Re: evolutionary success of humans


It appears that Diamond was only partially right. I'm sure that life
wasn't
so "nasty, brutish and short" during the periods of plenty, or during
times
of expansion and conquest. But basic rules of biology dictate that
populations increase during the good times, and when resources fall
short of
demand, life then begins to become nasty, brutish and short.

The archaeological record is full of Neolithic evidence for starvation,

disease and violence on a scale comparable to modern times. Genocide
was
practiced then as now, but it's probably not accurate to declare one
age
superior to another in the quality of life. Population dynamics tend
to
make those decisions for us.

JoeSP

I understand that the terms "progress", "advancement", etc. have no
place is discussing evolution. First an observation. There doesn't
appear to be a signfigant difference between Neolithic Times and Modern
Times in terms of evolution as evidenced by the evidence for
starvation, disease and violence of both. And it "seems" you are
stating population dynamics played a similar evolutionary role in
"quality of life" in Neolithic Times as it does in Modern Times. What
if I told you I agree with you (assuming this was what you were
stating) but that I have a deep problem with it? I'm wondering if you
have any problem with it? Assuming we are essentially the same as our
Neolithic ancestral brothers and sisters yet have all the stockpiled
nuclear weapons and advances in weapontry, does this not represent a
real threat to our viability as a species?

The second thing I want to ask is what do you think of the possibility
of "guiding" our own evolution through continued advances in genomics,
proteomics, genetic engineering, etc., etc.? I don't believe in
intelligent design in the creationist sense but it is also used by some
in the engineering field. Why not intelligently designing our evolution
once we have enough knowledge and means to do so? This is a pipedream
now but given the advances in science it may not be a pipedream in 200
years. I acknowledge this would be far from easy but compared to the
continuation of "Neolithic Times" I reserve my hope for "intelligent
design".

Michael Ragland
P.S. Why are you going by JoeSP now?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Christof Koch
    ... Simpler Origin for Life" from earlier this year by Prof. Robert Shapiro, ... Life began with the appearance of the first RNA molecule. ... before proteins and DNA in the evolution of life. ...
    (talk.atheism)
  • Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth
    ... We're talking about evolution, which is orthogonal. ... Science has shown that this is not the case. ... >>>to all life and explains everything. ... >>eukaryotes are related through a single common ancestor. ...
    (talk.origins)