Reply #31: I couldn't disagree more. [View All]

First of all, I fail to see your point in your first paragraph. Should the biologists in question interfere, presumably to save the animal being attacked? What would be the purpose? This line of thinking was exactly what I was talking about: we think we know what's best for the world, and everyone and everything in it. You may take it as a given that the animals should be saved. That doesn't make any sense looking at it from an evolutionary perspective.

Secondly, saying all these things are a "natural consequence of evolution" is bizarre. They are not products of nature, but of complex culture (civilization). These are all things that support our way of living, and nothing else. Do indigenous tribal peoples have atomic bombs, prisons, machine guns, factories, automobiles, etc.? Are they necessary for pure survival? I would answer that with an emphatic no. Yes, human beings are a product of evolution, of course, but not the way we live. That was my point, to which you obviously disagree (which is fine). Our species survived and thrived for millions of years before civilization began around 10,000 years ago, and they lived in a much different way than we do. That's why the planet was in pristine condition after millions of years of human existence, because their way of life worked well, and was indeed a natural consequence of evolution. Now why is it, then, that 10,000 years of civilization is destroying the planet at such an alarming rate? And why are approximately 200 species of animals going extinct every day? Could it be, possibly, our way of living? I fail to see how this could be a "natural consequence" of evolution.

You seem to have a linear view of evolution, as if there's a master plan directing its path - I do not believe this. Everything we do has little to no survival value in the evolutionary sense. For instance, the fact that we can correct poor eyeseight with glasses, contact lenses, or laser surgery is a usurpation of evolution in a strict sense. Whereas this disadvantageous characteristic would naturally be "weeded out", and thus not be passed down through the gene pool, it survives and reproduces regularly. This does not enhance our survival value, but it doesn't matter. We don't need the process of evolution to "correct" that flaw on its own, because we have our own way of side-stepping it. In other words, and in many other instances, the pure process of evolution no longer applies.

It seems to me your use of the term "evolutionary" is more in a colloquial sense, rather than technical. As in, "the evolution of the film industry in the past 30 years has been astounding," to denote improvement or development. Not, "the hominid evolved from the australopithecines", to denote the actual process of Darwinian evolution. That's the only way for me to make sense of your assertion that the atomic bomb is an evolutionary product.