Dale Coparanis posted the following as a comment on my article Creationist Truth
Dan - what are we going to evolve into? Since evolution is always happening, what's the next step for humans?
When does that happen?
Do we risk upsetting the process of evolution by messing with DNA, cloning and other related scientific work?
If so, then should we stop all that work?
Dale, Evolution doses not happen in particularly large steps. For example we may evolve into being able to defeat all viruses naturally. Some people have been shown to be essentially unaffected by HIV for example, so if a virus were to evolve that killed anything that did not have this inborn defense mechanism then the species would eventually come to consist only of those that do. The next step is always whatever is necessary to survive a changing environment. We either make it or die. The universe does not care which.
When will it happen? In one sense it almost certainly already has, but the 'next step' will become the norm when it needs to or not at all.
Do we risk upsetting the process of evolution by messing with DNA.cloning and other scientific work? Well in one sense the answer is "of course!" But in another sense "how could we?". We may kill ourselves off completely with an atomic holocaust, for example, but then again that may just be the assist the species needs to bring the trait of 'extreme radiation tolerance' into the 'norm'. We may also become the first(?) species to direct its own evolution consciously and go branching off deliberately and purposefully to occupy every environment possible and thus to exist for as long as there is a universe to house us.
Should we stop all that work? Get serious Dale! Are you going into the middle east without your cholera vaccine? Would you be pleased if some luddite decided that steel was 'unnatural' so when you took a bullet they had to cut it out with a flint blade?
Evolution is not some sort of weird and unusual thing. It has happened and continues to happen all the time and the rule is simple. Every species evolves as needed or it dies out. And as Baretta used to say, "That's all there is to that tune."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 7
As you know, Dan, I'm not a believer in the Faith of Evolution. Those that do believe it, however, want everyone else to accept that from nothing came the present day. Now I would call that a fairly big change.
To bring it down to a more manageable level, it is believed that we evolved from apes (which evolved from smaller mammels, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from fish, which evolved from single celled creatures, which evolved from the primordial soup, which evolved from rain falling on rocks, which came about from the earth forming out of space dust, which formed from material left over from the big bang, which came from??? I really like to think that one of my ancestors was a rock.). Therefore, it is quite reasonable to ask what the next step is. Certainly the differences that there are between the apes, "Lucy", pre-cro magnon man, and us are significant. Since evolution, in theory, doesn't stop, what's next? What do we look like? Are we bigger, smaller, fatter, thinner, have more arms, more eyes, fewer fingers?
To say that we have reached our evolutionary peak is kind of presumptuous, don't you think? I know that you haven't said that, per se, but you imply that with: "but the 'next step' will become the norm when it needs to or not at all."
Since we are messing with evolutionary theory by doing work with DNA, one of the logical questions to ask is: "should we?" And, yes, I am serious. Can we be trusted to do what's right? Given the amount of evil in this world I would say no. In addition, given the willingness of many people to do whatever simply for immediate gratification (money, etc.), how can something as important as evolution be tinkered with in the right way?
Your statement: "Every species evolves as needed or it dies out. is interesting. This explains why there are so many "living fossils" that have been discovered and why there is so much diversity in nature. It's really amazing how, accidentally, we have such an abundance of flora and fauna and why there are so many overlaps with them. I mean, just how many different types and colors of flowers does a meadow need?
Now no one has mentioned God, and if they did there would probably be a long fruitless discussion on that because so many have such different ideas of just what God amounts to.
But as I type here, it seems to me that the idea plays an important role in such as this, so I will 'mention' my definition because it very much affects my questions and answers.
God to me is the Basic all encompassing definition of all that is under consideration by us humans (at least). There fore God is the entirety of what we might consider our entire 'universe' to be as a conception of INclusivity to what we could be INvolved withIN.
Thus to me that universe has INtelligence INterconnecting every aspect of it. I call 'that' Spirit. That Spirit is neutral, as is the UNconditional Love of God. Creation is the fullness of both potentials, positive and negative, eternal and infinite. All together with Spirit as "=", we have a triad (or Trinity) of (+=-) ...
Now 'most' people would not accept 'that', in part because they have been indoctrinated otherwise by their orthodox peers, and because it can be a paradox, again, we have been brainwashed into believing that there are only rights and wrongs where the wrongs ("-") are to be completely rejected and excluded as soon as isolated or found. Paradox is not an option for man ... that is dualism seen as (+/-).
Thus we have most men (people in general, but especially the men) that are basically 'ego' based, prioritizationally. That leads to a whole list of other priorities other than a Spiritual connectivity to anything or anyone. Thus they may well be inclined towards Fame and Fortune, if not power and control. When it comes to intellect, their own is preferably the greatest, but if not there is always a leadership hierarchy to ascribe to. Compassion for the masses is not usually a factor as much as a belief that the leaders know best.
Where are we all going then ... ??? Seems that it will be based upon our 'leadership' and what they believe, and/or what they can get away with ... at least for those of the non-spiritual bent.
As for myself, being a spiritual person due to actual Spiritual experience, I do not really care all that much where society takes itself ... though I do have a vested interest and would 'prefer' that they realized the spiritual truth of (+=-) first.
We are already unrealized gods of/in our own 'realm' of physical manifestation. Thus we have the ability to do as we so choose within this parameter. We have been always doing just that, individually first and co-creatively as a group next, both intertwined and interactive.
