GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

UnseenWorld · 12-07-2002, 01:14 AM

Actually, simpler creatures with shorter lives evolve much more quickly. You are equating change with evolution, but if you view evolution as "success in adaptation" a virus or bacterium can evolve much more quickly. We need a new flu vaccine every year, and the flu virus needs this in order to stay alive in the face of the rather sophisticated and adaptive immune systems of the creatures they infect.

Even a creature of a more mid-level of organization, such as a moth (http://animals.about.com/library/weekly/aa090901a.htm), can undergo an evolutionary change in just a few decades. A certain moth grew darker in England as the industrial revolution, with the use of coal, made surfaces on the whole darker than they were before this fuel came along.

Man, the physical entity has changed hardly at all in 10's of thousands of years, and relatively little in hundreds of thousands of years.

Technology is not evolution, because, for example, if we ran out of petroleum all of a sudden, we would go back pretty much to pre-industrial life in terms of our daily living situation, but our physical beings would change little, except in terms of health.

So, technology is actually environmental, not part of man, whereas evolution affects entity and not the environment.

Evolution operates on a vast time scale. It's way too soon to even decide of homo sapiens is a successful species. Both insects and plankton form a larger biomass, if you want to use that as a yardstick. The largest known creature on earth, once thought to be either a California redwood or a blue whale, is now known to be a fungus (http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1b080700.html) right here in Oregon. It is 2,200 acres big and is estimated to be anywhere from 2,400 to 7,200 years old.

How evolved is THAT?

12-07-2002, 01:14 AM
UnseenWorld Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Portland, OR, USA Posts: 5,279	Actually, simpler creatures with shorter lives evolve much more quickly. You are equating change with evolution, but if you view evolution as "success in adaptation" a virus or bacterium can evolve much more quickly. We need a new flu vaccine every year, and the flu virus needs this in order to stay alive in the face of the rather sophisticated and adaptive immune systems of the creatures they infect. Even a creature of a more mid-level of organization, such as a moth (http://animals.about.com/library/weekly/aa090901a.htm), can undergo an evolutionary change in just a few decades. A certain moth grew darker in England as the industrial revolution, with the use of coal, made surfaces on the whole darker than they were before this fuel came along. Man, the physical entity has changed hardly at all in 10's of thousands of years, and relatively little in hundreds of thousands of years. Technology is not evolution, because, for example, if we ran out of petroleum all of a sudden, we would go back pretty much to pre-industrial life in terms of our daily living situation, but our physical beings would change little, except in terms of health. So, technology is actually environmental, not part of man, whereas evolution affects entity and not the environment. Evolution operates on a vast time scale. It's way too soon to even decide of homo sapiens is a successful species. Both insects and plankton form a larger biomass, if you want to use that as a yardstick. The largest known creature on earth, once thought to be either a California redwood or a blue whale, is now known to be a fungus (http://www.newhouse.com/archive/story1b080700.html) right here in Oregon. It is 2,200 acres big and is estimated to be anywhere from 2,400 to 7,200 years old. How evolved is THAT? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60. Last edited by UnseenWorld; 12-07-2002 at 01:16 AM..