what is the opposite of evolution?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 61 total)
  • what is the opposite of evolution?
  • alpin
    Member

    because i think that is where humanity is going.

    think about it. more women go to university and build careers. many successful people find that their job comes before any ideas of having a family.

    those that do procreate and have many children are helping keeping the birth rate up. but, to make a generalisation and prob upset many of the knee jerk crowd, those that do stay at home and have lots of kids are often not the sort of people who are passing on prime genes. look at the bbc article re. large families. the parents, to me at least, don’t seem to be the sort of people that are going to be passing on clever genes.

    and with medicine. we are living longer and drugs are developing enabling us to do so. we are now experiencing problems that 100 year ago were almost unheard of.

    wot’dyafink?

    i’m going to bed.

    jonb
    Member

    devolution

    What we experience now in terms of illness, we weren’t around long enough to realise we’d die from it or it was just called old age.

    Stoner
    Member

    the Premier League?

    aracer
    Member

    The Scottish Parliament?

    Premier Icon Kuco
    Subscriber

    gordon brown

    Premier Icon GrahamA
    Subscriber
    Premier Icon speaker2animals
    Subscriber

    DNA just ” wants” to make more of itself. Therefore “clever” people who don’t want kids or only have 1 are not of any use to DNA. For want of a better, of term, scrounging thickos who have 6 kids to maximize benefits are doing exactly what DNA needs. Therefore they are evolving. It’s us sad singles/career types who are the evolutionary dead end.

    Evolution is simply having traits that let you breed as often as possible. I feel you are confusing it with a system that would produce super clever, super moral people. I feel thar is simply a human conceipt.

    You’re right about medicine though. Unless we learn how to succesfully carry out gene therapy that eliminates inheritted illnesses western society is breeding in a time bomb. This is fine as long as technology and resources are available to keep genetically “I’ll” people alive and “healthy”. But when those resources become thin on the ground our race will pay the price.

    This endeth the lesson.

    Sorry

    scu98rkr
    Member

    your missing the point of evolution.

    Evolution isnt the surival of the fittest or whatever you describe as being “BEST”.

    Evolution is the survial of the species most responsive to change.

    Therefore you could argue the people have massive amounts of kids while conditions are good are responding to the conditions better.

    You use the words “PRIME” genes. This the mistake people made near the turn of the certury there is no such thing.

    Im sure evolution could of developed a series of super beings as clever as a humans, as fast as a cheatah, as agile as a cat, could grow back limbs, live for 100’s of years and would never get ill. Unfortunately such a species would require huge amounts of food and rest and therefore would die off as soon as a drought came along to be replaced by a humble dung bettle or something.

    Devolution. Its very popular in Scotland and Wales apparently.

    Premier Icon xherbivorex
    Subscriber

    tyne and wear.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Is it when somone is bright enough to read and write, use a computer, join an internet forum and offer opinions without any shred of understanding or sympathy for the plight of their fellow humans whilst belittling them for not sharing the “clever genes” the OP has?

    alpin
    Member

    yes, or no. not sure… πŸ™‚

    Devolution isnt that popular in wales-

    pay 2nd rate politicians to rewrite and translate english laws wasting millions of taxpayers money- great!

    Gary_C
    Member

    Singlespeeding……..

    Premier Icon epicyclo
    Subscriber

    Derailleurs and suspension for those unable to adapt to changing terrain?

    sodafarls
    Member

    It’s probably best for us childless (so far, eh?)through choice green tinged liberal progressive types to continue to make fools of and emasculate the feeble mindedconservative hivemind males. Their spawn will hate them in ways I cannot begin to articulate, as their spawn will live in the world their parents created with the wagging reckless piss dribbling cock of selfishness. Eh?

    Premier Icon Woody
    Subscriber

    tyne and wear.

    PML πŸ˜€

    Premier Icon Drac
    Subscriber
    dr_death
    Member

    Oy Herbivore, Shut it!

    Actually on second thoughts, you’re right!

    colnagokid
    Member

    AS a tyne & wear’r meself I had to laff (and half heartedly agree!)

    Evolution is the survial of the species most responsive to change.

    Nope what your talking about just like survival of the fittest is a potential driving force behind evolution, things like natural selection, founder effect or good old luck.

    Evolution is simply a change in a species over time, or change a species DNA over time. The first poster makes the mistake of thinking that evolution is directional and results in ever “better” or more complex species, this is not the case.

    jackthedog
    Member

    Revolution. Because we evlove, but we don’t… revolve.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Untermenschen! Untermenschen everywhere!

    πŸ™„

    Olly
    Member

    BigDummy, you’re sailing pretty close to invoking Godwins. But I think you have a point.

