Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

[DaShi]

Evolution isn't about killing everything else.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DaShi
Evolution isn't about killing everything else.

that's something of a nonsequitor. Unless you are assuming that my post was a suggestion that humans are 'evolutionarily successful' because they could exterminate species. That was not my point at all. I was simply responding to the examples given by wombat earlier for things he believed other creatures were better at than humans which humans care about.

Anyway, concepts of 'inferiority' and 'superiority' predated the discovery of evolution so it seems unlikely that evolution could serve as the metric for either of them. In fact I don't think examination of evolution has anything to whatsoever to contribute to comparisons of 'superiority' or 'inferiority' in the orginal sense of either word.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Geronimo
in fact they do. Not just animals but all sorts of organisms. usually however they are held in check by the activities of competing organisms not by some sort of ingrained moral obligation to refrain from 'destructive' activities.

Nope.

Even top predators such as polar bears don't do anything like that. In fact, it has nothing to do with any "moral obligation" at all. Other animals rarely kill outside of feeding, and never was and never will be done on a large scale systematically.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
The reason humans are superior (almost intrinsically) is because we are the best at the things we care about. Who cares which organisms are the best adapted? Evolutionary success or perfection of adaption to the environment are not necessarily desirable things to be good at from a human perspective. For all practical purposes the human perspective is the only one that can matter when people compare the 'inferiority' or 'superiority' of various organisms.

You are conflating two view points and/or attempting to substitute one context with another.

[Geronimo]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Nope.

Even top predators such as polar bears don't do anything like that. In fact, it has nothing to do with any "moral obligation" at all. Other animals rarely kill outside of feeding, and never was and never will be done on a large scale systematically.

That is because animals don't do anything systematically unless it is a gradually evolved stereotyped behavior. Anyway I didn't say organisms do it systematically, just that they do in fact do it. It's just that when it happens it resolves itself in such a short time (in evolutionary time scales) that at any given time most such extirpations are long since over and the absence of the exterminated organism is no longer obvious.


Surely you have heard of flightless birds driven extinct by the predations of wild dogs or pigs? It didn't take long to reach it's conclusion.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


You are conflating two view points and/or attempting to substitute one context with another.

possibly. Could you clarify your assumption of view point conflation?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Anyway you misread my point. It wasn't that humans think we are the best at everything we might want to do (
ie flying) but rather that the thing we are best at (intelligence) is the trait humans seem to regard as the most 'important'.

Ah no. You misread my point. You are arguing that we should use the human point of view in determining what is important because we are best at what is important from a human point of view. I was pointing out that from a more general perspective, many things we consider important are done as well or better by other animals. Unless there is a non-anthropocentric reason to use an anthropocentric principle, then your reasoning is circular and rather unconvincing.

Originally posted by Geronimo
Are you one of those who holds that all traits in an organism are favored by evolution? All visible traits in any organism are intrinsically 'favored' by evolution? Therefore all traits that occur on earth will inevitably occur wherever else there is life?

When a visible trait gives obvious survival benefits and survives many generations of development, then yes, I think it is safe to say that (at least under the conditions in which it evolved) it is favoured by evolution. Most traits that occur on earth will occur wherever there are similar conditions in which they are advantaeous. On a CO2-rich planet there will be photosynthesis. In an oxygen atmosphere there will be respiration, and probably something analogous to lungs or gills. Where there is a complex sensory-data processing system, along with social groups and an energy-rich diet then probably intelligence will evolve. All of the traits displayed on Earth are obviously full of parochial features which only occur because of very local conditions on Earth, but many of them have evolved independantly so many times that to not get them elsewhere would be extraordinary.

What about all those traits which were once common and later disappeared in organisms?

Name three. If conditions change then traits which are no longer advantageous and which are hard to lose become extinct. Intelligence is not one of those things. It will be advantageous in nearly all conditions where the food supply can support it. The massive advantage of intelligence is the ability to cope with rapidly changing conditions.

Also lets use dice as an analogy. If two 6 sider dice are rolled odds favor the number 7 and yet snake eyes still makes an appearance. We know the 'dice' came up showing the devlopment of intelligence but we have no idea how unlikely that may have been or if evolution 'favored' it. It may have been an unlikely outcome indeed.

I really hope I don't have to explain why that is a terrible, terrible analogy.

If intelligence is weakly 'favored' by natural selection then the evolution of intelligence may have required rolling snakeyes dozens of times in a row before it got to the point where the adaptive advantage of further improvments exceeded the metabolic costs.

Nevertheless, it would be ... favoured by natural selection. Which was my point, after all.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Evolution and religion , a hundred years ago

Originally posted by Geronimo
Anyway I didn't say organisms do it systematically, just that they do in fact do it.

Then it's not genocide, is it?

Just because something causes a species of lifeform to become extinct doesn't mean that's genocide.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Geronimo
possibly. Could you clarify your assumption of view point conflation?

Bill3000 was talking about things in the evolution context, but you argued that humans are better in an anthropocentric PoV, and hence, better.

Not only you missed his original point, but also tried to switch context.