Thus we will do as we do based upon how we think. Those most related to only this singular life time as ego oriented will do things one way, often based upon fears and greed . power, control and fame.
Others will have a more eternal viewpoint with a realization that life here is a relatively small portion of a greater whole. They will act much differently and have far different outcomes.
There are no accidents when the spiritual realm(s) are considered because Karma and Nemesis have an 'accounting' that insures that what goes around comes around, like begets like and there are consequences as well as rewards where INtention is paramount.
The potentials in the extremes then are the ALL of God ... OR ... the Nothing of the opposite. There is infinite space and time for everything else INbetween. It is our choice as to just what we do and what results from those INtentions. Beware !
For Dale:
Dale's lines are in italics, mine are not. ( I hope)
As you know, Dan, I'm not a believer in the Faith of Evolution. Those that do believe it, however, want everyone else to accept that from nothing came the present day. Now I would call that a fairly big change.
I can't see any reason to believe it a big change. The present day did not come from nothing, it came from yesterday. I was here yesterday and it wasn't all that different in anyway that I can see. And as for the "Faith of Evolutuion" Well, I can tell you that I have directed evolution and seen the results of that evolution and I have seen the results of many other peoples work in evolution also. So while I do not insist that evolution is the only possible explanation of the present day ecology I can tell you that there is evidence I have observed for the existence of evolution and absolutely none that I have observed for any other explanation. 'Faith' is when you choose to believe something for which there is no evidence. Personally I find 'faith' to be a weakness that I hope we may someday overcome.
To bring it down to a more manageable level, it is believed that we evolved from apes (which evolved from smaller mammels, which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from fish, which evolved from single celled creatures, which evolved from the primordial soup, which evolved from rain falling on rocks, which came about from the earth forming out of space dust, which formed from material left over from the big bang, which came from??? I really like to think that one of my ancestors was a rock.). Therefore, it is quite reasonable to ask what the next step is. Certainly the differences that there are between the apes, "Lucy", pre-cro magnon man, and us are significant. Since evolution, in theory, doesn't stop, what's next? What do we look like? Are we bigger, smaller, fatter, thinner, have more arms, more eyes, fewer fingers?
One thing you should note is that the differences between us and a chimpanzee are in fact very small, when expressed as a percentage of our genome. Another thing to note is that whether you are supporter of the Biblical creationist approach or tend away from the 'faith' side things it would appear that you and I are descended from something in a mud pie.
To say that we have reached our evolutionary peak is kind of presumptuous, don't you think? I know that you haven't said that, per se, but you imply that with: "but the 'next step' will become the norm when it needs to or not at all."
Why would you think I suggest that we have reached our evolutionary peak (whatever that is)? And how could you find it presumptuous when you don't even believe we have an evolution to have a peak of? No 'change' in one or more members of a species is likely to become the new 'norm' for the species unless it imparts a significant advantage over those that do not have the 'change'. For example the ability to withstand the HIV virus, which is a possible 'next step' that we already knows exists, is not currently a significant advantage, evolutionarily, for those that have it, because currently only a very small percentage of the species dies from the result of the HIV virus. It will not become the 'norm' for the species. unless some virus shows up that is a lot more contagious and deadly than HIV and these people are also immune to that and everybody else dies off. Then an evolutionary step will have taken place. The 'next step' will becomes the 'norm' when it needs to or not at all
Since we are messing with evolutionary theory by doing work with DNA, one of the logical questions to ask is: "should we?" And, yes, I am serious. Can we be trusted to do what's right? Given the amount of evil in this world I would say no. In addition, given the willingness of many people to do whatever simply for immediate gratification (money, etc.), how can something as important as evolution be tinkered with in the right way?
I share your concern over the potential problems we could get ourselves into tinkering with evolution. True we have done it for centuries and are still here but we have made some fairly serious errors before an now we have the potential to really spoil the soup. But as they say "you can't put the genie back in the bottle.' If you honestly think that any amount of outlawing DNA manipulation can stop it from being done then I believe you are deluded. I would be very surprised if there were not a clone baby or six running around a nursery or six somewhere. And if you think it hasn't even been attempted then I have a nice Caribbean island which I am sure you would enjoy and I think I could make it yours for a very nominal sum if you could just be the first to send me $10,000 in small unmarked bills......
All I can see coming from outlawing research into the field is that good honest people will have no say in what is developed from it.
Your statement: "Every species evolves as needed or it dies out. is interesting. This explains why there are so many "living fossils" that have been discovered and why there is so much diversity in nature. It's really amazing how, accidentally, we have such an abundance of flora and fauna and why there are so many overlaps with them. I mean, just how many different types and colors of flowers does a meadow need?
Certainly there are a number of 'living fossils' . Alligators, crocodiles and many species of sharks to name a few. They haven't needed to change much at all. Or maybe you are talking about those rare finds of things that we know from fossils were once relatively common but had never been seen in recorded history until we started fishing miles down or some such. Well so what! If they still exist un-evolved from millions of years ago then all it shows is that, for at least some part of their habitat, evolutionary change was not required for survival. And, of course there is diversity in nature. Why would you think that evolution would require uniformity? Change happens! But not all change is 'evolutionary.' There are dozens of colors of pansies. Why? Because change happens. But all pansies are not one color because there is no particular advantage of one color over another.