All scientists click here

Boltzmann · Dec 15, 2004

エッリー said:
Whether that purpose is "cosmical" , "humanly justified" or whatever, it remains a purpose for a life, hence why I think that statement of yours is wrong.

You're quoting me out of context.
I was replying to a question made by Kazuya about the purpose of life in the universe.

He asked "When/why the universe need living organism?"

And I said that there's no purpose at all. Just physical processes.

As __Xzyx987X pointed out, the fact that humans can assign a purpose to their lives goes without saying.

You made a very bad straw man argument just to prove me wrong...

_E_ · Dec 15, 2004

You're missing the point, so whatever you say....

Yours,
-Elly

Boltzmann · Dec 15, 2004

I think you're the one missing the point here, so whatever you say as well

WindHydra · Dec 15, 2004

I thought (lightly

) about purpose of life too... and couldn't find any :/ There is reason (and purpose) for someone to want to live, but why you are alive in the first place has no purpose, except maybe to your parents.

And there was a time when I use memory editors to edit games and came to a SHOCKING CONCLUSION!

:
God forgot about us! That's why there are no more miracles!! It was just a game...

Kazuya · Dec 16, 2004

Thanks Boltzmann. That's the kind of answer i wanted to hear as it finally put my ideas in order. Is just a process of mere chance.

Elly, the point is that reason and purpose are 2 different things. You can assing a purpose to your life as everybody else. The reason why we exist may be one of the next 2:
-Mere chance as every element/atom/insert whatever you want/ is building something more and more complex until it reaches what we call a human being.
- God is the reason why we exist and i'm thinking you are included in this second statement. You could also argue that he also gave us a purpòse but since you may think that reason and purpose are almost the same thing i could say that we are getting too grammatical here :lol:

When i wrote the first statement one idea came to my mind (yes, it can happen given some amount of time....)
Atoms formed elements then they built inanimate objects, then living beings (i'm not being exact here, you get the idea) and finally us. Are we the final "thing" that can be formed from the original elements? I hope somebody understand what i'm trying to say. My bed is calling me badly and my brain just turned off a few sentences ago :lol:

I-Chan · Dec 16, 2004

I'm having an strong disagreement with myself because of your question Kazuya. I was about to answer along the lines of "our evolution haven't stopped yet", but... It's a biological evolution, based on the same carbone (carbono in spanish, 'C', not sure about it's exact name in english) chemistry than that of unicellular organisms. So maybe, from a chemical standpoint, this is the higher level of complexity, but that's a question that Boltz, Klatch, Proto or Galv will have to answer

.

Even with evolution, i was wondering if nowadays evolution is posible. I mean, if someday a baby is born with some kind of "new feature", due to a new evolutionary step, wouldn't him be marked as a monster instead? Maybe even treated to "correct" his "mutation"?

Anyway, i think both paths has an easy answer, be it particle colliders for the chemical/physical way, or bioengineering for the evolutionary path, though it wouldn't be a "natural" evolution of the universe... So i'd change your question, if you allow me, to "are we the final natural 'result' of the universe?" .

Wish something of all this made any sense

Boltzmann · Dec 16, 2004

I-Chan said:
I'm having an strong disagreement with myself because of your question Kazuya. I was about to answer along the lines of "our evolution haven't stopped yet", but... It's a biological evolution, based on the same carbone (carbono in spanish, 'C', not sure about it's exact name in english) chemistry than that of unicellular organisms. So maybe, from a chemical standpoint, this is the higher level of complexity, but that's a question that Boltz, Klatch, Proto or Galv will have to answer .

In english you call it "carbon"

Biological evolution has no kind of "higher point". Carbon is apparently the best atom you can get, from a chemistry PoV, but in no way it limits the possibilities of evolution. Just look at all the kinds of carbon-based life forms around you. And they're just a tiny fraction of the total number of possible life forms.

If you think about it in evolutionary terms, both humans and modern cockroaches are at the same evolutionary level. There's no "better" organism, nor a final destination for the evolutionary process. Just imagine what would happen if a new Ice Age came upon the world a century from now. The required fitness gradients would be very different, and you’d see massive extinctions in thousands of species and the subsequent appearance of several new species (all stemming from the previously existing species).

I-Chan said:
Even with evolution, i was wondering if nowadays evolution is posible. I mean, if someday a baby is born with some kind of "new feature", due to a new evolutionary step, wouldn't him be marked as a monster instead? Maybe even treated to "correct" his "mutation"?

