First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Controlled Evolution
Posted 8/22/08

tweety_cool wrote:


zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

I don't know honestly. With this, we could evolve so much so quick, and could make life so much better. But taking away natural selection, all humans will get good gene's, then over population....problems etc etc.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's.


making manipulation in gens might be also part of natural selection.


No, because changing something with your hands is not natural. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, is not making everything equally fit, its letting nature take its course and kill off the weak.


is human not part of nature? what we do is part of nature. The gen that is good for us is the fittest; therefore they survive. The agent of natural selection can be anything.


dmitsuki is wrong. It is "Survival of the Luckiest" rather than the "Fittest."


LOL, yeah. the fittest might be the luckiest.

@dmitsuki

Human are part of nature, and so the behavior are also part of nature. You might think we control them, but we are controlled by the fact that we need something of that genes. Humans are not the only creature that " try to control" nature, yet we only recognized ourselves as the only one who manipulate. At large scale, we are and what we are doing are part of natural selection.

By that definition of natural, everything that occurs is natural, even things that do not happen in the natural world, which are by definition, not natural. And humans do control our own behavior, "suicide" is a unnatural illogical life.

We are the only creatures that try to control nature, while other creatures may use it to there advantage, I have never seen a ant do a rain dance to make the rain stop.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

I don't know honestly. With this, we could evolve so much so quick, and could make life so much better. But taking away natural selection, all humans will get good gene's, then over population....problems etc etc.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's.


making manipulation in gens might be also part of natural selection.


No, because changing something with your hands is not natural. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, is not making everything equally fit, its letting nature take its course and kill off the weak.


is human not part of nature? what we do is part of nature. The gen that is good for us is the fittest; therefore they survive. The agent of natural selection can be anything.


dmitsuki is wrong. It is "Survival of the Luckiest" rather than the "Fittest."


LOL, yeah. the fittest might be the luckiest.

@dmitsuki

Human are part of nature, and so the behavior are also part of nature. You might think we control them, but we are controlled by the fact that we need something of that genes. Humans are not the only creature that " try to control" nature, yet we only recognized ourselves as the only one who manipulate. At large scale, we are and what we are doing are part of natural selection.

By that definition of natural, everything that occurs is natural, even things that do not happen in the natural world, which are by definition, not natural. And humans do control our own behavior, "suicide" is a unnatural illogical life.

We are the only creatures that try to control nature, while other creatures may use it to there advantage, I have never seen a ant do a rain dance to make the rain stop.


what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.

Posted 8/22/08

tweety_cool wrote:

[
what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.



The difference between something using a flood to its advantage, and a person making it rain to create a flood that it can then use how it wishes, is one is controlling nature. You know about artificial things right? Artificial rain is not natural. Artificial genes are not natural. Nature are things that develop by themselves just through a general course of being, and something that is artificial is man made. In the sense that nature is everything that is in the natural world, even artificial things are natural, but I am not using nature in that definition, but more in the definition of natural things vs artificial things.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

zendude wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

I don't know honestly. With this, we could evolve so much so quick, and could make life so much better. But taking away natural selection, all humans will get good gene's, then over population....problems etc etc.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's.


making manipulation in gens might be also part of natural selection.


No, because changing something with your hands is not natural. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, is not making everything equally fit, its letting nature take its course and kill off the weak.


is human not part of nature? what we do is part of nature. The gen that is good for us is the fittest; therefore they survive. The agent of natural selection can be anything.


dmitsuki is wrong. It is "Survival of the Luckiest" rather than the "Fittest."

The luckiest to be the fittest.


The dinosaurs were pretty fit, but what the hell happened to them. I stand by my dogma- "Survival of the Luckiest."


well they don't fit anymore as those things in theory happened. LOL, yeah they are unlucky.
Posted 8/22/08

tweety_cool wrote:

[
what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.



The difference between something using a flood to its advantage, and a person making it rain to create a flood that it can then use how it wishes, is one is controlling nature. You know about artificial things right? Artificial rain is not natural. Artificial genes are not natural. Nature are things that develop by themselves just through a general course of being, and something that is artificial is man made. In the sense that nature is everything that is in the natural world, even artificial things are natural, but I am not using nature in that definition, but more in the definition of natural things
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

[
what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.



The difference between something using a flood to its advantage, and a person making it rain to create a flood that it can then use how it wishes, is one is controlling nature. You know about artificial things right? Artificial rain is not natural. Artificial genes are not natural. Nature are things that develop by themselves just through a general course of being, and something that is artificial is man made. In the sense that nature is everything that is in the natural world, even artificial things are natural, but I am not using nature in that definition, but more in the definition of natural things vs artificial things.


hmm? yes, I won't deny what me make is artificial, but our act itself is natural. We are trying to survive, and so we are trying to eliminate what is not fit for us. And that is still a natural selection. The fact that we use technology and stuff does not change the fact it is natural selection.
Posted 8/22/08

zendude wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


zendude wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:

I don't know honestly. With this, we could evolve so much so quick, and could make life so much better. But taking away natural selection, all humans will get good gene's, then over population....problems etc etc.

I guess the con's outweigh the pro's.


making manipulation in gens might be also part of natural selection.


