on and on. I forget the theory tho. Its kinda been proven due to the fact that there has been atleast 2 mass extinctions with large periods of time full of life and evolution, our period and another. ( Dinosaurs probally wasn't exactly a huge explosion,w as proven that drastic weather changes and plant evolution caused dinosaurs to die. Dry weather and Droughts were appearing everywhere, forced plant eaters to move north for food. But their plant food evolved gaining thicker leaves which the Herbavores coudln't bite or digest, they died out and the Carnovores soon died out. But it was more like a chain of events, Weather, Bugs, Plants, Dinosours. But the weather bugs and Plants contributed to there death. ( theory still i beleive but its the mose accurate so far)

eh? So evolving traits to better survive in your environment is not a step forward?.............it's a step to the side?...........the alternative is dying........so...........evolving traits to suit you changing environment is equal to your species simply becoming extinct?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
eh? So evolving traits to better survive in your environment is not a step forward?.............it's a step to the side?...........the alternative is dying........so...........evolving traits to suit you changing environment is equal to your species simply becoming extinct?

First of all, changing to suit your environment is not a step forward. That implies that A) the step forward was planned out, and B) A would imply that there is a predestined end result. If that were the case, then there would be no need for evolution.

Secondly, try not to expose your ignorance of what you speak, all at once. If you were half as informed on the ever-changing theory of evolution, you wouldn't be talking out of your ass in your responses.

but lets not forget this time it could be the weak who live.which highly seems not to happen but you never know

Originally posted by feralboy
but lets not forget this time it could be the weak who live.which highly seems not to happen but you never know


So, what's your point? You point something out, and then you say..."but probably not".

"Seriously, I have no idea what you're saying right now."

i'm just saying it could happen

Originally posted by feralboy
i'm just saying it could happen


That's like debating the word "is". Weak in the physical sense no longer applies. So, the weak flesh has given way to the stronger mind? Stronger is still stronger.

okay *******.........

First, yes. Evolution is the PROGRESSION of a species.......which is advancement. It's not regression.......it's not parallel movement. Parallel movement at best is considered a simply a result of natural selection.........the process which does aid in Evolution but is not exclusive.


secondly, you'd have to be pretty dumb to know that "step forward" is a figure of speech and does not actually mean a staged plan that was divided into "steps".............dipshit.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
okay *******.........

First, yes. Evolution is the PROGRESSION of a species.......which is advancement. It's not regression.......it's not parallel movement. Parallel movement at best is considered a simply a result of natural selection.........the process which does aid in Evolution but is not exclusive.


secondly, you'd have to be pretty dumb to know that "step forward" is a figure of speech and does not actually mean a staged plan that was divided into "steps".............dipshit.

you only prove my point, the more you speak.....

dipshit? that was good. I like that.

evolution as in sciense?? cause if so..................
evolution is wrong
creation is right

Originally posted by jacobo0o
evolution as in sciense?? cause if so..................
evolution is wrong
creation is right

No, "evolution" as in "science," dumb-ass.

OK, first off, Evil Dead I don't think evolution is always strictly "progression of a species" even though for the most part this has been the case for genus Homo. As stated prior, evolution is the change from one species to another. Different, but not necessarily better or worse in general. Of course better suited to the environment of the time is a given, however "advancement" is wholly subjective.

Second, I don't know what you mean by break the rules of evolution Cyd. There is no such thing as individual evolution, an individual can only achieve to the maximum of their own genetic potential; one cannot hope to surpass one's genetic potential.
Genetic technology does open up new avenues though.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
OK, first off, Evil Dead I don't think evolution is always strictly "progression of a species" even though for the most part this has been the case for genus Homo. As stated prior, evolution is the change from one species to another. Different, but not necessarily better or worse in general. Of course better suited to the environment of the time is a given, however "advancement" is wholly subjective.

Second, I don't know what you mean by break the rules of evolution Cyd. There is no such thing as individual evolution, an individual can only achieve to the maximum of their own genetic potential; one cannot hope to surpass one's genetic potential.
Genetic technology does open up new avenues though.

Well said. More importantly, well understood.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
OK, first off, Evil Dead I don't think evolution is always strictly "progression of a species" even though for the most part this has been the case for genus Homo. As stated prior, evolution is the change from one species to another. Different, but not necessarily better or worse in general. Of course better suited to the environment of the time is a given, however "advancement" is wholly subjective.

Second, I don't know what you mean by break the rules of evolution Cyd. There is no such thing as individual evolution, an individual can only achieve to the maximum of their own genetic potential; one cannot hope to surpass one's genetic potential.
Genetic technology does open up new avenues though.