Human society has mitigated lots of the effects of natural selection. The physically and mentally handicapped are no longer killed in their infant days, nor are people with inborn diseases doomed to die miserably in their early days.
Can you really say that natural selection is a good thing? I cannot. Natural selection is the closest thing to evil that you can find in nature. It’s pitiless, merciless. So, the fact that human society and culture get in the way of part of natural selection’s work is not a bad thing at all.

Natural selection has served its purpose. Artificial selection, guided by human hands, can do a much better job now. BTW, please note that I’m not suggesting any kind of eugenics here. Eugenics is just as bad as natural selection, and morally it’s worse. When I talk about artificial selection and human guided evolution, I’m talking about technologically enhanced human beings, choosing their own enhancements out of their own volitions.

BTW, I think that you’ve misunderstood the nature of mutations in evolutionary theory. A “mutant”, in the evolutionary, neodarwinian, sense would not be perceived as a “monster” among his peers. Mutations must be very gradual, or else they are statistically impossible (or very, very improbable). A mutant, in evolutionary terms could be someone with a slightly better digestive enzyme, or more efficient red blood cells. It doesn’t need to be something as dramatic as you’re suggesting (maybe you’ve read some theories from the beginning of the century about the “hopeful monster” and got carried away

).

Now I hope you can see why human society hampers natural selection. In our ancient past, a human with a slightly better red blood cell would be able to, say, outrun a predator and stay alive, where his less fortunate companions failed. Thus, the “mutant” would, on average, leave more descendants, all of them carrying the mutant gene for better red blood cells. Thus, the allelic frequency of the gene for red blood cells would change over time (evolve), reflecting the differential reproductive success of its bearers. In current human society, you don’t have to outrun predators, and even a physically unfit human being (like me) can stay alive and reproduce if he wants to. There’s no more need for a nature “red in tooth and claws” (to use Tennyson’s famous phrase).

I-Chan · Dec 16, 2004

Boltzmann said:
In english you call it "carbon"

Thank u

Boltzmann said:
Biological evolution has no kind of "higher point". Carbon is apparently the best atom you can get, from a chemistry PoV, but in no way it limits the possibilities of evolution. Just look at all the kinds of carbon-based life forms around you. And they're just a tiny fraction of the total number of possible life forms.

That was more or less what i was trying to express when i compared us with unicellular organisms

. I understand that chemically, it's the same complexity level, and that it's unrelated to evolution. That's why i had the opossing ideas, as "we can still evolve as life forms, but no as atomical combinations".

Boltzmann said:
If you think about it in evolutionary terms, both humans and modern cockroaches are at the same evolutionary level. There's no "better" organism, nor a final destination for the evolutionary process. Just imagine what would happen if a new Ice Age came upon the world a century from now. The required fitness gradients would be very different, and you’d see massive extinctions in thousands of species and the subsequent appearance of several new species (all stemming from the previously existing species).

I disagree here. If i understood evolution correctly, it's about the development of a better capability to survive on a given environment. Humans are the best organism on Earth when compared to that condition. Humans can fit on almsot each and every environment of the earth. We can even survive on space, or on different planets. I know it's not our body but our technology what allows that, but it's our brain what makes technology possible, and brain is the first point you'll raise when talking about mankind's evolutionary development. So if evoultion is about survival of the more fitting, we humans are the best known organism without a doubt. So if an environmental cataclysm was to happen, not only we have great chances of knowing it beforehand, but also lots of possibilities to develop the way to survive it.

Boltzmann said:
Human society has mitigated lots of the effects of natural selection. The physically and mentally handicapped are no longer killed in their infant days, nor are people with inborn diseases doomed to die miserably in their early days.
Can you really say that natural selection is a good thing? I cannot. Natural selection is the closest thing to evil that you can find in nature. It’s pitiless, merciless. So, the fact that human society and culture get in the way of part of natural selection’s work is not a bad thing at all.

I don't find natural selection evil at all. It's been an efficient way to develop better organisms with time. You and i wouldn't be possible without it, so i can't see anything bad about it.

Boltzmann said:
Natural selection has served its purpose. Artificial selection, guided by human hands, can do a much better job now. BTW, please note that I’m not suggesting any kind of eugenics here. Eugenics is just as bad as natural selection, and morally it’s worse. When I talk about artificial selection and human guided evolution, I’m talking about technologically enhanced human beings, choosing their own enhancements out of their own volitions.

