Slight Speculation...
A small poke at evolution.
I am informed that a large portion of Punctuated Equilibrium is filling niches. Evolutionary "niches" is something I am unsure as to the definition of, and in this I wonder if it is "something that is evolutionary necessary" or "possible by evolution" or even "just not there yet," albeit the latter two are the same if not for the final being funny.
Using all those neo-darwinist terms we all love so much, assuming "man" fills a niche, the purpose of filling a niche is parallel or equal with the purpose/nature of nature (rofl), would it not man defy his evolutionary "niche" by destroying nature with all our harmful greenhouse gases?
This argument is horribly incomplete, but I did want to jot down the gist in a public section before I forget. My number of post drafts doth increase by the week.
Yet it would be furthered to include "rationality" in this argument, in that our rationality furthers our destruction and by extension furthering our destruction of nature, which itself defies the nature of our evolutionary "niche," which defies our parallelism with nature.
However, Neo-Darwinists would have us believe we lack any form of "rationality" or synonymously "free will" (not as the Catholic definition being meant by "synonymous), so that doesn't work so well, what with me trying to follow their euphemisms.
Heh, not quite as preposterous on paper as it was in throught, but still funny to look at.
~Samuel
I am informed that a large portion of Punctuated Equilibrium is filling niches. Evolutionary "niches" is something I am unsure as to the definition of, and in this I wonder if it is "something that is evolutionary necessary" or "possible by evolution" or even "just not there yet," albeit the latter two are the same if not for the final being funny.
Using all those neo-darwinist terms we all love so much, assuming "man" fills a niche, the purpose of filling a niche is parallel or equal with the purpose/nature of nature (rofl), would it not man defy his evolutionary "niche" by destroying nature with all our harmful greenhouse gases?
This argument is horribly incomplete, but I did want to jot down the gist in a public section before I forget. My number of post drafts doth increase by the week.
Yet it would be furthered to include "rationality" in this argument, in that our rationality furthers our destruction and by extension furthering our destruction of nature, which itself defies the nature of our evolutionary "niche," which defies our parallelism with nature.
However, Neo-Darwinists would have us believe we lack any form of "rationality" or synonymously "free will" (not as the Catholic definition being meant by "synonymous), so that doesn't work so well, what with me trying to follow their euphemisms.
Heh, not quite as preposterous on paper as it was in throught, but still funny to look at.
~Samuel
Labels: Common Nonsense, Odds and Ends, Questions, Schoolwork Recycled, Science
posted by Sam Ignes at 5/11/2010 02:45:00 PM
1 Comments:
You're kind of hard to follow. I think you mean this: we take for ranted that evolution is working towards a goal, which is the perfection of all nature. Human beings, which presumably must fill some sort of evolutionary purpose, seem to be hurting the nature they ought to serve. Therefore, any amount of human interference with nature, including any activites which transcend their physical being, are contrary to the evolutionary principle of perfection, and thus wrong. Use the simplest language possible. It works better.
Post a Comment
<< Home