If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Technology is of benefit to everything, and is expanding way in advance of evolution. Technology makes us stronger, we could survive without it as a species, but we wouldn't be having any fun.
The point is, expanding technology has pros and cons for evolution; You see, people can travel and reproduce anywhere on the globe, mixing genes well, which is good for evolution! Variation is the spice of life. However...
New medical developments, cures and medicine help the unfittest to survive. We won't develop as technology decreases the "survival of the fittest" law. We all live longer and reproduce, perhaps hindering our potential as a species. The weak no longer die, technology keeps us all alive.
This is a brilliant topic!
A very good point. Some technology is good, and can indeed help us to survive without it by giving us the knowledge. I would not doubt that the medical advances we have made, as well as scientific research into such areas helps us to evolve. Even TV has a role to play here - it can tell us these things.
But the vast majoirty of technology does not do this. Turn on the TV and flip through the channels at almost any given time and you will be confronted by 5 different types of shit. The most popular programmes, such as eastenders, are insulting to anyones intelligence. They encourage people not to think.
To help prove my point. Lets take the USA. The most technologically advanced country in the world. I think most people here would agree that they are nearer the bottom end of the list when it comes to surviving on ones own wits.
I'm not saying that. As I said before, I embrace all this technology. I love it. I just think it would be better if we didn't depend on it. That doesn't neccersarily mean giving it all up.
I think Kirk made an excellent observation, which made me think of something else
:
Technology nowadays means that it is no longer the fittest who survive... surely this in itself disproves Darwins Theory of Evolution?
Not really; the fitter are more likely to survive still, the distinction between the two is merely blurred.
Also, just because we have developed artificial means to circumvent it, his theory (which is about nature and how we arrived at the point we currently are at) does not disprove his theory. In fact, quite the reverse; your assertion that we have stopped it from working is a de facto recognition that it was working in the first place.
But it also shows that it works no longer, and therefore is not a correct theory.
Your first point, however, is perfectly true, and therefore his theory is not disproved.
We would all be like cavemen.
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
The human race has eveolved so quick its left every other species behind beyond recognition, its uncomprehendable, that it may of been cats that had got up of all fours and evolved to what we are today, we had tails once, walked on all fours, it could easily of us been sat in zoo's now swinging from branch to branch whilst the cats brought their cubs to see us, a weird concept, but I think it highlights how much we have and continue to evolve, if we are developing weakness then evolution will through time eradicate it - people die prematurely of heart attacks, couch potato's, are these the sort of technology reliant people you speak of ?
What the human race has evolved to is amazing, having things do stuff for isn't bad, its brilliant, man has so far achieved so much
Intrestingly, the next major evolutionary development may be the elimination of the fairer skinned races, as o zone disappears our exposure to the sun increases, darker skin is far more likley to hold out in this scenario, in terms of evolution, black may be 'the fittest' as white races simply shrivel up and burn away :eek: Sci-fi ? maybe, but its distinctly possible. Evolutionary changes physcially happen over many generations, its a race with O zone depletion, people already die of skin cancer, whereas those more adapted to the sun survive, the process has begun, if only in a tiny way.
Thats because instinct is a greater power than intelligence and almost all of the bad in the world can be explained through human instinct.
As for the planet, it'll die one day anyway, even if we are not here and never were, I'm not convinced of the merits of this save the earth buisness.
Someone had to, we got lucky
bollocks
Mutations form the basis of the theory of evolution.
A species exists, and one of its members undergoes a random genetic mutation, due to various different reasons, causing it to be altered. Often this mutation is detrimental and causes the creature to die, but it can sometimes provide an advantage. Because of this advantage, it is more likely to survive and breed than the other animals of the species. Its offspring also have the new feature, so begin to thrive, and so on, until the old species is forced to die out.
even science can not explain the eighth wonder of the world
Actually of what I know this is what Satanists believe as well... The human creature evolved a strong mind, while the kangaroo evolved strong back-legs, for example.
Thinking in this sense, means that we are nothing more than lucky animals as Alessandro suggested. That is an interesting discussion.
We all evolved from the same thing, thats where the arguemnt is flawed, kangeroo's and humans once were the same thing, we can consider ourselves lucky to be the species that has become the dominant one. But I don't consider us to be lucky through that. I was giving the 'bollocks' to a 'single muataion' he suggested.
The reactions which produced the first proteins and eventually organisms in the oceans may have happened in different ways in different places. We didn't all have to start in the same place.
And the theory of evolution amply allows for divergent evolutionary paths leading to different organisms; the original species may not have been completely wiped out, or two different mutations at different places at roughly the same time led to a splitting into two.
Well one of the first questions is where does the world come from? Were Sofie starts to wonder wether or not the earth was made out of three different elements (example of element: water)... Though I can't remember what she decides on (havn't read that book since i was 13 or 14, and I didnt even read it fully).
Just Vox's post made me think of that
A tiny little part of a cell known as mitochondria, it can now be found readily in almost all cells on earth, its responsible for the production of the cells energy, synthesising atp - its now accepted that one engulfed another, thus the first cell was formed. This may of been repeated but fundamentally you got the same thing in several places. From here the cell began to evolve, further organllesa were fuelled by this new found energy system now complete with protection. Only then could the production of protein occur. The simplicity of that first group of cells mean they would not of differed.
it is mutations which are responsible for diversity, those mutations which are successful allow the organism in question an advantage and so its chance of survival is improved, the rest we know after this thread
Have you ever heard the Eddie Izzard sketch ? He did one and someone else similar, combine the two and you get something along the lines of
On the seventh day god got up and had a joint, he then got nothing done till later and so rushed things like Rwanda, French toilets, the leaning tower of Pisa etc.... then he thought shit 'I've left weed everywhere' and so he invented the Conservatives