    Olly
    Member

    in other news, the source of devolution is medicne and health&safety in equal amounts.
    suvival of the fittest/smartest only works when the thickos are allowed to die horrible gory deaths at the controls of circular saws without protective guards, and buildings without handrails.
    and those to lazy to fend for and feed themselves, die because they dont get hand outs from the government.

    any population will self regulate, through natural balance,
    nature is doing its best, to keep us in check, but we keep beating it by curing it or just sidestepping it (aids for example of a relativly succesful avoidance)

    its only a matter of time before something big takes us back down to a smaller population, something catastrophic will reduce us to a population more sustaibale by the planet, the longer the wait, the bigger the “disaster”
    its not a case of hearsay, any biologist should see some sense, no population can grow unchecked forever:
    example: Yeast in beer, grows and grows, with plentiful supplys of what it needs, until its stopped by the very alchohol its producing, killing it off.
    hence why you need distilation to get over around 10%v/v

    my moneys on a zombie apocalypse ala 28days later.

    can’t wait πŸ˜€

    WTD: Franchi Spas 12/street sweeper or similar semi auto shotgun.
    preferably only used lightly in zombie control, no criminal history.
    will collect

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    We’ve created a society where “survival of the fittest” no longer occurs. In nature, any injured or disabled animal will quickly be killed off by a predator. Even if it does survive a while, it won’t pass on it’s genes because it won’t be able to compete against the able-bodied animals for a mate.

    Human society cares for those individuals too stupid/disabled/old/lazy to work and earn a living.

    Premier Icon crazy-legs
    Subscriber

    Beaten to it by Olly!

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Of course, human society is fundamentally so similar to yeast in beer that any of the minor differences at the fringes can be ignored. πŸ˜‰

    its only a matter of time before something big takes us back down to a smaller population

    Thats population dynamics and not necessarily related to evolution.

    We’ve created a society where “survival of the fittest” no longer occurs

    Thats just plain bollocks, your still making the assumption that evoltion is positive or directional. Survival of the fittest is anyway only one of many processes that lead to evolution.

    andym
    Member

    Yep we’re definitely going backwards: people seem to have forgotten what capital letters are for.

    RudeBoy
    Member

    Mmm….beeer….

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Evolution is the survial of the species most responsive to change.

    That statement would have been fine with the addition of “when circumstances force it to change”

    As AA has pointed out, evolution = change over time, nothing more. Crazy legs, weak animals being culled is not evolution, that’s just the predator/pray cycle.

    The phrase “survival of the fittest” is at the same time one of the more simple and elegant ways to describe a theory, and yet the one most misunderstood.

    Premier Icon chakaping
    Subscriber

    Q. Are we not men?

    A. We are Devo!

    You might like this band.

    Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Chapaking, showing your age there… πŸ˜‰

    Great album though

    Junkyard
    Member

    anagallis_arvensis

    The first poster makes the mistake of thinking that evolution is directional and results in ever “better” or more complex species, this is not the case.

    can you give me an example of something evolving into something simpler please[ i am betting there is soemthing but you get the point surely] Are we still single celled organisms? Why do we have skeltons? Why are we warm blooded? etc etc . Evolution clearly results in more complex (it still has the DNA of all its ancestors) organisms. Those earlier less complex organism are still viable (reptiles clearly) but they are clearly less complex than later mammals for example.
    I agree with you re better meaningless a wide variety of DNA and also within a species (geneitc bio diversity)is better as this is most likely to allow a species or DNA to survive adverse conditions including some cataclismic event such as meteor strike, ice age, global warming etc.

    Premier Icon BigDummy
    Subscriber

    Would a giraffe be more, less or equally “complex” with a shorter neck?

    Olly
    Member

    Darwin noted, simply.

    chaffinches, with beaks most suited to crackin nuts, were able to crack nuts better than those that couldnt.
    those that couldnt were better at opening seeds with smaller pointier beaks
    interbreeding of two birds that were well built for cracking nuts produced offspring that were better still.
    and the same for the seed eaters.
    interbreeding one seed eater and one nut eater, produced offspring who were frankly rubbish and an embarrassment to all parties involved

    natural selection produced two very different lines of heriatge.

    survival of the fittest is the elimination of the old, weak, or naturally smaller animals.
    when being chased by a predator, the one that gets caught out of a heard, is the one at the back.
    old or weak maybe, but if there are no old or weak (hypothetically) then the slowest is taken down, removing an element of the “slow” gene from the pool.

    which is where the blurring of the two theories comes about

    im rambling and going way OT, can you tell im avoiding some work?

    gwaelod
    Member

    nickc AIUI “survival of the fittest” refers to organisims which are “best fitted” to their environment rather than those that can run faster, jump further etc.

    Re chavs popping lots of kids as a sound strategy for succesfully continuing their gene line…this is a strategy which relies on the sacrifice of other individuals in the same species, and occurs in some circumstances in other species too and is called “altruism”. The altruistic individuals in the same species will tend to behave in an altruistic form towards the chavistic individuals as there is a net benefit to their own progeny in doing so…or something.

    I don’t quite see the relationship between my kids doing better and me giving up 40% of my income so people in Merthyr can have sky telly and lots of fags…however.

    Junkyard
    Member

    BigDummy – Member
    Would a giraffe be more, less or equally “complex” with a shorter neck?

    Neither but it is more complex than its predecessor which if you go back far enough was a single celled organism in primordial soup etc

    I don’t quite see the relationship between my kids doing better and me giving up 40% of my income so people in Merthyr can have sky telly and lots of fags…however

    They do not go on the rampage around the country raping and pillaging as they are appeased by benefits and Jeremy Kyle thereby making it more likely your progeny will survive?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 61 total)

The topic ‘what is the opposite of evolution?’ is closed to new replies.