No, because changing something with your hands is not natural. Natural selection, survival of the fittest, whatever you want to call it, is not making everything equally fit, its letting nature take its course and kill off the weak.


is human not part of nature? what we do is part of nature. The gen that is good for us is the fittest; therefore they survive. The agent of natural selection can be anything.


dmitsuki is wrong. It is "Survival of the Luckiest" rather than the "Fittest."

The luckiest to be the fittest.


The dinosaurs were pretty fit, but what the hell happened to them. I stand by my dogma- "Survival of the Luckiest."


Had the dinosaurs adapted in a way to fit the new environment they were presented to, which was post meteor environment, they wouldn't have gone exctient. They were not able to adapt quickly enough to there surroundings, and they all died. The animals who were able to survive in the environment, lived, aka, natural selection, aka, survival of the fittest.
Posted 8/22/08

zendude wrote:

Anyways, by your logic, the fittest of the species are bacterias.


Bacteria have no morals to get in there way of advancing and can survive in the most harsh of environments. All life comes from single celled organisms like this, once all life ends, these are the only things that will not. Also, its not my logic, its the logic of countless scientist and scientific research. I'm SURE you know who Darwin is right?
Posted 8/22/08

tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

[
what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.



The difference between something using a flood to its advantage, and a person making it rain to create a flood that it can then use how it wishes, is one is controlling nature. You know about artificial things right? Artificial rain is not natural. Artificial genes are not natural. Nature are things that develop by themselves just through a general course of being, and something that is artificial is man made. In the sense that nature is everything that is in the natural world, even artificial things are natural, but I am not using nature in that definition, but more in the definition of natural things vs artificial things.


hmm? yes, I won't deny what me make is artificial, but our act itself is natural. We are trying to survive, and so we are trying to eliminate what is not fit for us. And that is still a natural selection. The fact that we use technology and stuff does not change the fact it is natural selection.

But, if we make the gene's, they are still artificial, and its not natural. You are right when you say us wanting to just make ourselves perfect is natural, but actually doing it with our own hands ISN'T.
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:


dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

[
what's the difference between taking advantage and trying to control nature? doing rain dance is only a behavior- it has something to do with how humans develop the ability to believe in supernatural. suicide is unnatural? sacrifice is suicide no matter what the reason is, and that is natural. Oh yeah, I even have seen animals which refuse eating, that is suicide, and is natural.



The difference between something using a flood to its advantage, and a person making it rain to create a flood that it can then use how it wishes, is one is controlling nature. You know about artificial things right? Artificial rain is not natural. Artificial genes are not natural. Nature are things that develop by themselves just through a general course of being, and something that is artificial is man made. In the sense that nature is everything that is in the natural world, even artificial things are natural, but I am not using nature in that definition, but more in the definition of natural things vs artificial things.


hmm? yes, I won't deny what me make is artificial, but our act itself is natural. We are trying to survive, and so we are trying to eliminate what is not fit for us. And that is still a natural selection. The fact that we use technology and stuff does not change the fact it is natural selection.

But, if we make the gene's, they are still artificial, and its not natural. You are right when you say us wanting to just make ourselves perfect is natural, but actually doing it with our own hands ISN'T.


okay, it's just a matter of point of view. Its kinda dumb debating it
Posted 8/22/08

tweety_cool wrote:

okay, it's just a matter of point of view. Its kinda dumb debating it


Not really, because in talking to you I feel more enlightened and like I learned a little something more. As long as debates don't turn into flame wars, then there is stuff to be gained from it :3
757 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 8/22/08

dmitsuki wrote:


tweety_cool wrote:

okay, it's just a matter of point of view. Its kinda dumb debating it


Not really, because in talking to you I feel more enlightened and like I learned a little something more. As long as debates don't turn into flame wars, then there is stuff to be gained from it :3


yeah, no sweat dude. I just feel that.... our debate won't end as it really is perspective.
1583 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Anywhere but here.
Offline
Posted 8/31/08

zendude wrote:

Well, as you know, we now have the technology to manipulate genes and correct "GOD's" mistakes.



I'd like to bring to your attention that gene manipulation isn't actually anything new. Our ancestors have been doing it for centuries, although on a much smaller scale. And of course, on a more limited technological basis. I'm talking of course, of Hybridisation, where several traits of varying species (related to each other, of course), are combined and presented in an entirely new individual.

Case in point: The modern domestic pig is completely unfit for living in the wild. It nearly cannot exist on it's own without the support of humans. Several varieties of chicken are unfit for living in the wild without human support either. How did this come to be? Surely God did not intend for such a dumb animal to exist, right? That's probably because these animals have been under the care of humans for at least the last 4000 years. Humans have constantly kept them, bred them with other animals with similar traits for the last 4000 years, and as a result, come to have specific breeds of them that are entirely convenient for humans to take care of (and thereby consume).

It's the same with crops. Modern Rice crops? Can't grow in the wild. Modern Corn crops? Ha. I can say for nearly certain that most modernised farm crops or animals cannot survive in the wild without support and protection from humans. Because they've been genetically altered - over a long period of time - by humans.

And there you have it.
Posted 9/1/08 , edited 4/28/16
Closed at request of topic starter.

~locked
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.