Quote:
dk:
Because a nuclear holocaust would be a catastrophic event in terms of human evolution, and all life forms on earth.
Neruda
and how exactly would that change the fact that life evolves? Can you enlighten me on this point? gave you give me even the slightest clue as to how it would change that?
|
dk: Catastrophic events don’t change the facts of evolution, they are a fact of evolution.
Quote:
dk:
Clearly the 3 wallabies that escaped from a zoo over 80 years ago were not a large inbreeding population.
Neruda:
So you believe that evolution occurs when small populations get separate from the larger population! good, because just about every scientist alive believes the same thing! (By the way, I'm happy to see that you admit life is capable of evolving. why are we even still talking? you believe in evolution just as much as any of us, you just don't know it yet.)
|
dk: I have no idea what you mean by “capable of evolution”, but I embrace the concept of evolution as an explanation of change. I would point out that as a concept evolution is abstract, universal and absolute, whereas the particulars of evolution vary from thing to thing and creature to creature.
Quote:
dk:
This only proves human activity unleashes natural forces with moral and ethical implications.
Neruda:
and how do these moral and ethical implications change the fact that life evolves? you keep answering our questions with the very response we questioned, just rehashed over and over again. Your posts are all so similar that I can't help but theorize that they all have a single common ancestor, dating back to perhaps november of 2001...
|
dk: People participate in evolution as agents for good (right) and evil (wrong). Moral concepts construct terms of right and wrong to order (regulate) human conduct with principles suited to the particulars of human nature. Ethics is the science that applies general moral principles to particular situations and circumstances.
Quote:
dk: Have you read about the domesticated pigs that got loose on the Hawian Islands, became wild and now trash the ecology. Is this proof of evolution?
Neruda:
if they changed from the original domesticated pigs into a new species, then yes, of course. what does their destructiveness matter when it comes to whether or not they evolved? Sure humans have done a lot of bad by unleashing new species into unprepared habitats, but this has nothing to do with evolution as a fact.
|
dk: Here’s where we divide up and chose sides, and we divide on philosophical not a evidentiary basis. The importance of Evolution entails an affirmation and delineation of moral principles to reliably govern the particulars (ethics) of human conduct. Allow me an imposition and two question,
Imposition: You judged it was
bad for people to (release pigs that) trash the Hawaiian Islands.
q1: What does that mean to the science of evolution?
q2: What do the particulars imply about human nature?
Quote:
dk: I didn’t respond because I know how quickly the off topic thread will degenerate. You may want to spin this as some great evolutionary tale, but in fact as the world gets smaller the threat of non-indigenous poses a threat to local ecologies.
The threat points to human activity, and poor stewardship, not evolution, .
Neruda: The problem is that human activities give animals the opportunity to invade a new habitat and adapt to it.
|
dk: How do you differentiate human activities, ideas, potential and dominion from the science of evolution. I personally require metaphysics to differentiate. This isn’t a setup, or even an argument, just a question.
Quote:
dk:
So evolution has limited application in the present world, that’s been my point all along. What existed 2 million years ago doesn’t exist today.
Neruda:
wrong, evolution is exceedingly useful in many lines of work. It is necessary for most of the sciences, because very little of the natural world makes sense without evolution.
|
dk: I don’t see how that’s possible since mathematics, physics, astronomy, chemistry, biology, and sociology existed before Evolutionary Theory was formally presented. While its clear all the other sciences contribute to evolution, how much evolution reciprocates varies. From left to right, math and physics benefit little if at all, and the farther right the closer the linkage until at the far end sociology gets reborn every generation from the pelvic thrusts of evolutionary thought. I was rather disappointed by the doggish attachment to revisionists history, but not surprised. If nothing in the world makes sense without evolution, then that’s a sure sign of dogma. The world makes sense to children before their eyes get weak, and their arteries harden, a true cynic believes children just don’t know any better.
Quote:
dk:
My point has been that evolutionism poses a greater threat to evolutionary science than creation science. That is what public schools need to address in the curriculum.
Neruda:
evolutionism poses a threat? well, I have to disagree there man, I think creationismology poses a much larger threat to evolutionism than evolutionist science.
|
dk: I think evolution gets unfairly painted by the political realities that represent the vested interests of elite opinion makers and institutions, creationism is nothing more than grass roots political backlash.
Quote:
dk:
I have no idea what you’re talking about, mutation as a mechanism is discontinuous, but not inconsistent with Mendel’s work. Mendel’s characteristics were non-blended i.e. passed from generation as individual dominant and recessive genes. Variants no matter how rare are therefore preserved and don’t melt away entirely, but tend to melt away within large inbred populations. I don’t know why you want to argue about nothing, we agree on the particulars.
Neruda:
NO! they DON'T melt away! You have no understanding of genetics! ]
|
dk: Now you’re just being petty, in the 3rd millennium blue eyed blonds are likely to go recessive, and will melt away, but of course no matter how rare the manifestation becomes the genes continue in the greater human gene pool. I believe we agree.
[ October 17, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>
10-16-2002, 11:14 PM
