Denial of evolution

[John99]

Originally Posted by ElectricFetus
Yes but the evolution of knowledge is not Darwinian or phyical evolution, its pseudo-lamarckian and a hell of a lot faster and provably under sentient control (us), .

It is just a response to religion. Certainly if you are presupposed to religious belief then surely you can also believe in the evolution story\stories\folk tales. Substitution is what it is.

[Dr Mabuse]

[synthesizer-patel]

WOW! thanks for that Boozie - if only I had seen such a well thought through and completely non-fictional, sane, and accurate depiction of atheism before I stopped beleiving in real and sensible stuff like faeries, elves, and magic singing turds - I might be as clever as you are today.



















i.e. not in the slightest bit


ps - YAWN!

[Pete]

....I stopped beleiving in ... magic singing turds...

What are you saying?!?

[synthesizer-patel]

What are you saying?!?

ever since I never got that Red Ryder BB Gun for christmas he can go fuck himself in his non-existent arse


ps - what comes out of Mr Hankey's arse anyway?

[ElectricFetus]

1. There is no such thing as de-evolution. An organism is fit for its particular environment. Current humans are fit for their current environment. End of chapter. If the environment changes then the appropriate fitness character changes. Start of new chapter.

Surely de-evolution is neatly an abstract, I'm only saying the present human is less versatile and adaptable then previous ones or at least the pressures are towards physically and mentally pathetic creatures. a chicken may have "evolved" from a jungle fowl ancestor, but the factory farm chicken is completely incapable of living on it own, heck they can't even run as they are too meaty to move properly, even if not eaten right way they live far shorter lives then even open farm breeds, every aspect of their biology is inferior to their relatives except in the category of making good meat for us. In the same way humans are becoming physically and mentally weaker, more disease prone, apathetic and lazy by genetic design.

2. Mass hybridising is every bit as good, or better at spreading beneficial genes as disadvantageous mutations.

Not when the selective pressure is making people more stupid and hyper sexual with constantly falling standards on mate selection. As a result hybridizing become a system to select the must pathetic of traits out of a very large gene pool. Biological breeding can no longer bring good for humans when there is no more selection for the fittest. Oh and don't fall for the semantics of what "fittest" means, you know what I mean, if you want to say stupid is the fittest state for our evolution from here on then surely you are correct, but this just means evolution is no longer working in or favor, it just means we will end up a evolutionary dead end.

3. Ignorance is a cultural, not a genetic condition. Perhaps you didn't know that.

Can't prove that some people are born incapable of learning or expanding their minds, but if ignorance it beneficial as it makes for people that breed more then there is or will be genetic pressure to make people ignorant.

4. Poverty is a cultural, not a genetic condition, perhaps that is not a cornerstone of your society.

Poor people breed more, which makes the genetic pressure toward keeping people poor. Of course too poor and more of their children die then live to breeding age. Resulting is a minimal requirement intellect and personal aspiration, but technology keeps dropping the bar making a society where less and less hard work and thinking is need in order to breed.

5. The children of morons (and of geniuses) tend to have an IQ that reverts to the norm.

I would like to see you prove that.

[Ophiolite]

I'm only saying the present human is less versatile and adaptable then previous ones.

And in saying this you assume that versatility and adaptability are desireable traits. These can be desirable traits for some organisms and some time, but not for all organisms at all times.
You appear to be approaching the position wherein survival of the fittest is equal to survival of the best, therefore fitter equals better. That is simply not the case. Fitness is environment specific. Todays environment is different from the environment we occupied ten millenia ago. Different characteristics are fit for this different environment. Those are the characteristics that prosper.

..but the factory farm chicken is completely incapable of living on it own,

So what? The environment it is fit to does not require that it live by its own devices. Scrawny, self sufficient chickens, that are slow growing and have little meat do not survive in this environment. The environment eliminates them. Plump, fast growing chickens, with no taste for an independent lifestyle are ideally suited to this environment and they prosper.

... Not when the selective pressure is making people more stupid and hyper sexual with constantly falling standards on mate selection.

Says who? You are judging thing by some ideal concept you have of how it should be. Nature does not work that way. Evolution does not work that way. Mate selection is appropriate to the environment in which modern man finds himself (and herself).
.

... I would like to see you prove that.

Intelligence tends to rever to the norm. This is not a controversial observation. It is very well established. I am surprised you are unaware of it. If this were a strongly debated point I should feel obliged to provide citations, but for something so clear cut I really think you should do your own research on this one.

