TheInfection
Regular
It should!!
Regards,
TheInfection
------------------
Things change... long time gone by.
Regards,
TheInfection
------------------
Things change... long time gone by.
-
The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.
First Ones, Second Ones, stragglers, and checkers
- Thread starter Ninja_Squirrel
- Start date
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Pardon me while I go off on a speculatory tangent for a moment. This may get confusing...
So, what do you do with races like the Ralgans from "River of Souls?" They reached incorporeal status, but did it much later than any of the true First Ones. The Soul Hunters (one of the oldest of the "younger races" if I understand correctly) had already mastered the technology used in capturing "souls" when the Ralgans evolved in to First One-ishness. It seems that if any race fits the bill of a Second One, the Ralgans and any others like them probably do.
I think that the B5 universe might work in cycles. In other words, there are periods where life springs up in several places and evolves, and then there are periods of dormancy where no new forms of sentient life arise. Then life springs up in several more places and evolves, etc., etc.
It appears that in the first wave of sentient life, the organisms took on the appearance of "simpler" animals. The first ones that we've seen look mostly like giant protazoans and arachnids. After they evolved into incorporeal beings and ruled the galaxy for a while, a new wave of sentient beings came forth that were mostly bipedal and humanoid.
When the humans and Minbari reach the next plane of evolution, who knows what the younger forms of sentient life will look like?
I guess that races like the Ralgans either came from a second wave of sentient life that sprang up between the time of the First Ones and the "younger races," or they came in on the very end of the First Ones' period of evolution.
Races like the Soul Hunters, Drakh, Lumati, and Minbari must have sprung up at the very beginning of the current wave of evolution that we humans are a part of.
So, if the Ralgans were from a second wave of sentient evolution, what happened to their contemporaries? Perhaps they all chose sides and they are the minions of the Vorlons and Shadows. Perhaps they were mostly wiped out when the Vorlons and Shadows used them as pawns in their wars. Who knows???
I know that got long and weird, but it makes sense to me.
------------------
You are finite. Zathras is finite. This...is wrong tool.
jtk724@hotmail.com
[This message has been edited by Zathras (edited February 23, 2002).]
So, what do you do with races like the Ralgans from "River of Souls?" They reached incorporeal status, but did it much later than any of the true First Ones. The Soul Hunters (one of the oldest of the "younger races" if I understand correctly) had already mastered the technology used in capturing "souls" when the Ralgans evolved in to First One-ishness. It seems that if any race fits the bill of a Second One, the Ralgans and any others like them probably do.
I think that the B5 universe might work in cycles. In other words, there are periods where life springs up in several places and evolves, and then there are periods of dormancy where no new forms of sentient life arise. Then life springs up in several more places and evolves, etc., etc.
It appears that in the first wave of sentient life, the organisms took on the appearance of "simpler" animals. The first ones that we've seen look mostly like giant protazoans and arachnids. After they evolved into incorporeal beings and ruled the galaxy for a while, a new wave of sentient beings came forth that were mostly bipedal and humanoid.
When the humans and Minbari reach the next plane of evolution, who knows what the younger forms of sentient life will look like?
I guess that races like the Ralgans either came from a second wave of sentient life that sprang up between the time of the First Ones and the "younger races," or they came in on the very end of the First Ones' period of evolution.
Races like the Soul Hunters, Drakh, Lumati, and Minbari must have sprung up at the very beginning of the current wave of evolution that we humans are a part of.
So, if the Ralgans were from a second wave of sentient evolution, what happened to their contemporaries? Perhaps they all chose sides and they are the minions of the Vorlons and Shadows. Perhaps they were mostly wiped out when the Vorlons and Shadows used them as pawns in their wars. Who knows???
I know that got long and weird, but it makes sense to me.
------------------
You are finite. Zathras is finite. This...is wrong tool.
jtk724@hotmail.com
[This message has been edited by Zathras (edited February 23, 2002).]
Bakana you said that <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> Are you assuming that Evolution is dependent on Wisdom?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Evolution and wisdom are two seperate entities but are definitely dependant on each other consider this in the past 2000 years humans have advanced in leaps and bounds.
but what do we do amongst ourselves we beat each other with thermo nuclear clubs. We always hear how advanced we are blah, blah but we still kill each other, screw each other over for profit.