You have said that an individual can achieve to the maximun of their own genetic potential. For me, that sounds like EVOLVE over the others = individual evolution.

And, What did i mean with breaking the rules of evolution? = Just forget a little bit what we accept as the strict truth of evolution.

Originally posted by Cyd
You have said that an individual can achieve to the maximun of their own genetic potential. For me, that sounds like EVOLVE over the others = individual evolution.
Possible to achieve but not probable. And no I'm afraid it wouldn't qualify as any form of evolution.

I still don't understand........perhaps you fine people can help me.....

entire species do not evolve. Members of the species evolve specific traits to help them survive in the changing ecosystem...........those who do not evolve these traits eventually die off. That's how one species evolves into another. Sometimes a species evolves into several different species. Different segments of the population evolve different traits to help them survive.............but again, not all. Those members which evolved into the two (or more) new species now have different traits from the prime species allowing it to thrive in the changed ecosystem.........while the other members of the prime species did not evolve and over time died off as they were unable to cope with the changing environment or compete with the newer species that evolved.

so......how again is this "sideways" evolution? the prime species died off because it was inferior.......while the species that evolved from the prime species live on to procreate, further their species.......

again I must ask, comparing those of the prime species which are dead......to those who evolved and lived........how is that sideways movement and not progression?

perhaps a few examples would help clarify this for me.

"Progression" is a highly dubious term in regards to the theory of evolution. While a species might "progress" into another species, that progression doesn't imply a better version of the base species. If a deer evolves in an environment that is subject to hot, arrid conditions, then that deer has evolved with certain traits that make it better suited to such an environment. However, if time passes and the conditions of that environment change, perhaps into more artic conditions, then the deer again begins to change to suit that environment...but should members of the newer species migrate into areas that are subject to the more arrid conditions, it would die out...because it can no longer cope with the environmental realities of its new habitat. Should a significant number of the deer species acclimate themselves to this new enironment, then the end result would be two species, one no more "advanced" than the previous, living at the same time in two different climates.

However, in terms of the human condition, "advancement" has resulted in a more developed intellect...which makes them best suited to be the dominant species on teh planet. It has given them the tools to survive, despite the environment. Human kind has existed in every environment on the planet...and thrived. Is there any doubt as to why we have invested so much effort into developing the notion of a supreme being thathas set us apart from teh natural order?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I still don't understand........perhaps you fine people can help me.....

entire species do not evolve. Members of the species evolve specific traits to help them survive in the changing ecosystem...........those who do not evolve these traits eventually die off. That's how one species evolves into another. Sometimes a species evolves into several different species. Different segments of the population evolve different traits to help them survive.............but again, not all. Those members which evolved into the two (or more) new species now have different traits from the prime species allowing it to thrive in the changed ecosystem.........while the other members of the prime species did not evolve and over time died off as they were unable to cope with the changing environment or compete with the newer species that evolved.

so......how again is this "sideways" evolution? the prime species died off because it was inferior.......while the species that evolved from the prime species live on to procreate, further their species.......

again I must ask, comparing those of the prime species which are dead......to those who evolved and lived........how is that sideways movement and not progression?

perhaps a few examples would help clarify this for me.

Im sure that is progression and not sideways movement, because with sideways movement species can not confront some drastic changings of nature. But progression is the weapon to answer many desasters.

Evil Dead evolution is not always strictly progression because it's subjective how one defines a species as "better". A species may have adaptations suiting its environments of the time. The precursor species likely had different adaptations that suited the environment of the time. The descendant species (or multiple species) will have different adaptations suited to a different environment. However if one were to take the present species immerse it in the past environment, take the past species and immerse it in the future environment, and the future species and immerse it in the present environment; in all likelihood they would not survive well. Take domestication as an example.

Cyd I have no idea how you can draw some form of evolutionary concept from the sentence: "An individual can only achieve to the maximum of their genetic potential."

I was not speaking of progression as an absolute.................better for all time.............merely better suited at the time it evolved..........ecosystems change......making species that used to be suited better for it, not quite as well equipped.......which causes further evolution into new species which are better equipped to adapt to the changed ecosystem, at the time.

For you to think I meant that a species that evolved 1 million years ago in an ecosystem is still progressively better suited to that environment than other species at a different time means you think me an idiot. If anything like that was the case, evolution would have ended when it began as the new species would be better suited for all time, making the very process of further evolution unnecissary.

I still don't understand "sideways" evolution. Every trait that evolves in a species at one point in time evolved for a specific reason.........whether it be environmental changes, changes in their food supply, better defensive mechanism, making it easier for them to hunt, catch their prey, etc. ............

again, please give me specific examples of "sideways" evolution......where the changed trait offered no better resource for the species.

