Does evolution inevitably lead to annihilation of species?

[OceanBreeze]

 

  On 12/28/2024 at 5:45 PM OceanBreeze, said:

I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce.  

 

2 hours ago, Squareinthecircle said:

This keeps being mentioned but is not applicable to my suggestion.  I never claimed that evolution is a conscious being that chooses annihilation, my question is if all evolutionary roads lead to extinction of the species in question.  It appears intelligence + self awareness + greed= done.

 

It keeps getting mentioned because we cannot have a meaningful discussion on evolution without acknowledging this fact: evolution by natural selection does not “lead” to any particular outcome.

Near the end of my post I did give your suggestion sufficient coverage:

Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable.

I stress that I am only speculating on a future possibility based on current trends in technological advancement.

[Squareinthecircle]

20 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

 

I agree with Moontanman that the mechanism of natural selection selects certain traits based on the ecological and environmental niche that an organism lives in, and this process happens without goals or direction. Those organisms that are fortunate to possess those traits that happen to be beneficial, are better adapted to survive and reproduce.  

 

 

It keeps getting mentioned because we cannot have a meaningful discussion on evolution without acknowledging this fact: evolution by natural selection does not “lead” to any particular outcome.

 

Near the end of my post I did give your suggestion sufficient coverage:

 

Bottom line, in my opinion, human evolution can no longer be simply described according to the ideas of Charles Darwin; our evolution is not driven only by natural selection. Humans are engaged in activities that may eventually give us sufficient control over the evolutionary process that it will have a direction and lead to some goal; unfortunately, it may lead to an “own goal” although I don’t feel that such an outcome is inevitable.

 

I stress that I am only speculating on a future possibility based on current trends in technological advancement.

Please prove your claim that evolution "does not 'lead' to any particular outcome'.

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, Squareinthecircle said:

Please prove your claim that evolution "does not 'lead' to any particular outcome'.

• I see no "particular" outcome other than to reproduce, what do you see?

[Squareinthecircle]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

• I see no "particular" outcome other than to reproduce, what do you see?

I didn't make the claim, I'm only here to converse.  If reproduction is achieved then is evolution complete in your opinion?

Edited December 31, 2024 by Squareinthecircle

[Moontanman]

7 hours ago, Squareinthecircle said:

I didn't make the claim, I'm only here to converse.  If reproduction is achieved then is evolution complete in your opinion?

I am not comfortable with the idea of evolution being something that can have goals, evolution is not an entity working toward goals, AFAIK, there is no goal. You have been making lots of assertions, my position about evolution having a goal is that I see no goals, my position is the default position... I do not believe you, please support your assertions that evolution has a goal or goals... citation please! 

[Squareinthecircle]

1 hour ago, Moontanman said:

I am not comfortable with the idea of evolution being something that can have goals, evolution is not an entity working toward goals, AFAIK, there is no goal. You have been making lots of assertions, my position about evolution having a goal is that I see no goals, my position is the default position... I do not believe you, please support your assertions that evolution has a goal or goals... citation please! 

I never made that assertion.  I listed some facts then posed a scenario.  But we digress- if evolution exists only to procreate then by definition it ends after that action, so that can't be it.  I can see this is a difficult idea to consider but it's likely that every evolutionary path will see extinction at some point, with only the cause being in question.  Knowing what we know about the nature of our own species it seems quite possible that we'll wipe ourselves out over foolish technological idiocy combined with pride and greed.  It's possible that once intelligence gets high enough then a species becomes selfish to the point that it can be dangerous to others.  This may be unavoidable, I dunno.  Essentially though I guess that's what I suggesting- that this phenomenon might be omnipresent, part of the fabric of intelligent beings, and unavoidable.  

[OceanBreeze]

On 12/31/2024 at 10:47 AM, Squareinthecircle said:

Please prove your claim that evolution "does not 'lead' to any particular outcome'.

By asking for proof you demonstrate once again that not only do you not understand the science of evolution,  you don’t even understand science and the scientific method.

The study of evolution falls mainly under the science of biology and follows the basic scientific process of making observations, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The end product is either evidence that supports the hypothesis or evidence that refutes it. The weight of the evidence for and against determines whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Nothing is proven to be absolutely true.

I could cite a great deal of evidence that supports the hypothesis that evolution happens as a result of random mutations at the micro-genetic level followed by the process of natural selection at the macro-anatomical level. However, I don’t feel that your naive suggestion, that evolution “leads to extinction of a species”, requires such a formal rebuttal.

When you ask for proof that evolution “does not lead to any particular outcome” you may as well be asking for proof that water flows downhill.

There is no need to prove something that is not only supported by scientific evidence, it is  self-evident!

I am not disrespecting all the scientific evidence when I state that evolution is as self-evident as this: what is able to survive survives.

There is no grand plan, no direction, just a natural process that occurs between living things and their environment.

Genetic variation in the form of random mutations just happens because reproduction is not a perfect process. Mutations are just errors in gene inheritance.

