Is natural selection dead?

Your definition of “improved” isn’t in line with what nature is valuing, fair enough.

What if nature is making the best choices, the best mate selections and advancing the most superior beings, and you are simply unappreciative of what these things actually constitute?

Shoulds and oughts are after all only worth mentioning if they counter what would otherwise be done. There is no point moralising about how one should adhere to gravity, because that is going to happen anyway, and there is likewise no point moralising about how one should defy gravity because that is not possible. Morals are made in line with that which is possible, but they are suggested to skew that which would otherwise happen anyway. Your moral expectations of what are the best choices, mate selections are are going to be possible, but they are going to be skewed versions of what is otherwise going to happen whether you like it or not. The skewing may have some effect, but the default is amoral. If all your appreciation is for the moral, and the moral is only a twist on the default, then you are lacking appreciation for the default valuation on what are the best choices and mate selections.

It takes some humility, but it’s possible to see all these seemingly immoral choices in what nature selects for the truly moral. Sexual selection is going one way or another, whether or not you think it’s going in the “right” direction. Maybe its direction is better after all, and you/we don’t see how yet?

The dinosaurs were already dead when that happened.

Start at 24:30

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpKCmnJJm3c[/youtube]

My opinion is that the climate changed which didn’t select for big animals (lower O2, lower heat). Climate change was probably caused by the drifting of the solar system within the galaxy or possibly is part of a general cooling of the solar system overall (ie the sun is cooling).

My point however is this: that what we are familiar with is somehow embedded in a complex intertwining of genes and memes awash in a sea of variables that may well be all but impossible to really pin down – to either know or to control.

But that some have evolved a frame of mind able to imagine this as something that they have pinned down. And that others are obligated to share this frame of mind [about evolution and many other things] if they wish to be thought of as rational…or as virtuous.

That, in a Hegelian, sense the “synthesis” stops with them.

“I” then sinks down into this frame of mind and is able to nestle psychologically in the comfort and the consolation of imagining that, whether you call it a soul or the “real me”, there is a part of them that is in touch with one or another teleological component of existence. Something that ascribes “meaning” to their life; and thus enabling them further to make that crucial distinction between those of us who do and those of us who don’t.

It’s just that the mystery becomes all that much more problematic when you factor in such things as God and religion and moral obligation and autonomy on this side, and the prospect of oblivion on the other side of it.

So to speak of natural selection as being dead here just begs the question: How on earth could someone possibly know that?

What does “I” entail here?

And, in particular, from my vantage point, how do we go about discussing it beyond merely exchanging “general descriptions”.

Well, let’s just say that there are conflicting theories: google.com/search?q=dinosau … ls&ie=&oe=

Or is your own [or their own] the only one that counts? :wink:

But that’s the tricky thing about evolution when it becomes embedded in “minds”. Unlike any other matter before us, we can actually express these conflicted points of view.

What then does it say about matter of this sort? And how, using the tools of philosophy, can minds figure out which point of view is the one that all rational men and women are obligated to respect as true necessarily?

I’m not married to any idea of what happened, but the guy in the video seemed confident and had a good argument that zero fossils were found in the impact debris layer. How do we reconcile that?

I do like my theory that cooling produced an unfavorable environment as well.

It looks like they were gradually selected against as big creatures take advantage of abundant resources. Insects were also big back then, but not now. And it’s hard for me to believe that a single event would eradicate all the one species while leaving the others. If nothing else, the damaged species should re-evolve instead of going extinct forever if it weren’t the climate that dictated who had the advantages.

I’ve also not been able to process how the sun remains a constant stable temperature for so long instead of a steady cooling over time. Any fire I’ve ever seen gets hotter and then cooler until it extinguishes.

And I’ve no idea what drifting around in the spiral arms does to the climate, but it can’t be insignificant.

Well, I guess we can’t abandon all logic simply because there is no truth. We have to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything. Once we admit there is no absolute, then we can’t say anything, so if we desire to claim any solid ground, we have to make some postulates.

There may be an absolute, but the only way to be assured that we’ve found it is by exhaustive random searching. If there are any presuppositions made, then any apparent absolute truth found cannot be claimed to be known for certain, but merely contingent upon the presupposition. That is the absolute truth underpinning nonteleological evolution because randomness could never be more random-er. So maybe absolutes do exist, but I maintain we cannot presume to know them and to do so would be arrogant.

This may be true, but do you really think people choose their partners out of consideration for their genes? Theirs or their partner’s?

While I never mentioned anything about their being “superior”, yes, you could say they are superior qualities worth mentioning? (relativistically speaking).

And that’s kinda the point. Evolution isn’t supposed to be about improvement, just perpetuation. Maybe your beef with this is what man ought to do with himself–you know, the moral dimension–not simply the fact of natural selection. But then what counts as an “improved” mankind if not survival and fitness for the environment? This gets us into tricky waters because now we have to debate what passes as improvement and what doesn’t, a very subjective matter. This becomes more a discussion for political philosophy than natural/science philosophy.

Why are you deeming my dismay as a moral dilemma rather than procreators having a lack of common sense? Maybe I’m trying to wake people up to their undermining ways, the ways they undercut and perpetuate the very society they complain about (with all the dummies and retards that is). Yes, this “right” direction is so great that the technotards want to replace biology with technology rather than upgrading humanity naturally by making improved mate choices.