I stand under correction but I once read that out of last 2000 yrs of documented history, there has only beeen 63 years of peace., meaning no war , anywhere. granted it may be inaccurate but think back carefully, can you point out one year in your liviing history that there has not been a war going on somewhere. I'll be honest with you, I can't
Then again I have been pegged as certifiable pessimist
------------------
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light. I come to take the place that has been prepared for me"
-------------------------
the present becomes the past, the past becomes history, history becomes legend, legend becomes myth, myth becomes obscurity! please pass the flarn!
Evolution and wisdom are two seperate entities but are definitely dependant on each other consider this in the past 2000 years humans have advanced in leaps and bounds.
I stand under correction but I once read that out of last 2000 yrs of documented history, there has only beeen 63 years of peace., meaning no war , anywhere. granted it may be inaccurate but think back carefully, can you point out one year in your liviing history that there has not been a war going on somewhere. I'll be honest with you, I can't
Then again I have been pegged as certifiable pessimist
------------------
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light. I come to take the place that has been prepared for me"
-------------------------
the present becomes the past, the past becomes history, history becomes legend, legend becomes myth, myth becomes obscurity! please pass the flarn!
GaribaldisHair
Regular
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Evolution and wisdom are two seperate entities but are definitely dependant on each other consider this in the past 2000 years humans have advanced in leaps and bounds. but what do we do amongst ourselves we beat each other with thermo nuclear clubs. We always hear how advanced we are blah, blah but we still kill each other, screw each other over for profit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But there is a difference between development and evolution.
Evolution requires fundamental changes in what constitutes a "human", whereas development only requires that we learn to use it in more advanced ways!
------------------
DaveC
"Somebody gulped. You were supposed to sip not gulp!"
But there is a difference between development and evolution.
Evolution requires fundamental changes in what constitutes a "human", whereas development only requires that we learn to use it in more advanced ways!
------------------
DaveC
"Somebody gulped. You were supposed to sip not gulp!"
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
When a species becomes sentient, several evolutionary processes start, stop and change their nature.
1. Genetic evolution stops.
It will maintain a pace needed to live decently and fight off diseases. It will make small improvements over huge periods of time. Once you become sentient, the era of genetically adapting via natural selection is over.
Given a sufficient technical level, you might modify your own genes, but this is not evolution is the strict sense. It is development, but development guided by your own choices, the result of an entirely different branch of evolution -- cognitive evolution.
2. Cognitive evolution continues.
Beings will continue to learn about themselves, form new societies and find ways for coexistence. They accumulate knowledge and learn when to doubt it. They develop traditions and learn when to break them. People learn both directly and from others. Each is unique and adds unique concepts. Others may pick them up, or discard them.
This is the evolution of ideas, beliefs, knowledge and understanding. It is neither fast nor slow. Certain aspects of social evolution are very fragile. They can be easily set back by disasters and wars -- which deprive entire generations of education.
Unlike genes, ideas and world views have no nation or species. They can cross huge borders and shatter them as they go. Still, cognitive development spreads slower than technical advancement. But if conditions are favourable, new generations will have the chance to learn, understand and make less mistakes.
3. Technical evolution begins.
Beings gain the capability to modify their environment. They gain the capability to develop technologies, use them for good and harm. Some will inevitably destroy their environment, some will kill themselves with weapons of mass destruction. And some will make it to space, gaining some safety from their errors.
Finally, they also gain the skills to modify themselves. How they modify themselves depends on their view of the world. Vorlons prefer to change who they are, tinkering with genes. Shadows prefer to get what they want, adding mental and physical abilities with organic machines.
4. But sentience remains sentience
Yet something remains in spite of natural evolution and self-development. Every sentient is capable of wisdom and stupidity, love and hate, curiosity and ignorance. They all learn and forget, choose well and make awful mistakes.
In that sense, a Shadow is no better than a Minbari. They can choose how they understand their role, and act accordingly.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 25, 2002).]
1. Genetic evolution stops.
It will maintain a pace needed to live decently and fight off diseases. It will make small improvements over huge periods of time. Once you become sentient, the era of genetically adapting via natural selection is over.
Given a sufficient technical level, you might modify your own genes, but this is not evolution is the strict sense. It is development, but development guided by your own choices, the result of an entirely different branch of evolution -- cognitive evolution.
2. Cognitive evolution continues.
Beings will continue to learn about themselves, form new societies and find ways for coexistence. They accumulate knowledge and learn when to doubt it. They develop traditions and learn when to break them. People learn both directly and from others. Each is unique and adds unique concepts. Others may pick them up, or discard them.
This is the evolution of ideas, beliefs, knowledge and understanding. It is neither fast nor slow. Certain aspects of social evolution are very fragile. They can be easily set back by disasters and wars -- which deprive entire generations of education.
