[nmb]

Could we, as societies, artificially accelerate this evolutionary process in order to retain our hopes to survive? Could we synchronize our efforts to reverse our downgraded course into an unprecedented type of Evolution?

http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014 ... onary.html

[Lightman]

Total confusion over what biological evolution is. Evolution is not climbing a latter; there is not an objective "up." Evolution is reaction to environment.

[Solastalgia]

Total confusion over what biological evolution is. Evolution is not climbing a latter; there is not an objective "up." Evolution is reaction to environment.

I believe nmb is referring to sociocultural evolution. Not biological evolution.

The word 'evolution' does imply direction or progress, which is partly why Darwin didn't like using it over "transmutation by natural selection."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =129180199

[quetzalcoatl]

Total confusion over what biological evolution is. Evolution is not climbing a latter; there is not an objective "up." Evolution is reaction to environment.

What happens when environment itself becomes simply another object of human manipulation? Evolution is not be 'directed' in any intelligible way, but the distinction between environments and the actors inhabiting the environment has always been a little dicey - perhaps never more so than now.

[Angelamerkel]

Total confusion over what biological evolution is. Evolution is not climbing a latter; there is not an objective "up." Evolution is reaction to environment.

Please read Kimura reference, page 2


http://darwin.eeb.uconn.edu/eeb348/lect ... eutral.pdf

It explains not all changes are a reaction to the environment. Some of it is explained by randomness in the neutral selection phenomena.

[Potemkin]

It explains not all changes are a reaction to the environment. Some of it is explained by randomness in the neutral selection phenomena.

Granted. But this doesn't change his essential point - that the evolutionary process has no direction, nor is it ascending some 'ladder' to genetic 'perfection' or something. While it is true that not all genetic changes are a reaction to environmental changes (for example, male pattern baldness has no adaptive advantage, yet it appeared and persists in the human population due to a random genetic mutation which was and is not selected against), this just means that all sorts of random junk accumulates in our genome which gives us no advantage or disadvantage in our current environment.

[Lightman]

What happens when environment itself becomes simply another object of human manipulation? Evolution is not be 'directed' in any intelligible way, but the distinction between environments and the actors inhabiting the environment has always been a little dicey - perhaps never more so than now.

Sure, humans could direct evolution to some degree - this is the basis of eugenics programs, after all. But this doesn't mean that humans are advancing "up" the evolutionary chain; there is no evolutionary chain. Rather, we would be changing roughly in accordance with a given set of subjective norms of human advancement. There is no objective advancement, only objective fitting.

[quetzalcoatl]

there is no evolutionary chain.

So I guess this means no Evolution Machine for me:

[youtube]8BkTBJUcLTw[/youtube]

[Ummon]

I'm going to disagree with everyone here just for fun.

We could probably enhance our moral and cognitive centers specifically in the prefrontal cortex to achieve much of the change the author desires. Also, evolution does show convergence in some simulations.