Biggie, explain the soul please.

Okay…let’s. Why this is moral is lost on me? Why not rather common sense?

Common sense often leads one to conclude that improvement is about big, strong, smart, etc. Natural selection is, as Gib say, about persisting where small, comparably weak, and even not as smart - save some energy consumption needs on that big brain - may work better for surviving in a certain environment. It is about a relationship or set of relationships not about inherent qualities. The better adapted animal might be the one with flexible joints, a smaller body and no eyes - some underground cave creature where there is no sunlight.

“About a relationship or set of relationships not about inherent qualities” I need more explanation here since we’re not talking about ourselves as cave dwellers or bizarre environments (unless WWIII starts soon).

Well, our future seems to potentially be heading in directions where smaller bodies, for example, might be useful and even perhaps smaller brains.

By mentioning relations, I mean to the environment, including other species. When people talk about survival of the fittest they often imagine big, strong, smart. The lion, say. Lions are not doing very well. Given our dominance, rats and raccoons do much better. Cockroashes and fleas. And so on. Because they are better adapted to a human dominated environment. The qualities that are adaptive suit what is around the species. It gets them food. It allows them to procreate. Etc. The qualities that do this may have little to do with our ideals of greatness. We tend to see greatness as inherent. Adaption is about fitting the situation. It is related to the philosophical idea of internal relations.

Natural selection doesn’t have intent. It has no goal. Just as water running downhill doesn’t intend to move so. It’s a process that occurs given the right circumstances.

There is, however, a pattern to the results the process produces. It’s a convenient consequence.

The process of natural selection can stop if you interfere with conditions it arises from - but that does not kill the process, as it can return as soon as those conditions return.

Are we affecting natural selection? Yes.

Are we killing it? No.

Another question:

Do we need natural selection to guide us anymore?

I don’t think so. We can understand the environment better than a slow blind process that entails countless amounts of death to power it’s cogs.

The environment we live in today, is far different than the environment that shaped our ancestors.

Are all our instincts that saved us in the past, relevant and beneficial to us in the present day? Ought we seek to preserve and reinforce them?

These are questions we can answer and respond to far more effectively than something that is blind.

You can’t escape natural selection without 100% reliable eugenics and 100% domination over all other factors that influence who lives and who dies. In short we’d need to be immortal Nazis :laughing:

Natural selection is simply a word for what emerges simply by what works. So even as immortal Nazis, we’d still be part of nature - thus natural selection.

Guide - To direct the course of + One who shows the way by leading, directing, or advising.

We don’t need natural selection to guide the direction of our evolution today. Also, we don’t need to reinforce everything that natural selection has endowed us with.

Artificial selection is quite easy. As soon as the direction of evolution is guided by intent, it becomes artificial.

We’ve been artificially selecting for other animals for a very long time.

Ethics aside, all you need to do is control who breeds or kill those with whatever arbitrary trait you don’t value.
(this is not what I’m suggesting, there’s more ethical and sophisticated ways to approach the situation.)

If that working something emerges via intent, it is not natural - by definition.

We’re talking natural selection as opposed to artificial selection. The terms would be useless if there was no alternative concept.

I’ve said for a long time I believe everything we do is natural, that man-made is a subcategory of natural phenomenon. But we’re talking about the difference between what happens with man’s influence, and what happens without man’s influence. Without = Natural selection. With = Artificial. It’s relevant to distinguish these and recognize the differences.

The products of natural selection will be inhibited by the environment that they inhabit. There are many things in the long term that may be relevant to an organism, but the steps to get there will not occur and be reinforced because those individual steps offer no immediate return. Natural selection demands immediate return - if whatever change happens has no bearing on the reproductive success of the species, it wont be selected for and wont remain long enough to evolve into whatever is relevant.

Natural selection is slow and crude. The results only revolve around a single bottom line. It has no foresight.

We can do better than that for ourselves. Natural selection has given us the capacity to surpass it’s shortfalls.

What is intent and where does it originate?

It reminds me of this recent article about animal life evolving and adopting to in city environments.
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 … fries.html

youtube.com/watch?v=9Y0iBNEWbRc

Although, at the core, the process itself is natural, it is adopting to a man-made environment (which, at the present so-called Anthropocene era, is almost inescapable), so it’s not really a natural selection, per se, because the process is heavily biased and influenced by humans and their interests. Whereas some species (like bacteria or insects that have very short lifespans) may have a faster adaptation rate, human survival now is heavily dependent on its technology, and although it may give humans an advantaged position now, it may also put us at a disadvantage if technology were to fail.

idunno… I’m just trying to take a stab at what your beef is.

What’s common sense? That natural selection doesn’t improve mankind? That medical intervention breeds weakness?

And if it’s not a moral matter, what is it? Is it an appeal to what mankind wants on the whole? To what you want? To how things work?

^
This

When out-group competition is won (humans versus animals, predators), then a specie turns on itself to infighting, in-group competition (human vs human).

Males compete against other males for mating-rites. Females compete against other females for social-positioning, class, caste, status, privileges, etc.