Unlike genes, ideas and world views have no nation or species. They can cross huge borders and shatter them as they go. Still, cognitive development spreads slower than technical advancement. But if conditions are favourable, new generations will have the chance to learn, understand and make less mistakes.
3. Technical evolution begins.
Beings gain the capability to modify their environment. They gain the capability to develop technologies, use them for good and harm. Some will inevitably destroy their environment, some will kill themselves with weapons of mass destruction. And some will make it to space, gaining some safety from their errors.
Finally, they also gain the skills to modify themselves. How they modify themselves depends on their view of the world. Vorlons prefer to change who they are, tinkering with genes. Shadows prefer to get what they want, adding mental and physical abilities with organic machines.
4. But sentience remains sentience
Yet something remains in spite of natural evolution and self-development. Every sentient is capable of wisdom and stupidity, love and hate, curiosity and ignorance. They all learn and forget, choose well and make awful mistakes.
In that sense, a Shadow is no better than a Minbari. They can choose how they understand their role, and act accordingly.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 25, 2002).]
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Lennier said
Once you become sentient, the era of genetically adapting via natural selection is over <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you think that evolution by natural selection ends with sentience.
I propose that:
1. Sentience does not excuse you from extinction, whether it be natural selection or not.
Let us say that we are faced with an extinction-level event that we don't have the technological means to stop. And all life is destroyed. That would mean that humanity would cease to exist but I still think that we have become sentient.
Better still a real life example, of beings who had achieved sentience (albeit the basics) were the Neanderthals who were wiped out either through interbreeding or genocide by Homo sapiens. Same with Australopithecus Robustus (man-apes) who were believe to be wiped out by the Gracile (our indirect ancestors). These groups who wiped out their competitors are a part of the way that nature selects for certain species.
To take an example from B5. The 6 billion inhabitants of Corianna 6 were sentient, I believe. Yet the Vorlons were about to destroy the planet and cause the extinction of their race.
2. Genetic adaptation doesn't stop with sentience.
A great example is why sickle-cell anemia is still present in the population in Africa. The heterozygote is immune to malaria while the homozygous recessive will die of anemia. And the homozygous dominant will probably die of malaria. Statistics show that the recessive allele frequency of sickle-cell anemia is much higher in Africa than any other continent.
Another good example is the relative height of humans now in comparison with that of humans a couple of centuries ago. I haven't done the research why the trend has been occuring but humans have tended to grow taller.
In short, I believe that evolution by natural selection occurs whether sentience is their or not. Genetic adaptation is omni-present through sentience, technology, what have you.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
Once you become sentient, the era of genetically adapting via natural selection is over <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you think that evolution by natural selection ends with sentience.
I propose that:
1. Sentience does not excuse you from extinction, whether it be natural selection or not.
Let us say that we are faced with an extinction-level event that we don't have the technological means to stop. And all life is destroyed. That would mean that humanity would cease to exist but I still think that we have become sentient.
Better still a real life example, of beings who had achieved sentience (albeit the basics) were the Neanderthals who were wiped out either through interbreeding or genocide by Homo sapiens. Same with Australopithecus Robustus (man-apes) who were believe to be wiped out by the Gracile (our indirect ancestors). These groups who wiped out their competitors are a part of the way that nature selects for certain species.
To take an example from B5. The 6 billion inhabitants of Corianna 6 were sentient, I believe. Yet the Vorlons were about to destroy the planet and cause the extinction of their race.
2. Genetic adaptation doesn't stop with sentience.
A great example is why sickle-cell anemia is still present in the population in Africa. The heterozygote is immune to malaria while the homozygous recessive will die of anemia. And the homozygous dominant will probably die of malaria. Statistics show that the recessive allele frequency of sickle-cell anemia is much higher in Africa than any other continent.
Another good example is the relative height of humans now in comparison with that of humans a couple of centuries ago. I haven't done the research why the trend has been occuring but humans have tended to grow taller.
In short, I believe that evolution by natural selection occurs whether sentience is their or not. Genetic adaptation is omni-present through sentience, technology, what have you.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
Any of you ladies and gent do marketing? a little structure called Maslow's Hierarchy of needs outlines human needs in its simplist form. ie food, shelter moving on to things like cars and so forth. Right at the top of the pyramid is self actualisation. Very few people ever reach this point. The most likely candidates would be Zen buddhists.
