Can we control our evolution?...

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.

As i can see, your thoughts are still governed by the theories of a MAN. A simple man who was maybe wrong.
I believe in Darwing´s, but i also believe there should be something more about evolution, somithing missed by him, things which could tell us how to brake the basic rules of evolution.

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.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Possible to achieve but not probable. And no I'm afraid it wouldn't qualify as any form of evolution.

In your opinion, what kind of changes fit in the evolution definition?,

(individual can only achieve to the maximum of their own genetic potential), These are your words, are you sure that doesn´t have anything to do with evolution?.

Can somebody explane me that.

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?

(Set us apart from the natural order?)

¨That sounds to me like be far away from natural control¨, i like that.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
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.

Because obiously, i don´t know as much as you do about evolution. The only definition i have in mind about that is= a change in order to be fittest, better, etc. So now, you can see why i draw a sort of evolutionary concept from your idea.

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.

..