[ElectricFetus]

And in saying this you assume that versatility and adaptability are desireable traits. These can be desirable traits for some organisms and some time, but not for all organisms at all times.
You appear to be approaching the position wherein survival of the fittest is equal to survival of the best, therefore fitter equals better. That is simply not the case. Fitness is environment specific. Todays environment is different from the environment we occupied ten millenia ago. Different characteristics are fit for this different environment. Those are the characteristics that prosper.

I knew you go on about this, the problem is you believe that I arguing that evolution has some how change its nature, not so, I saying that evolution is just not favorable to humans long term survival anymore, the present direction of pressure will lead to human being an evolutionary dead end under natural evolution. Think of all the island animals that no longer had pressures like predators or fluctuating climates, they had evolved so well to their cozy islands that once the environment did change (like the introduction of a predator or competing herbivore) they were rendered extinct with great prejudice, if natural evolution were to continue on how well do you think the morbidly obese idiots of the deep future will be able to survive if their environment changed?

So what? The environment it is fit to does not require that it live by its own devices. Scrawny, self sufficient chickens, that are slow growing and have little meat do not survive in this environment. The environment eliminates them. Plump, fast growing chickens, with no taste for an independent lifestyle are ideally suited to this environment and they prosper.

Again you misconstruing the argument, of course this is evolution work as it does. But is it "good"? "good" and "bad" are not determined by evolution, its simply is. Again lets ask the question of adaptability, would the factory farm chicken ever be able to live in a changed environment? extremely unlikely, it has become so specialized to being meat that any change and none would survive. Now a farm chicken when put back in a tropical environment will quickly revert to jungle fowl like appearance, but a factory farm chicken would die off in the first generation, none would breed, it is an evolutionary dead end, and so are humans if they were given enough time to adapt to a lifestyle of obesity, stupidity and apathy.

Says who? You are judging thing by some ideal concept you have of how it should be.

Yes, shame on me for wanting humans to survive and prosper.

Nature does not work that way. Evolution does not work that way. Mate selection is appropriate to the environment in which modern man finds himself (and herself).

Gee, you don't say, that what I've been saying already! Devolution is evolution its just when evolution is creating something that we would consider less fit, evolution does not care it has no value judgment, but we do, and we like to name things we apply value to, might as well argue "good" and "evil" don't exit (because they don't) but we still define them anyways, because we make abstract concepts, its an ability we might lose some day. I've be suggesting that we need to take control of our evolution, fuck nature! we have the technology or will soon, its time we go transhuman and live that life of utopia without suffering nature's drawbacks, we should move our evolution from slow and painful darwin to rapid and far more painless technological lamarckian.

Intelligence tends to rever to the norm. This is not a controversial observation. It is very well established. I am surprised you are unaware of it. If this were a strongly debated point I should feel obliged to provide citations, but for something so clear cut I really think you should do your own research on this one.

I'm surprise you have not reference it if its so well established, yes by all means continue talking out of your ass. I don't think there have been any studies to determine the drift in intelligence over generations in specific social classes, if you can find such studies please do! There are two hypothesis on the issue that I know of, that humans will be divided into two genetically distinct classes of "marching morons" and a small minority of geniuses and the "idiocracy" idea were in general all humans will get stupider, the later is unlikely as that would lead to total society collapse and if anyone survives (considering nuclear weapons and all that not likely either) the environment would once again be selecting for adaptability and intelligence (and also evil, think road warrior) the former is more likely considering cybernetic and advance eugenics were a small minority would end up diverting from the rest toward superinteligence.

[Roman]

You know fetus, all the noble, strong, fierce, symbolic animals are going extinct. What good is being a wolf, when environmental pressure demands you be a dog?

House cats will last a lot longer than lions.

[ElectricFetus]

You know fetus, all the noble, strong, fierce, symbolic animals are going extinct. What good is being a wolf, when environmental pressure demands you be a dog?

House cats will last a lot longer than lions.

Don't worry once humans go extinct those dogs will revert to being wolfs, well not the small fuck up ones like chiuauas and corgis, their doomed, see my point yet? Humans are turning into chiuauas (really really fat ones) not normal dogs which still have the ability to evolve instead of going extinct.

[Pete]

You know fetus, all the noble, strong, fierce, symbolic animals are going extinct. What good is being a wolf, when environmental pressure demands you be a dog?

House cats will last a lot longer than lions.

I think that's been the case forever. There seems to be evolutionary pressure for large, strong, species to develop, but such species also seem to be most vulnerable to environmental and ecological changes, and are thus more likely to disappear during upheavals.