Don't mistake developement for stagnation, which is a very real fact. We as a people are moving along technologically but falling behind as individuals. In order to progress to first one status I think would involve a fair amount of spiritual "evolution". Not religious, but definitely spiritual. I just personally think that we better wake up and look around before we make ourselves extinct.
------------------
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light. I come to take the place that has been prepared for me"
-------------------------
the present becomes the past, the past becomes history, history becomes legend, legend becomes myth, myth becomes obscurity! please pass the flarn!
Don't mistake developement for stagnation, which is a very real fact. We as a people are moving along technologically but falling behind as individuals. In order to progress to first one status I think would involve a fair amount of spiritual "evolution". Not religious, but definitely spiritual. I just personally think that we better wake up and look around before we make ourselves extinct.
------------------
"I am Grey. I stand between the candle and the star. We are Grey. We stand between the darkness and the light. I come to take the place that has been prepared for me"
-------------------------
the present becomes the past, the past becomes history, history becomes legend, legend becomes myth, myth becomes obscurity! please pass the flarn!
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Your examples, Dark Archon, were adequate. I fully agree with the possibility of the scenarios you mentioned, but have to point out why they do not actually contradict my suspicion.
1. The Neanderthals were a borderline case. And even there, knowledge and technology was more involved than you expect.
It was an early stage of development when sentience exists, but genetic evolution has not slowed yet. A stage where social evolution has not accumulated much knowledge (written language was still millennia away in future) and technical evolution has not fully started.
Yet even in spite of these factors, they did not really compete with genes. Genes were involved. But if they compteted, they competed with technology (weapons for fighting and hunting, tools for building) or social efficiency (teaching and learning the skills needed for success).
They competed in ways characteristic of sentient beings. In competition between sentients, technology and thought go first. Genes come later. They participate, but their relevance has been reduced and their evolution dramatically slowed. Genetic evolution has become just a subset of evolution.
Hence we may actually say that the case of Neanderthals supports my claim. If they did compete against Homo sapiens, that was not genetic competition. Genetic differences between them and our ancestors was negligible. You might meet Homo nenderthalis on the street and not notice the difference.
In fact, several researchers have speculated whether the Neanderthals really went like they are believed to. They might have just as easily merged with with our species, been assimilated in a population which grew more rapidly -- not due to genes, but due to technology and societies. They might have become us, because genes were not the real border between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis.
2. Sickle-cell anemia is beyond my claim. It is an exception which occurs in areas of insufficient medicine, lacking malaria control and usually great poverty.
I made no attempt to exclude disease and disaster from factors influencing sentient evolution. They do influence us. Our evolution keeps us in balance with the various viruses, bacteria, smaller and larger parasites. But even that process is visibly slowing.
In conditions with access to healing technologies, we never leave our bodies/genes to fight on their own. We use medical intervention which usually decides the matter -- and is a product of social evolution (knowledge and experience needed for practising medicine) and technical evolution (means of treatment needed to defeat diseases).
Hence the occurrence and results of sickle-cell anemia do not contradict the concept of genetic evolution being overtaken by cognitive and technical evolution.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>To take an example from B5. The 6 billion inhabitants of Corianna 6 were sentient, I believe. Yet the Vorlons were about to destroy the planet and cause the extinction of their race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A battle of ideas between the Vorlons and Shadows. Both were so far outside the genetic game that they could modify their genes and choose their abilities.
As for the people of Coriana, it was a battle of weapons between opponents of unequal technology. Clearly not a battle of genes, or a display of genetically powered evulotion. On the very contrary, an example of genetic evolution being determined by social and technical change.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>In short, I believe that evolution by natural selection occurs whether sentience is their or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree partly. It never fully stops. But it tremendously slows, and loses its self-directing nature. After a certain level of knowledge and technology has been reached, genes no longer direct. They follow. They cease being *the* deciding factor.
Sentient beings are characterized by their capability for understanding and purposeful action. Understanding and purposeful action eventually drag the genes with them. The question no longer is "who you are". You become who you want to become.
In case of non-sentient creatures, genes are the main factor. They compete and choose the way. As our species became sentient and started it gradual accumulation of understanding and technology, genes became less and less relevant. They are still relevant. But if logic is to be trusted, in the future they lose much of their meaning. If our kind reaches that future and learns to live with the technologies we create.
-------
To sum it up, the third principle of sentient life is too narrow in definition. Evolution favours efficiency. Sentient beings can choose what is efficient.
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
1. The Neanderthals were a borderline case. And even there, knowledge and technology was more involved than you expect.
It was an early stage of development when sentience exists, but genetic evolution has not slowed yet. A stage where social evolution has not accumulated much knowledge (written language was still millennia away in future) and technical evolution has not fully started.
