Quote:
Originally Posted by blankety blank
Is genus to matter as substance to form?
Or, is it genus to substance as matter to form?
|
I don't understand what you mean. To me, as someone who works with taxonomy, genus is a low level taxonomic unit. Species have one genus name and one species name, f.ex
Vespula rufa and
Vespula vulgaris. These are two closely related species of wasps (Rufa and Vulgaris) from the same genus (Vespula).
Not sure if this is relevant to your question, but animals don't have to belong to the same genus or even the same phylum (high level rank) to be similar in form and function.
The picture shows a Hummingbird Hawk Moth which is named for its likeness to hummingbirds. Like hummingbirds, it is able to flap its wings fast enough to hover next to flowers and uses its tongue to lick nectar. It lives off nectar in a way which almost identical to that of hummingbirds and so the two have evolved to be able to do pretty much the same thing, despite the fact that one is an invertebrate and the other an invertebrate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blankety blank
I believe it is hopefully the plan. Future evolution will be more mind oriented. Mental progression. But, these barriers need torn down. Or, it is not happening.
|
Evolution is not a matter of effort on our part. That is misunderstanding the concept. Evolution rewards the genes that are able to replicate more in the human population. If these are the genes that create intelligent and sociable humans, then humans will be overall more intelligent and sociable in the future. In order for that to happen, smart and sociable partners have to have an advantage when it comes to sexual reproduction. Humans need to choose the smart and sociable sexual partners.
We don't do so as an effort, but as a consequence. In the civilized environment, people who are not smart and sociable don't do as well. They don't get the best jobs and they are more frequently criminal. As a result, they are generally less attractive as sexual partners. This is what drives human evolution in the intelligent/sociable direction, not an effort of will.
If civilization does not survive, it is possible that a future environment could reward selfishness. In distant future scenarios of extreme famine, perhaps even our brains would get smaller as they are costly organs to grow and keep. A lot of people see evolution similar to climbing up a ladder. They think we're always evolving towards something, like smarter and better. That's not true. We adapt to the environment. Instead of climbing a ladder, an action which only takes you up, we can potentially evolve in any direction.