Chris - good points. Thanks.
I've responded to Ian's posting, so I will leave further
discusson of both intelligence and sleep as being contrary to
evolution to that response. Your point about survival of the fittest
as a tautology is a good one. Nevertheless, what I meant, and what I
think most mean by the phrase, is that environmental pressures and the
natural tendency for mutations to occur combine to result in survival
of those mutations best adapted to the changing environment. Seems
logical. BUT then how about sleep and intelligence - why do we still
sleep and why didn't the reptilian class develop geniuses during their
200 million plus years of dominance? Any ideas?
Thank you for calling my attention to Teilhard de Chardin. I
don't know how I had not come across him earlier, but I had not. My
first problem is that he was a Jesuit priest, and that his view of the
unfolding cosmos presumes a God toward which all trends. I assume this
is the god of the bible. Which for me is another problem. First I
consider the bible to be simply and only a bunch of campfire stories.
But even accepting them as true, why would anyone believe in a God
that required his first beliver, Abraham, to take his son out back and
kill him, that to win a bet put Job through hell on earth, and that
put his "only begotten son" here to die a death of prolonged torture?
No thanks. Such a god is not for me.
But I do accept that there is an infinite spirit, a universal
consciousness, that pervades all and may well be an omega point toward
which all progresses. Interesting. I have to look into Teilhard more.
Care to respond to these outlandish views of mine about the bible and
God? I hope so. Jim
On Jul 15, 11:09 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
> For further clarification, survives means survives long enough to procreate.
> Therefore, evolutionarily, a chav teenage mother is "fitter" than a childless
> octogenarian billionaire.
>
>
>
> [ Attached Message ]From:frantheman <[email protected]>To:"\"Minds
> Eye\"" <[email protected]>Date:Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:13:31 -0700
> (PDT)Local:Wed, Jul 15 2009 9:13 amSubject:[Mind's Eye] Re: Darwin's
> exceptions?
>
> I think Ian has answered the two questions you set out pretty well,
> jim.
>
> With regard to evolution, on strictly scientific terms, we must be
> careful not to imply any kind of purpose to it. In a strict sense, the
> term "survival of the fittest" is a tautology - that which is fittest
> survives, what qualifies it as "fittest" is the fact that it survives.
> The evolutionary process does not "know" beforehand, what is fitter
> and select this; adaptation and mutation happen all the time,
> frequently on a random basis. What works, works. What doesn't,
> disappears. And all of this is in a state of constant living dynamism.
> Biological history contains many examples of more or less balanced
> ecological systems over long periods which suddenly became unstable
> because of the sudden introduction of a new factor; in recent history,
> the effect of human arrival in New Zealand is one of the more
> spectacular examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moa). Seen from
> this point of view, the question about sleep becomes largely
> meaningless - if a biological entity can sleep and survive, then it is
> fit enough to sleep and survive.
>
> It can be argued that, at least in terrestrial history, the evolution
> of intelligence/(self-)consciousness has thrown a major new variable
> into the evolutionary equation. We only need to look at the huge
> ecological changes initiated worldwide in the evolutionary-biological
> instant since homo sapiens sapiens emerged as a significant group in
> the past 50,000 years (in particular since the emergence of
> agriculture in the past 10,000 years). Whether the story of our (self-)
> conscious intelligent species is one of enduring success or a bush-
> fire phenomenon remains open.
>
> We are, of course, free to put forward models of regarding biology and
> history which include the aspect of purpose in the evolutionary
> process. Teilhard de Chardin's teleological scientific-religious
> spirituality/vision is one such (and a rather beautiful one at that).
> But such views go far beyond what a strictly scientific view of
> evolution (as first put forward by Darwin and developed by many other
> scientists since) can support.
>
> Francis
>
> On 14 Jul., 19:35, retiredjim34 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I understand one basic premise of the theory of evolution,
> > survival of the fittest prefers individuals that live longer, breed
> > faster and leave more progeny. Yet two traits we possess – sleep and
> > intelligence – seem to contradict this preference.
> > Sleep works against survival for, while sleeping, an individual can
> > hardly defend against attack and consumption. So evolution would seem
> > to have selected those individuals needing less and less sleep, until
> > sleep would no longer be needed. Yet today, maybe one billion years
> > after speciation began, we still need our 8 hours of sleep.
> > Intelligence also seems to disprove the all-encompassing scope of
> > evolution. Those individuals better able to recall experience and
> > predict the future would have an advantage in food-gathering, mate
> > selection and progeny protection. Yet we hardly seem smarter today
> > than humans living thousands of years ago.
> > Are these traits exceptions to evolution? Are there other
> > exceptions?
> > I expect so. But no one discusses them. Why not?
>
> >
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
""Minds Eye"" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