Yet even in spite of these factors, they did not really compete with genes. Genes were involved. But if they compteted, they competed with technology (weapons for fighting and hunting, tools for building) or social efficiency (teaching and learning the skills needed for success).
They competed in ways characteristic of sentient beings. In competition between sentients, technology and thought go first. Genes come later. They participate, but their relevance has been reduced and their evolution dramatically slowed. Genetic evolution has become just a subset of evolution.
Hence we may actually say that the case of Neanderthals supports my claim. If they did compete against Homo sapiens, that was not genetic competition. Genetic differences between them and our ancestors was negligible. You might meet Homo nenderthalis on the street and not notice the difference.
In fact, several researchers have speculated whether the Neanderthals really went like they are believed to. They might have just as easily merged with with our species, been assimilated in a population which grew more rapidly -- not due to genes, but due to technology and societies. They might have become us, because genes were not the real border between Homo sapiens and Homo neanderthalis.
2. Sickle-cell anemia is beyond my claim. It is an exception which occurs in areas of insufficient medicine, lacking malaria control and usually great poverty.
I made no attempt to exclude disease and disaster from factors influencing sentient evolution. They do influence us. Our evolution keeps us in balance with the various viruses, bacteria, smaller and larger parasites. But even that process is visibly slowing.
In conditions with access to healing technologies, we never leave our bodies/genes to fight on their own. We use medical intervention which usually decides the matter -- and is a product of social evolution (knowledge and experience needed for practising medicine) and technical evolution (means of treatment needed to defeat diseases).
Hence the occurrence and results of sickle-cell anemia do not contradict the concept of genetic evolution being overtaken by cognitive and technical evolution.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>To take an example from B5. The 6 billion inhabitants of Corianna 6 were sentient, I believe. Yet the Vorlons were about to destroy the planet and cause the extinction of their race.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
A battle of ideas between the Vorlons and Shadows. Both were so far outside the genetic game that they could modify their genes and choose their abilities.
As for the people of Coriana, it was a battle of weapons between opponents of unequal technology. Clearly not a battle of genes, or a display of genetically powered evulotion. On the very contrary, an example of genetic evolution being determined by social and technical change.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>In short, I believe that evolution by natural selection occurs whether sentience is their or not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree partly. It never fully stops. But it tremendously slows, and loses its self-directing nature. After a certain level of knowledge and technology has been reached, genes no longer direct. They follow. They cease being *the* deciding factor.
Sentient beings are characterized by their capability for understanding and purposeful action. Understanding and purposeful action eventually drag the genes with them. The question no longer is "who you are". You become who you want to become.
In case of non-sentient creatures, genes are the main factor. They compete and choose the way. As our species became sentient and started it gradual accumulation of understanding and technology, genes became less and less relevant. They are still relevant. But if logic is to be trusted, in the future they lose much of their meaning. If our kind reaches that future and learns to live with the technologies we create.
-------
To sum it up, the third principle of sentient life is too narrow in definition. Evolution favours efficiency. Sentient beings can choose what is efficient.
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
Anyone who believes that Human Evolution has Stopped is welcome to visit the Darwin Awards site at:
http://www.darwinawards.com/
For those unfamiliar with this award:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What are they?
The Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives: by eliminating themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chance of long-term survival. In other words, they are cautionary tales about people who kill themselves in really stupid ways, and in doing so, significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race.
These individuals carry out disastrous plans that any average pre-teen knows are the result of a really bad idea. The single-minded purpose and self-sacrifice of the winners, and the spectacular means by which they snuff themselves, make them candidates for the honor of winning a Darwin Award. The terrorist who mails a letter bomb with insufficient postage deserves to win a Darwin Award when he blows himself up opening the returned package. As does the fisherman who throws a lit stick of dynamite for his faithful golden retriever to fetch and return to him. As do the surfers who celebrate a hurricane by throwing a beachfront party and getting washed out to sea.
Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards represent examples of evolution in action by showing what happens to people who are unable to cope with the basic dangers of the modern world. These ironic tales of fatal misadventure illustrate some of life's most important lessons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."
http://www.darwinawards.com/
For those unfamiliar with this award:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR> What are they?
The Darwin Awards commemorate individuals who protect our gene pool by making the ultimate sacrifice of their own lives: by eliminating themselves in an extraordinarily idiotic manner, thereby improving our species' chance of long-term survival. In other words, they are cautionary tales about people who kill themselves in really stupid ways, and in doing so, significantly improve the gene pool by eliminating themselves from the human race.