("An individual can only achieve to the maximum of their genetic potential." ????

Well, maybe i misunderstand something, if so that means that i need someone like you to explane me that.

I did that because my meaning encoder told something about evolve.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I was not speaking of progression as an absolute.................better for all time.............merely better suited at the time it evolved..........ecosystems change......making species that used to be suited better for it, not quite as well equipped.......which causes further evolution into new species which are better equipped to adapt to the changed ecosystem, at the time.

For you to think I meant that a species that evolved 1 million years ago in an ecosystem is still progressively better suited to that environment than other species at a different time means you think me an idiot. If anything like that was the case, evolution would have ended when it began as the new species would be better suited for all time, making the very process of further evolution unnecissary.

I still don't understand "sideways" evolution. Every trait that evolves in a species at one point in time evolved for a specific reason.........whether it be environmental changes, changes in their food supply, better defensive mechanism, making it easier for them to hunt, catch their prey, etc. ............

again, please give me specific examples of "sideways" evolution......where the changed trait offered no better resource for the species.
I don't think you an idiot. However the progenitor species is no "worse" in absolute terms than the descendant species, which is why evolution is not strictly a progression. Terms such as "better" do not apply well to comparisons between species. Traits are traits, they are not good or bad, it all depends on the environmental context.
How about we think of evolution in a three dimentional plane then.
To me evolution is just evolution, species evolve into different species but not necessarily "better" or more "advanced" species. However if we must give direction then evolution is never backwards always forwards, but not always upwards. (I'm unsure as to what has been implied as sideways evolution so I reserve judgement on it)

http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/whales-graph.jpg
Are modern cetaceans "better" than Mesonychids?
The comparison is invalid.

If one wants to talk of evolutionary progression then a trait e.g. intelligence, should be specified.

Originally posted by Cyd
("An individual can only achieve to the maximum of their genetic potential." ????
Well, maybe i misunderstand something, if so that means that i need someone like you to explane me that.
I did that because my meaning encoder told something about evolve.
A person has a genotype, the extent of the expression of that genotype as a phenotype is dependent upon environmental factors.
Simplistic example
An Olympic sprinter, John, has always had it within their genotype to be an Olympic level sprinter. Through training, healthy diet etc he achieves a proportion of their genetic potential for sprinting. However average guy, Joe, doesn't have it within his genetic potential to be as fast a sprinter as John is. From birth we give Joe the absolute optimum conditions, perfectly balanced diet, exercise etc. (Although improbable) he achieves his maximal genetic potential for sprinting. He will still not be as fast as John is as he cannot exceed his genotype.

Again I don't see how you could draw any sort of evolutionary concept from the above.

I use "better" as better adapted for their ecosystem at the time. If an affect happens, it usually has a cause.

You are right about evolution. Since it is such a taboo subject now, people have less idea than they did in victorian times.

In our planet it exists a great variety of are alive, dispensed in the but diverse natural environments.

This great diversity of are alive can him/her/it explain or but well give an answer but or less logic mentioning the so mentioned and discussed " theory of the evolution ", the who your fundamental base considers the existence of an evolutionary process by means of which are alive them transfer lengthwise ars a time and it is gone diversifying as of the base of a common ancestor influenced for the environment that goes by a roundabout way them.

To explain this must mention the different processes or mechanisms that book credits taken to the evolution of each is alive.

1-the function creates the organ: that is to say, the organs of are alive to spring up them as consequence of the interaction with the halfback gives atmosphere, osea, the organs develop to him but when have but use, and it disappear if not use to him.

example: the Devil of the snakes, for those who I don't know.

2-the acquired characters inherit sea, that all the characters or but well the physical and chemical changes that they acquires for the individual during your life transmit to your descendants.

Well, the contradictory dot in this theory it is based that the full age of the scientists doesn't want to allow nor consider possible that an acquired character by means of the individual effort can alter the ADN and make hereditary.

osea which wants to give them to understand is that when an individual gets enhance his agree can be so much physicses as chemistries, the changes are not so perceptible in the individual that the acquired but in the descendants that acquires them, can be so much in the first generation of that individual or have to pass thousands of years in order that that evolution can be noted, as way of the adaptation of the environment and at the same time the development of the is alive but strongly.

..

Evolution is a theory, the facts say that species suddenly appeared. Ok some change in a survival of the fittest sort of way but they remain the same. Look at dogs, thier "evolution" has been manipulated by breeding, but they are still dogs. None grew wings and decided to fly away.

For e.g if your a zebra with black skin and white stripes but the lions only eat the ones with white skin and black stipes then the ones with black skin and white stripes will become more.

i can't believe this an issue in the 21st century. creationists are at best retards and at worst racists