[Ophiolite]

You have usefully clarified your position in your openin paragraph. However a critical weakness occurs at the end

if natural evolution were to continue on how well do you think the morbidly obese idiots of the deep future will be able to survive if their environment changed?

There are actually three quite separate issues here.
Firstly, as highlighted, your concerns only become relevant with a change in environment that makes, for example, obesity an evolutionary disadvantage.
Secondly, I'm not even sure you can demonstrate that obesity is primarily a genetic rather than a cultural issue.
Thirdly, obesity typically kills people after they have reproduced and so is largely irrelevant to evolution.

Now a farm chicken when put back in a tropical environment will quickly revert to jungle fowl like appearance, but a factory farm chicken would die off in the first generation, none would breed, it is an evolutionary dead end,

It is an evolutionary dead end? Evolution isn't going anywhere, so how can you have a dead end?

Yes, shame on me for wanting humans to survive and prosper.

You claim humans are becoming more stupid - not proven.
You claim people have falling standards for mate selection - not proven.
You claim these things will make it difficult for humans to survive and prosper. Not so. Humans are surviving and prospering. They are doing so because they are adapting to their environment - and adapting that environment to them. Evolution is alive and well and living in Swindon.

I've be suggesting that we need to take control of our evolution, fuck nature! we have the technology or will soon, its time we go transhuman and live that life of utopia without suffering nature's drawbacks, we should move our evolution from slow and painful darwin to rapid and far more painless technological lamarckian.

I sincerely hope than as we move to that situation that the decisions on what is 'good' and 'bad' are made by someone other than yourself. Regardless of what those decisions are Nature will continue to decide what is fit, fitter, and fittest.
Completely off topic: don't you think Lamarck deserves a capital in Lamarckian.

I'm surprise you have not reference it if its so well established, yes by all means continue talking out of your ass. I don't think there have been any studies to determine the drift in intelligence over generations in specific social classes, if you can find such studies please do!

Strawman argument. I stated that the drift to normal intelligence from extremes was in comparison with the parents. I said nothing about social classes. I said nothing about 'over generations'.
.

There are two hypothesis on the issue that I know of,

I'm confident that is the extent of your knowledge on the issue.

[Bishadi]

Yes but the evolution of knowledge is not Darwinian or phyical evolution,

yet that evolution has affected more mass on this earth than any other speacies currently existing

it seems that evolution of knowledge created nuclear weapons

its pseudo-lamarckian and a hell of a lot faster and provably under sentient control (us), humans genetically are at best de-evolving at this point with are technological lax lives and mass hybridizing resulting in the spreading of deleterious mutations and selection toward what ever group breeds more (the ignorant, poor, perhaps genetically moronic).

we have your post as an example even if the iPod is more important than how to make fire. So in a sense you have a point. ie... the majority in the USA would not make it without a grocery store

In conclusion if there isn't a god there will be one.

for what... to blame everything on or to beg for forgiveness; magic has never been an option. Meaning we (mankind) either evolves and develop with mind or we don't. Right now this globe is tearing itself apart because of religious beliefs basically because the morons won't evolve, by choice!

People will either evolve or be extinct, just as every species on earth.

[ElectricFetus]

Bishadi,

From a transhumanist perspective we will become god through brute technocratics. People will evolve via technology or become extinct is my argument.

You have usefully clarified your position in your openin paragraph. However a critical weakness occurs at the end. There are actually three quite separate issues here.
Firstly, as highlighted, your concerns only become relevant with a change in environment that makes, for example, obesity an evolutionary disadvantage.

You think the human race will live in Utopian conditions forever, fuck we are not even there yet, we might never even make it ever. If we managed to live for many generations more with far less strife then today we will become a race of moronic lards who will die off once conditions eventually change, and they will or is history not so?

Secondly, I'm not even sure you can demonstrate that obesity is primarily a genetic rather than a cultural issue.

No I haven't, just as much as you have yet to state proof of anything. All I saying is if a trait is cultural or genetic over time genetic disposition will occur if that trait is selected for, eventually a mutant will be genetically that way and will be indistinguishable or superior in that trait over a learn behavior and the mutation will spreed. Obesity by the way is quite genetic, most people are not design for a diet of plenty, starvation was normal, and is the normal result of any strife. If any thing we might select for thin people if only we were not selected harder for hyper-sexual people who fuck anyone no matter how fat and fugly. Obesity is not really the concern it laziness and stupidity, obesity is just the symptom.