These individuals carry out disastrous plans that any average pre-teen knows are the result of a really bad idea. The single-minded purpose and self-sacrifice of the winners, and the spectacular means by which they snuff themselves, make them candidates for the honor of winning a Darwin Award. The terrorist who mails a letter bomb with insufficient postage deserves to win a Darwin Award when he blows himself up opening the returned package. As does the fisherman who throws a lit stick of dynamite for his faithful golden retriever to fetch and return to him. As do the surfers who celebrate a hurricane by throwing a beachfront party and getting washed out to sea.
Named in honor of Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, the Darwin Awards represent examples of evolution in action by showing what happens to people who are unable to cope with the basic dangers of the modern world. These ironic tales of fatal misadventure illustrate some of life's most important lessons. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
------------------
Do not ascribe your own motivations to others:
At best, it will break your heart.
At worst, it will get you dead."
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Naturally it has not stopped.
Evolution never stops.
But genetic evolution can stop.
And ours has slowed.
Which is the natural way of things.
Genes are no longer the force directing our change. Neither are they the main force determining success. They are needed, but no longer *the* crucial factor.
--------
As for the example presented by Bakana -- those cases of extreme stupidity hardly had anything related to genes. They have much more to do with education, which makes them an illustration of social evolution. An illustration of why the idea "better be careful" ultimately prevails over "who cares".
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
Evolution never stops.
But genetic evolution can stop.
And ours has slowed.
Which is the natural way of things.
Genes are no longer the force directing our change. Neither are they the main force determining success. They are needed, but no longer *the* crucial factor.
--------
As for the example presented by Bakana -- those cases of extreme stupidity hardly had anything related to genes. They have much more to do with education, which makes them an illustration of social evolution. An illustration of why the idea "better be careful" ultimately prevails over "who cares".
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>Lennier said
1. The Neanderthals were a borderline case. And even there, knowledge and technology was more involved than you expect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On this point when you go on to talk about how the Neanderthals lost in a battle of technological and social evolution or may have been assimilated, I don't disagree. I simply say that evolution (social, genetic, technological, etc.) by natural selection exists and will continue to no matter our level of sentience. If our ancestors were the cause of the extinction of Neanderthals, I say that 'nature' used our ancestors as the means to 'select' against the Neanderthals. If they simply merged with our ancestors and became us, once again interbreeding and subsequent physiological evolution (skull) were the ways that nature selected against them.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>2. Sickle-cell anemia is beyond my claim. It is an exception which occurs in areas of insufficient medicine, lacking malaria control and usually great poverty.
I made no attempt to exclude disease and disaster from factors influencing sentient evolution.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, if you agree that disease and disaster are factors involved in evolution by natural selection, than you agree with me.
In response to your point about medicine (a result of technological and social evolution) deciding things for us, now. I maintain that the 'possiblity' exists that some of these bacteria can genetically adapt to our medicine causing a brand new epidemic. One of these viruses that seem to spring up every now and then (HIV and HPV to name a two), could 'possibly' become beyond our medical capabilities. I really think that you shortchange how nasty nature can really get. At the same time, I'm not oblivious to the leaps and bounds medicine has been and will continue to undergo.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>As for the people of Coriana, it was a battle of weapons between opponents of unequal technology. Clearly not a battle of genes, or a display of genetically powered evulotion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, yet I can still point out that the Vorlons were the means by which nature (on the universal level) selected against the people of Coriana. I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If our kind reaches that future and learns to live with the technologies we create.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is until nature finds a way (technologically, socially, genetically, etc.) of selecting against us.
I think that we agree on many points but your definition of "evolution by natural selection" is much too narrow.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
1. The Neanderthals were a borderline case. And even there, knowledge and technology was more involved than you expect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
On this point when you go on to talk about how the Neanderthals lost in a battle of technological and social evolution or may have been assimilated, I don't disagree. I simply say that evolution (social, genetic, technological, etc.) by natural selection exists and will continue to no matter our level of sentience. If our ancestors were the cause of the extinction of Neanderthals, I say that 'nature' used our ancestors as the means to 'select' against the Neanderthals. If they simply merged with our ancestors and became us, once again interbreeding and subsequent physiological evolution (skull) were the ways that nature selected against them.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>2. Sickle-cell anemia is beyond my claim. It is an exception which occurs in areas of insufficient medicine, lacking malaria control and usually great poverty.