Natural Selection is a non-random, or perhaps semi-random, process that occurs naturally, over long periods of time, according to selective environmental pressures.

When the natural environment changes in a way that is detrimental to living things, what is able to survive survives and what is not able to survive is eliminated. That is natural selection, and it really is not a difficult concept to understand.

Contrary to your idea that evolution leads to extinction; the process of evolution aimlessly provides the genetic diversity that facilitates the survival of some organisms in challenging environmental conditions that can cause other organisms to die out.

With that stated, I think we have given your idea more attention than it deserves and I suggest we close this thread unless anyone feels there is more to add.

 

 

 

[Squareinthecircle]

6 hours ago, OceanBreeze said:

By asking for proof you demonstrate once again that not only do you not understand the science of evolution,  you don’t even understand science and the scientific method.

 

The study of evolution falls mainly under the science of biology and follows the basic scientific process of making observations, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The end product is either evidence that supports the hypothesis or evidence that refutes it. The weight of the evidence for and against determines whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Nothing is proven to be absolutely true.

 

I could cite a great deal of evidence that supports the hypothesis that evolution happens as a result of random mutations at the micro-genetic level followed by the process of natural selection at the macro-anatomical level. However, I don’t feel that your naive suggestion, that evolution “leads to extinction of a species”, requires such a formal rebuttal.

 

When you ask for proof that evolution “does not lead to any particular outcome” you may as well be asking for proof that water flows downhill.

 

There is no need to prove something that is not only supported by scientific evidence, it is  self-evident!

 

I am not disrespecting all the scientific evidence when I state that evolution is as self-evident as this: what is able to survive survives.

 

There is no grand plan, no direction, just a natural process that occurs between living things and their environment.

 

Genetic variation in the form of random mutations just happens because reproduction is not a perfect process. Mutations are just errors in gene inheritance.

 

Natural Selection is a non-random, or perhaps semi-random, process that occurs naturally, over long periods of time, according to selective environmental pressures.

 

When the natural environment changes in a way that is detrimental to living things, what is able to survive survives and what is not able to survive is eliminated. That is natural selection, and it really is not a difficult concept to understand.

 

Contrary to your idea that evolution leads to extinction; the process of evolution aimlessly provides the genetic diversity that facilitates the survival of some organisms in challenging environmental conditions that can cause other organisms to die out.

 

With that stated, I think we have given your idea more attention than it deserves and I suggest we close this thread unless anyone feels there is more to add.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I disagree with maybe everything here.  Facts are established by science when a repeatable experiment can be performed that proves it.  When you make a claim you either have to support it or be proven wrong- this is how communication works, necessary to science.  Nothing but NOTHING is "self-evident" in science and suggesting so exposes little understanding.  

[OceanBreeze]

1 hour ago, Squareinthecircle said:

I disagree with maybe everything here.  Facts are established by science when a repeatable experiment can be performed that proves it.  When you make a claim you either have to support it or be proven wrong- this is how communication works, necessary to science.  Nothing but NOTHING is "self-evident" in science and suggesting so exposes little understanding.  

Your cherry picking style of arguing is getting tiresome.

If you are going to quote me, or anyone else, do NOT leave out the parts of the original statement that make your argument meaningless.

Here are just a couple of examples:

I wrote: “The study of evolution falls mainly under the science of biology and follows the basic scientific process of making observations, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results. The end product is either evidence that supports the hypothesis or evidence that refutes it. The weight of the evidence for and against determines whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Nothing is proven to be absolutely true.”

Your response: “I disagree with maybe everything here.  Facts are established by science when a repeatable experiment can be performed that proves it.  When you make a claim you either have to support it or be proven wrong- this is how communication works, necessary to science.”

[Just what are you disagreeing with? My description of the scientific method is far more complete than your sparsely worded attempt at describing how communication works in science. And you are wrong when you say the experiment "proves" anything. There are No proofs in science.]

I wrote: “There is no need to prove something that is not only supported by scientific evidence, it is  self-evident!

I am not disrespecting all the scientific evidence when I state that evolution is as self-evident as this: what is able to survive survives.”

You wrote: “Nothing but NOTHING is "self-evident" in science and suggesting so exposes little understanding. “

[ You see how you ignored the part about “not only supported by scientific evidence” and focused on only the “self-evident “ part? That is what is known as cherry picking and quoting out of context. In fact you are wrong, there are plenty of things that are self-evident and I mentioned one: water does flow downhill!

What can be more self-evident than “what is able to survive, survives”?]

It is increasingly evident that you are unable to discuss this in a mature manner which is hardly surprising since you started this thread with an immature idea in the first place.

As I said in my previous post, we have given your idea/suggestion or whatever you are calling it now, far too much attention and it is time to close this thread.

I should have closed it after my previous post but I wanted to give you a fair opportunity to reply. Your reply is of very low quality and now it only makes sense to put the cork back in the bottle.

Hopefully, you can find another forum where your naïve ideas will be better accepted. Good luck with that!

Thread Closed