Now, of course, artificial development of the race it's a better alternative now (or in the short term future)

Boltzmann said:
BTW, I think that you’ve misunderstood the nature of mutations in evolutionary theory. A “mutant”, in the evolutionary, neodarwinian, sense would not be perceived as a “monster” among his peers. Mutations must be very gradual, or else they are statistically impossible (or very, very improbable). A mutant, in evolutionary terms could be someone with a slightly better digestive enzyme, or more efficient red blood cells. It doesn’t need to be something as dramatic as you’re suggesting (maybe you’ve read some theories from the beginning of the century about the “hopeful monster” and got carried away ).

I was thinking about it when i posted my previous message, but discarded it because of what you explain now:

Boltzmann said:
Now I hope you can see why human society hampers natural selection. In our ancient past, a human with a slightly better red blood cell would be able to, say, outrun a predator and stay alive, where his less fortunate companions failed. Thus, the “mutant” would, on average, leave more descendants, all of them carrying the mutant gene for better red blood cells. Thus, the allelic frequency of the gene for red blood cells would change over time (evolve), reflecting the differential reproductive success of its bearers. In current human society, you don’t have to outrun predators, and even a physically unfit human being (like me) can stay alive and reproduce if he wants to. There’s no more need for a nature “red in tooth and claws” (to use Tennyson’s famous phrase).

So the only way for a mutation to really lead to evolution right now would be to be a radical one, as the ones you described have as much possibilities to survive in the race as a "regression", that is, a genetical weakness. And we can see it everyday. Lots of new inherited syndromes and weaknesses (or not that new, but never that extended) are appearing lately. Is incredible how we stopped (or hampered

) natural evolution, and then try to hamper stem cell research and the likes too, when it's the only way we can keep on developing for the better

ChankastRules · Dec 16, 2004

Acctually I think the universe wouldn't have a purpose without living organisms.

Boltzmann · Dec 16, 2004

I-Chan said:
That was more or less what i was trying to express when i compared us with unicellular organisms . I understand that chemically, it's the same complexity level, and that it's unrelated to evolution. That's why i had the opossing ideas, as "we can still evolve as life forms, but no as atomical combinations".

Then it seems that I misunderstood your question. Which chemical elements are used in living beings are subject to natural selection too, so we can call it a biochemical evolution. Apparently, carbon is the best element for the job, that’s for sure. So we can really say that evolution stopped at this point. But we can say the same regarding DNA. DNA, as a molecule, stopped changing its structure some 2 billion years ago. DNA forms a highly stable configuration, so we can expect natural selection to keep it. Carbon also forms highly stable compounds (not to mention its other advantages), so selection pressures also kept carbon as the element of choice.

I-Chan said:
I disagree here. If i understood evolution correctly, it's about the development of a better capability to survive on a given environment. Humans are the best organism on Earth when compared to that condition. Humans can fit on almsot each and every environment of the earth. We can even survive on space, or on different planets. I know it's not our body but our technology what allows that, but it's our brain what makes technology possible, and brain is the first point you'll raise when talking about mankind's evolutionary development. So if evoultion is about survival of the more fitting, we humans are the best known organism without a doubt. So if an environmental cataclysm was to happen, not only we have great chances of knowing it beforehand, but also lots of possibilities to develop the way to survive it.

You’ve got it right, but you let human hubris get in your way.
Natural selection favors organisms that are able to reproduce more in a given environment. But what constitutes an environment? Cockroaches are highly successful in their own environment (and note that their environment includes the human race and other species).
All modern species are equally successful in surviving on their own environments. If they were not successful, natural selection would wipe them out of existence. As I’ve said before, natural selection is merciless.

I-Chan said:
I don't find natural selection evil at all. It's been an efficient way to develop better organisms with time. You and i wouldn't be possible without it, so i can't see anything bad about it.

I’m only saying that it’s evil as it applies to sentient beings. Most respected evolutionary biologists share this opinion.

Let’s see if I can explain it with an analogy:

Imagine a school where the top 3 students in each class every year go to the next grade, while the rest of their class is shot dead because they failed.

This is what natural selection does to living beings. It has served its purpose, I don’t dispute that, but there’re better, more humane alternatives. Even die-hard neodarwinists like Richard Dawkins (one of my heroes, BTW) agree with this. Natural selection is amoral. It only cares about reproductive fitness. You and I certainly value many more things than just reproductive fitness, right?