I made no attempt to exclude disease and disaster from factors influencing sentient evolution.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, if you agree that disease and disaster are factors involved in evolution by natural selection, than you agree with me.
In response to your point about medicine (a result of technological and social evolution) deciding things for us, now. I maintain that the 'possiblity' exists that some of these bacteria can genetically adapt to our medicine causing a brand new epidemic. One of these viruses that seem to spring up every now and then (HIV and HPV to name a two), could 'possibly' become beyond our medical capabilities. I really think that you shortchange how nasty nature can really get. At the same time, I'm not oblivious to the leaps and bounds medicine has been and will continue to undergo.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>As for the people of Coriana, it was a battle of weapons between opponents of unequal technology. Clearly not a battle of genes, or a display of genetically powered evulotion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, yet I can still point out that the Vorlons were the means by which nature (on the universal level) selected against the people of Coriana. I'm starting to sound like a broken record.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, arial">quote:</font><HR>If our kind reaches that future and learns to live with the technologies we create.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is until nature finds a way (technologically, socially, genetically, etc.) of selecting against us.
I think that we agree on many points but your definition of "evolution by natural selection" is much too narrow.
------------------
YOU ARE NOT READY FOR IMMORTALITY!
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
My 2 cents:
As I understand it, evolution occurs as organisms adapt to their environment. In other words: in a cold climate, animals who are born with more fat, a thicker coat of fur, and/or the ability to better survive on the surrounding food will live to spread their genes into the next generation. Those who are born without such adaptations do not get to live long enough to procreate and spread their genes. The more "fit" organisms - those with genetic phenotypes that allow them to thrive in their environments - spread their traits into future generations (which become even better adapted as the cycle continues).
My point is this: Humans (for the most part) have reached the technological level where we do not have to adapt to our environments in the way that we used to. This has really just happened within the last 50 - 75 years or so.
Think about it. If you're cold, you just turn up the thermostat. If you're hot, you just turn it down. If you're hungry, you go to the fridge and grab a sandwich - or go to the market and buy something to eat. We do not have to compete to eat like other animals do.
Granted, in certain parts of the world people do not have the luxuries that many in first world countries may have, and they may have to compete for food more than I do; but the fact is that they are gradually gaining the same technologies that I have, and getting food is going to be progressively easier for them.
And hey, you can just watch Jerry Springer to see that it's not just the fittest that get to procreate.
------------------
You are finite. Zathras is finite. This...is wrong tool.
jtk724@hotmail.com
As I understand it, evolution occurs as organisms adapt to their environment. In other words: in a cold climate, animals who are born with more fat, a thicker coat of fur, and/or the ability to better survive on the surrounding food will live to spread their genes into the next generation. Those who are born without such adaptations do not get to live long enough to procreate and spread their genes. The more "fit" organisms - those with genetic phenotypes that allow them to thrive in their environments - spread their traits into future generations (which become even better adapted as the cycle continues).
My point is this: Humans (for the most part) have reached the technological level where we do not have to adapt to our environments in the way that we used to. This has really just happened within the last 50 - 75 years or so.
Think about it. If you're cold, you just turn up the thermostat. If you're hot, you just turn it down. If you're hungry, you go to the fridge and grab a sandwich - or go to the market and buy something to eat. We do not have to compete to eat like other animals do.
Granted, in certain parts of the world people do not have the luxuries that many in first world countries may have, and they may have to compete for food more than I do; but the fact is that they are gradually gaining the same technologies that I have, and getting food is going to be progressively easier for them.
And hey, you can just watch Jerry Springer to see that it's not just the fittest that get to procreate.
------------------
You are finite. Zathras is finite. This...is wrong tool.
jtk724@hotmail.com
Jade Jaguar
Regular
I hadn't checked in on this thread in a while, because it had grown boring, but I find evolution interesting. All though there is some controversy, I believe most people in the field agree that genetic evolution continues even today, although it may be slowed a bit, or going in directions we don't imagine. Sickle cell anemia is a case in point, since it is a relatively recent adaptation to protect from malaria. Also, a gene has been identified that gives immunity to aids, found mostly in northern Europe. Given time, it could become common. The problem is that evolution in humans takes so long that it is hard to tell what IS happening. For all we know, we could be evolving into something like the Morlocks and the Eloi, from The Time Machine, right now. As to whether the Neanderthals were assimilated, or died out, the jury is still out. One camp says the genetic evidence shows no Neanderthal genes in modern humans, others say the opposite. Evidence is turning up that they were far from the brutish louts they are depicted to be. They had funerals, fine tools, and textiles.
