For the record, there are philosophies that don't require a god to motivate kindness and decency to the ill and the sick, nor does "evolution" demand that we turn our backs on our sapient self-development.~~ Czar
I disagree my questions even put forth that humans would not act out of kindness. ?Kindness? was not a prerequisite for my questions. I do not think that many who come up with cures act out of kindness towards mankind. When many scientists come up with cures?many act out of the need for notoriety and success not kindness. We are mammals and out of this comes our basic instinct for survival this instinct is not does not always rest on compassion.
Do not get me wrong, I was not trying to espouse Hitler?s beliefs, just some questions that came to when truly trying to consider our 'roots'. As I said above I am trying to finally read about evolution and I was sure many had thought of the questions above but I had not known this name was already put to my questions.
With evolution, "it's all over when the fat lady sings." This is a serious point to understand, because it means that evolution has no direction. When environmental pressures come into play, then creatures evolve. When the environment is stable, creatures don't evolve much (except by so-called "genetic drift"). This state of affairs is evident in the fossil record and is the reason that Gould and Eldridge came up with the theory of "punctuated equilibrium".~~ Alan
Evolution happens slowly enough that it's not apparent from present physiology and the fossil record from the past couple of hundred thousand years whether mankind has changed much in that time or not. The oldest known Homo sapiens fossils (discovered last June in Ethiopia) are about 160,000 years old and not all that different from older species. Some paleontologists think that the environment has been stable enough that the evolution of man has slowed down compared to previous rates, and also that other things might be coming into play, such as the stablizing effect of culture. It also appears that human brains may have reached a size limit, since the pelvic opening would have to enlarge along with increased brain size at birth.~~ Alan
With PE do they not say that a species will change little or if any during their residence here? If this is the case I would have to say in the last hundred years alone mankind has made leaps and bounds and this IMO crushes this piece of their theory. Perhaps when evolving this human era has proved them wrong? Or is it in their own evolutionary process was stunted because their environment was/is 'stable' for the lack of a better word? Perhaps they did not need to think past where their theory ended? Or does the question not make sense? Or am I reading too much into the past hundred years?
But in view of my comments above, is "artificial" really artificial? Or just part of natural evolution? ~~ Alan
Damn Alan you hurt my brain there. lol
Who knows? Had people been doing that all during the past ten thousand years or so of modern history, would Isaac Newton have been born? Maybe a pile of them would have. I know one thing: you and I wouldn't have been born. ~~ Alan
I truly hope no one thinks I am suggesting that we should not make advances to help people because it goes against natural selection, just some thoughts after considering evolution seriously for the first time.
Hi Jim!! Nice to see you! I enjoyed your comments as well, we must catch up!
Abaddon getting to your commetns slowly!
Cassi