I-Chan said:
Now, of course, artificial development of the race it's a better alternative now (or in the short term future)

I’d rather say development of the individual. Talking about the development of the race sounds too much like eugenics.

I-Chan said:
So the only way for a mutation to really lead to evolution right now would be to be a radical one, as the ones you described have as much possibilities to survive in the race as a "regression", that is, a genetical weakness. And we can see it everyday. Lots of new inherited syndromes and weaknesses (or not that new, but never that extended) are appearing lately. Is incredible how we stopped (or hampered ) natural evolution, and then try to hamper stem cell research and the likes too, when it's the only way we can keep on developing for the better

In our ancient past hereditary syndromes, like Down’s, were not even known. Its bearers died quickly in their infancy, and never survived into adulthood. Natural selection takes no mercy on the physically or mentally handicapped, as I’ve said before, but we can do better as human beings. The most humane thing to do is to give a chance to everyone, and treatments like gene therapy with stem cell research seem to be the most important in this regard, at least today.

To try to stop this progress in the name of some vaguely understood (and ill-defined) “human nature” is plainly wrong. The same goes for the people who argue that we humans are trying to “play god”.

I-Chan · Dec 16, 2004

Boltzmann said:
You’ve got it right, but you let human hubris get in your way.
Natural selection favors organisms that are able to reproduce more in a given environment. But what constitutes an environment? Cockroaches are highly successful in their own environment (and note that their environment includes the human race and other species).
All modern species are equally successful in surviving on their own environments. If they were not successful, natural selection would wipe them out of existence. As I’ve said before, natural selection is merciless.

But humans are highly succesful in most environments. Us humans aren't developed to survive on extreme cold temperatures, and have our fair share on hot ones. Regardless, we have scientific bases on the south pole, and there are entire nations that live on deserts. Again, we can survive in the space, whereas cockroaches would not. Sure, a cockroach in a shuttle would survive, but cockroaches don't build shuttles

. That's why IMHO humans can say, without the slightest doubt, that are evolutionary ahead of cockroaches

. While others adapt to their environments, we can either create protected environments inside others, or adapt them to suits us. As that's a result of aour evolutioned brain, i think it has to be taken into consideration in this regard.

Boltzmann said:
I’m only saying that it’s evil as it applies to sentient beings. Most respected evolutionary biologists share this opinion.

Let’s see if I can explain it with an analogy:

Imagine a school where the top 3 students in each class every year go to the next grade, while the rest of their class is shot dead because they failed.

This is what natural selection does to living beings. It has served its purpose, I don’t dispute that, but there’re better, more humane alternatives. Even die-hard neodarwinists like Richard Dawkins (one of my heroes, BTW) agree with this. Natural selection is amoral. It only cares about reproductive fitness. You and I certainly value many more things than just reproductive fitness, right?

Of course i agree, i'm not a na:zi yet

. I just was stating that it's efficient. If you keep alive only the brightest, you'll more probably end with a smarter race - evolution has shown this to be true. As you said, we are not mother nature but humans. Provided we can come to understand the inner process behind nature fully (that is, the whole needed knowledge about physics, chemistry, biological science, etc), and we can give it a sense and a purpose, we will probably be able to do it better in the future. Besides, there's only one part of reproduction i care about

.

Boltzmann said:
I’d rather say development of the individual. Talking about the development of the race sounds too much like eugenics.

Ummm there are some changes that i think should be done to the whole race, as eliminating hereditary illnesses, providing enhanced defenses, and efficient versions of our actual muscle and brains. Maybe i'm alone in this, but as it's more or less clear that natural evolution will have a hard time introducing the changes, we should do it.

Boltzmann said:
In our ancient past hereditary syndromes, like Down’s, were not even known. Its bearers died quickly in their infancy, and never survived into adulthood. Natural selection takes no mercy on the physically or mentally handicapped, as I’ve said before, but we can do better as human beings. The most humane thing to do is to give a chance to everyone, and treatments like gene therapy with stem cell research seem to be the most important in this regard, at least today.

To try to stop this progress in the name of some vaguely understood (and ill-defined) “human nature” is plainly wrong. The same goes for the people who argue that we humans are trying to “play god”.

I totally agree with you. Nature is not perfect, and human reproduction sometimes includes "replication errors". As nowadays this error won't be automatically wiped out, nor will we do it (that would be evil

), we have the moral duty to correct them.