I just saw an interesting program on Discovery that said the oldest skull in the americas, from brazil, showed African features, and DNA was closest to Australian Aboriginies. They thought this population interbred, or went extinct, except the people of Tierra Del Fuego showed evidence of being from that population. Eventually, when enough DNA studies are done on enough living people, and as many ancient remains as possible, we will have a pretty good idea of the incredibly complex migrations of the human family.
------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood
Pallindromes of the month: Snug was I, ere I saw guns.
Doom an evil deed, liven a mood.
I just saw an interesting program on Discovery that said the oldest skull in the americas, from brazil, showed African features, and DNA was closest to Australian Aboriginies. They thought this population interbred, or went extinct, except the people of Tierra Del Fuego showed evidence of being from that population. Eventually, when enough DNA studies are done on enough living people, and as many ancient remains as possible, we will have a pretty good idea of the incredibly complex migrations of the human family.
------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood
Pallindromes of the month: Snug was I, ere I saw guns.
Doom an evil deed, liven a mood.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
About the relevance of disease and disaster: to better understand the point of my argements (which is not to negate genetic evolution) imagine the Shadows.
They travel the stars and can travel galaxies. They make mistakes and doubt, they do not know everything. But when the Universe throws something at them, they do not adapt quite in the same way bacteria do when treated with antibiotics.
Let us imagine that the Universe presents the Shadows with a problem where genes are relevant for survival. The problem may take countless forms, including interference from similarly advanced species. Natural selection should occur basing on genes. But alas, before a moment has passed they are already rewiring their bodies, genes and ships.
They are making educated and purposeful guesses as to which route of evolution is best. They are adapting with their intellect and technology. In the end, genes did not decide. The question was not which Shadow had the best genes. The question was: which Shadow made the wisest choice when choosing one's genes.
This is the condition sentient tool-users always seem headed for. My intention was not to negate evolution as a whole, simpy point out that it works on different levels. When those who evolve start considering how to evolve, a new level has appeared and slowly becomes prevalent. Genes remain the basis, but they are no longer everything.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
They travel the stars and can travel galaxies. They make mistakes and doubt, they do not know everything. But when the Universe throws something at them, they do not adapt quite in the same way bacteria do when treated with antibiotics.
Let us imagine that the Universe presents the Shadows with a problem where genes are relevant for survival. The problem may take countless forms, including interference from similarly advanced species. Natural selection should occur basing on genes. But alas, before a moment has passed they are already rewiring their bodies, genes and ships.
They are making educated and purposeful guesses as to which route of evolution is best. They are adapting with their intellect and technology. In the end, genes did not decide. The question was not which Shadow had the best genes. The question was: which Shadow made the wisest choice when choosing one's genes.
This is the condition sentient tool-users always seem headed for. My intention was not to negate evolution as a whole, simpy point out that it works on different levels. When those who evolve start considering how to evolve, a new level has appeared and slowly becomes prevalent. Genes remain the basis, but they are no longer everything.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
Jade Jaguar
Regular
Lennier, you make a good point. You might say that we have arrived at a level where 'unnatural selection' is possible. We certainly have the ability, but in my opinion, far from sufficient understanding to do so yet. And if we do, unanticipated consequences are almost a certainty.
------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood
Pallindromes of the month: Snug was I, ere I saw guns.
Doom an evil deed, liven a mood.
------------------
You're speaking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Maid Marian
Fluently! Errol Flynn as Robin Hood
You're talking treason! Olivia De Havilland as Arabella Bishop
I trust I'm not obscure. Errol Flynn as Dr. Peter Blood
Pallindromes of the month: Snug was I, ere I saw guns.
Doom an evil deed, liven a mood.
D
**DONOTDELETE**
Guest
Like everything else, choosing one's way requires experience. I too believe that our kind still lacks that sort of experience.
In conditions where the Shadows and Vorlons might help and improve themselves, we would probably damage and hurt our kind. This is why I think that cloning and genetic engineering must be carefully regulated and limited. We must accumulate the experience with safe mistakes, not devastating ones.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
In conditions where the Shadows and Vorlons might help and improve themselves, we would probably damage and hurt our kind. This is why I think that cloning and genetic engineering must be carefully regulated and limited. We must accumulate the experience with safe mistakes, not devastating ones.
------------------
"We are the universe, trying to figure itself out.
Unfortunately we as software lack any coherent documentation."
-- Delenn
[This message has been edited by Lennier (edited February 26, 2002).]
