Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TigerPaw who wrote (429)	8/14/2000 1:06:44 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) of 28931

<<As it turns out the "fittest" have a better chance at survival, but just what is considered "fit" does not have to make sense to us. >> For my purposes "survival of the fittest" means that among competition for survival the winner is the fittest……..Whatever it takes…. BTW catch phrase or not it is a useful if simple definition of the practical application of natural selection . <<evolution never really stops for a reproducing life>> I'm not sure the existing evidence backs you up on this one . In unusual circumstances [our dominance would certainly qualify ] evolution can stop. The Crocodile is so well adapted to it's environment that it has not changed in 150,000,000 years . …In fact primates them selves changed very little during the time of the dinosaurs <<. Of course under the usual condition of Equilibrium I would not expect great changes in humans unless there were a severe catastrophe. At most there is a buildup of variability porportional to the overall population increase.>> Well yes a catastrophe would perhaps change things by putting what variability we now have built into the population to work......Can you suggest any such catastrophe that the changes would be evident to the naked eye? I would submit that most changes would be adaptation of our culture and technology rather than intense genetic changes. At best I think you would agree that we would need a series of such catastrophes to make any material genetic changes. As we become more and more dependent on our technology Either our technology is likely to adapt or we are likely to perish......Specialization has it's price. As to increased population growth increasing this variability we surely must be at or near any long term carrying capacity now ..Once the world population has stabilized there is no increase in the variability. As new novel genes arrive old ones [that may have been useful ] are lost. But if we do have a series of disease type catastrophes and if our technology cannot cope with them and if they do not wipe us out then you would of course be correct. I just don't see this as a likely series of events.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next