Thirdly, obesity typically kills people after they have reproduced and so is largely irrelevant to evolution.

No shit! I'm not saying obesity is not being selected for.

It is an evolutionary dead end? Evolution isn't going anywhere, so how can you have a dead end?

What is a dodo?

You claim humans are becoming more stupid - not proven.
You claim people have falling standards for mate selection - not proven.
You claim these things will make it difficult for humans to survive and prosper. Not so. Humans are surviving and prospering. They are doing so because they are adapting to their environment - and adapting that environment to them. Evolution is alive and well and living in Swindon.

We have been talking in hypothetical this whole time and now you notice! What you call surviving and prospering I call not die off enough, even today thousand still die every day from starvation and strife, evolution in action, a horrible thing but none the less necessary by natural evolution. If we were to achieve a state of utopia in which all our needs are met for everyone, a goal we all seem to be aiming for, we will need to take evolution into our own control as it would punish us for becoming too successful, we would become extremely vulnerable to the slightest introduction of strife, like the dodo.

I sincerely hope than as we move to that situation that the decisions on what is 'good' and 'bad' are made by someone other than yourself. Regardless of what those decisions are Nature will continue to decide what is fit, fitter, and fittest.

jesus, no shit. We agreed on this point all along. Next your going to argue that the sky is blue? As for the ethics of it, what are you saying that we should find becoming fat and lazy "good" things or that you disagree with me that they are not?

Strawman argument. I stated that the drift to normal intelligence from extremes was in comparison with the parents. I said nothing about social classes. I said nothing about 'over generations'.

Well by all means I will go with that if you could provide reference.

I'm confident that is the extent of your knowledge on the issue.

I have not evidence your knowledge extends any further.

[Bishadi]

Bishadi,

From a transhumanist perspective we will become god through brute technocratics.

Sounds almost like a kursweil kind of foolish response.

Go in your back yard and plant a tree; now you are God to the universe of life surrounding that tree.

Combine with a women and make a child; now your life is living beyond your generation; literally!

Teach a child and if it is good (supports life to continue); now you live in that contribution to exist.

People will evolve via technology or become extinct is my argument.

I suppose you think we will one day upload memories into chip sets?

Impossible as memories are not binary opperations of neurons. Glial store memories as fixed structures ........ see polaritonics

You think the human race will live in Utopian conditions forever, fuck we are not even there yet, we might never even make it ever.

Bull ..... we have choice and can create life by choice.

we are already there but folk do not know what life is, and that is the error of comprehension.

we are already in Heaven and Hell at the same time........

conscious death is no different than going to sleep. The choice of the mass is gone for that period. The only real difference is a person actually believes they will awaken to have another day of choice.

If we managed to live for many generations

Einstein, Confucious, Darwin and Jesus are still alive in what they contributed of knowledge.

but that is again based on defining what 'life' actually is rather than observing beliefs and ideas.

ie... to splash a pond; many suggest the wave will equilibriate but in reality the energy is entangling more mass as well no matter which direction you observe true; the energy still exists and will forever, if caused. (and man can do this by choice)

We all are already like God's in that we can create life, support life to continue and do this by choice.

Here are the rules that comply with all that exists:

good: supports life to contine

bad: loss to the common.

Life: purposed to continue!

these rules are pure to the universe and the math to prove this, is what the paradigm shift is about to correct, so that for once in the period of existence mass can know how it exists and how to live forever by choice

logic, math and experience do and will combine; the pinnacle of man's evolution!

[ElectricFetus]

Bishadi,

Becoming god is the sense of being immortal being at least Omnipotent to our present selves as we are to amoebas. Evolution and natural existence runs on death and suffering, many will die in selecting the "fittest". Changing the definition of life to make death acceptable does not mean that there is not a more efficient alternative: imagine a world were no one need suffers, were memory and information can remain perfectly intact forever, were adaption to new problems is achieved at a sentient level with rapid speed.

I'm not going to question the nature of the technology for become transhuman, if its going to be uploading minds it will most definitely be done by emulating minds using some kind of analog field programmable gate matrix using technology that may still be beyond our present imagination.

There is no such thing as pure good and bad or at least that is a controversy amou8ng philosophers for centuries. You can believe in what is good and bad, but there is no proof that is true.

[Bishadi]

Bishadi,

Becoming god is the sense of being immortal being at least Omnipotent to our present selves

that is what it means to you, perhaps

None ever to walk this earth ever were or will be in that capacity unless you consider creating an airplanes from raw materials 'omnipotent' to an amoebas.

and in a real sense, it is!