Boltzmann · Dec 16, 2004

I-Chan said:
But humans are highly succesful in most environments. Us humans aren't developed to survive on extreme cold temperatures, and have our fair share on hot ones. Regardless, we have scientific bases on the south pole, and there are entire nations that live on deserts. Again, we can survive in the space, whereas cockroaches would not. Sure, a cockroach in a shuttle would survive, but cockroaches don't build shuttles . That's why IMHO humans can say, without the slightest doubt, that are evolutionary ahead of cockroaches . While others adapt to their environments, we can either create protected environments inside others, or adapt them to suits us. As that's a result of aour evolutioned brain, i think it has to be taken into consideration in this regard.

You’re being anthropocentric here. The fact is that humans and cockroaches are alive today, so both species are fit in regard to their environment. Dinosaurs ceased to be fit 65 million years ago, so they went extinct.

Saying that humans are “better” because we can survive a wider range of environments (because our extended phenotype allows it) is just human hubris. Evolution is not about being “better”, but about procreating more and staying alive. Cockroaches are highly successful life forms – they’ve been around far longer than humans, BTW

I-Chan said:
Besides, there's only one part of reproduction i care about .

I don’t know why, but I’ve a feeling that I know what this part is, and that I agree with you :evil:

I-Chan said:
Ummm there are some changes that i think should be done to the whole race, as eliminating hereditary illnesses, providing enhanced defenses, and efficient versions of our actual muscle and brains. Maybe i'm alone in this, but as it's more or less clear that natural evolution will have a hard time introducing the changes, we should do it.

I tend to think like this too, yet I’d still subject everything to individual volitions. You cannot force someone who is alive now to get such enhancements, just like you cannot force anyone to get a college degree.

But elimination of hereditary illness through genetic therapy is a moral duty towards the future children, so I think it should be compulsory (note that this is a far cry from 20th century eugenics, where the parents deemed unfit would be sterilized against their wills. Here we’re talking about removing the source of the disease and allowing parents to have healthy children).

blueshogun96 · Dec 16, 2004

Uh oh, I think I started another war oO :railgun: :akimbo: :shockwhor :redrush: :smilylaze
:ak: :rocket: :laser: :mg:

Boltzmann · Dec 16, 2004

This war between me and I-Chan is pretty benign, don't worry about it

In fact, we're agreeing on almost everything, except the part about the human race being superior

blueshogun96 · Dec 16, 2004

Boltzmann said:
except the part about the human race being superior

It is, no disrespect, but I don't care how much science you throw at that :lol:

Boltzmann · Dec 16, 2004

blueshogun96 said:
It is, no disrespect, but I don't care how much science you throw at that :lol:

I expect this kind of answer. We humans are biased toward ourselves; it's an evolutionary issue :lol:

I-Chan · Dec 16, 2004

I will always think that a race that can build it's own evolution and future is better than... cockroaches

. If we can span our environment, thus providing a wider range of places were to stablish and reproduce, how can't that be considered as being more fitting, and so more evolved?? You know we will be colognizing another planets in a relatively short amount of time (evolution relatively

), giving us the oportunity to raise our population anormously. That for me is being more fitting. And yes, i'm biased towards me before than towards a mere bug!!

blueshogun96 · Dec 16, 2004

I do belive in evolution to a certain extent (but I don't swear by it). So evolution is a VERY slow process, so slow humans don't notice

WindHydra · Dec 16, 2004

Actually humans and cockroaches used different strategies... Humans change enviroment to fit themselves, cockroaches change themselves to fit the enviroments.

There is no point of saying who's "better" because an e-bomb has to potential to wipe out a great portion (of city population :lol

of the human race but will do close to no damage to cockroaches. If human lost the ability to change enviroment, they are doomed oO

Radix865 · Dec 17, 2004

WindHydra, it's called evolution... Species change to survive in the new enviroment. We are just so stupid that we kill and destroy everything to get it work like we want it to work...

All scientists click here

Boltzmann

_E_

Boltzmann

WindHydra

Kazuya

I-Chan

Boltzmann

I-Chan

ChankastRules

Boltzmann

I-Chan

Boltzmann

blueshogun96

Boltzmann

blueshogun96

Boltzmann

I-Chan

blueshogun96

WindHydra

Radix865

Top Contributors this Month

Recommended Communities