Why is it arrogant to notice the apparent existence of "rapid-tempo-evolution" and "glacial-tempo-evolution"; label those observed things "natural" and "cultural" merely, and only, for sake of convention; and then surmise some substantial difference in the enabling mechanisms and processes?
"glacial-tempo-evolution" is truly glacial only to those species with long lifespans. Fruit flies could evolve almost annually. long-lived species will not adapt quickly enough to climate change and will likely perish. Probably, most all short lived species will evolve and adapt. Man, being a long-lived species should — and would, if left to glacial-tempo-evolution — perish but may not because rapid-tempo-evolution alters the time-frame for response. davew On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, at 12:33 PM, uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ wrote: > IDK. This thread seems polluted with some sort of arrogant premise that > "natural selection" doesn't include cultural selection *or* > engineering. The "natural" in natural selection doesn't mean the same > thing it means when you see it on a green-washed plastic package in the > grocery store or at your favorite pseudoscience driven website. It > means something larger, more diffuse. > > If we can say that beavers *engineer* their dams, and yet that > engineering (and the "culture" in which it sits) falls under "natural > selection", then any engineering projects we humans engage in will also > fall under "natural selection", including CRISPR and the terraforming > of Mars. This assumption of a crisp distinction between culture and > genetics seems false to my ignorant eye, especially given layers like > epigenetics and anthropogenic unintended, but global, feedback. > > Darwinism, without the "neo" genetic mechanism, may allow for us to > broaden the *generator* beyond DNA. But that doesn't imply that the > evolution isn't "natural". The focus on how many children one sires > seems quaint, provincial. > > On 4/25/21 9:51 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > > > > On 4/25/21 10:47 AM, Steve Smith wrote: > >> > >> Pieter said: > >> > >>> /"Humans will no longer evolve."/ > >>> > >>> I agree humans will no longer evolve by natural selection. Not that I'm > >>> predicting anything, but how can anybody say with any kind of confidence > >>> that humans will not evolve by gene editing in the future? > > > > And to try to be fair to your point, I think if we replace "evolve" with > > "adapt" the quibbles diminish to nil. > > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