But waiving a magic wand and sitting on a thrown are foolish man-created ideas.

Evolution and natural existence runs on death and suffering, many will die in selecting the "fittest".

but most life doesn't know that. Instinct in pretty much a natural attempt to exist and continue 'its' existence.

ie... to eat, procreate as life is 'purposed to continue'

Changing the definition of life to make death acceptable does not mean that there is not a more efficient alternative:

Perhaps defining life upon mass in reality is what reveals what life is, rather than just changing an idea for acceptance. Science is not religious to belief but evolves to further comprehension. And all we are is mass that can think about it and describe itself.

imagine a world were no one need suffers,

i often say, learn the lesson from a car wreck. Such that no suffering is observed but to learn from the experience. The car is but a tool, not your life. Same with your arms and legs; they are not your life, they are tools to support life.

Quality of life does not define it.

were memory and information can remain perfectly intact forever,

alzheimers shares that memories are affixed to the body not a spirit of mind

were adaption to new problems is achieved at a sentient level with rapid speed.

nothing faster than the mind and the amount of data it can assemble

then to understand that each step you make is the 'wake' of your life, then to be able to know good and bad grounded in nature and reality can be acheived

I'm not going to question the nature of the technology for become transhuman, if its going to be uploading minds it will most definitely be done by emulating minds using some kind of analog field programmable gate matrix using technology that may still be beyond our present imagination.

best not even go there as i can share a bunch of data sharing th analog frame has maxed out; slamming Moore's Law

the next frame is in a form called polartonics in which a wavelength can be imposed to mass and returned in value. Like putting a picture on the wall and then to look at it you see the values thereof.

There is no such thing as pure good and bad or at least that is a controversy amou8ng philosophers for centuries.

that is because the models have been grounded by opinions and cultural perspectives not nature and reality; (indigenous are a little different)


when in reality good and bad can be grounded in nature and life, which is basically the purpose of knowing choice in the first place; for mass to comprehend itself and further the life of

You can believe in what is good and bad, but there is no proof that is true.

test the rules and share any error

good: supports life to continue

bad: loss to the common...

think of man as being the consciousness of (within) God; we can experience existence and choose to do good for life or be self purposed within existence


what enables this understanding is to comprehend the life of mass (living structures)

by combining the renditions from the globe over, there is a combining framework most all of the greats have been pointing at.

[ElectricFetus]

Bishadi,

I never said "waving a wand" or "sitting on throne" is the ultimate goal of transhumanism. Nor does it matter what life "knows" we know, we know what we don't like about life, we can try to fix that, is that so hard a concept?

Now if you want to base good and bad off of what nature and evolution do then by all means become Hitler. I stick with neutral altruism thank you very much.

[Bishadi]

Bishadi,

I never said "waving a wand" or "sitting on throne" is the ultimate goal of transhumanism.

perhaps not as one of the 'units' but the system would become 'borg' as some additions would become obsolete.

The whole transhuman idea has been visited

Nor does it matter what life "knows" we know, we know what we don't like about life, we can try to fix that, is that so hard a concept?

that correction is what the pinnacle of man's evolution is all about; Mass (mankind) comprehending its existence (in truth). ie... existnce only operates ONE way, the rest are opinions. That is why many heads are better than one. As time has passed then the combining WILL exist.

Now if you want to base good and bad off of what nature and evolution do then by all means become Hitler. I stick with neutral altruism thank you very much.

How is it that life has existed almost forever and mankind is about to destroy itself in less than a hundred years of nuclear knowledge?

Altruism is a concept of pursuing truth with honor and integrity over the self.

So i ask, do you know the laws of nature as they apply in fact to all of existence, equally?

here is a little on my philosophy


“To live in accordance with the essence of things, is the premise of the moral life. One cannot live in peace of mind without at the same time being in harmony with reality.”

“The premises of a moral life is based on a covenant with reality.”

“No life is authentic that is in conflict with the order of the universe.”


And not knowing the order of the universe constitutes a serious handicap in living a moral life!



need i mention who wrote these my altruistic friend

same person who shares

"virtue was the most valuable of all possessions; the ideal life was spent in search of the Good. Truth lies beneath the shadows of existence, and that it is the job of the philosopher to show the rest how little they really know."

and 'good' is to by choice........ 'support life to continue'

what motivates you?

[ElectricFetus]

Bishadi,

You do relies you gone far beyond human evolution and into metaphysics asking and defining reasons for existence? I be interested in discussing metaphysics if only I could get really high right now.