display | more...
Anti-Evolution is a state that a species will enter when it reaches a level of advancement sufficient to over rule the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This is the state that the population of humans has reached.

As a species we no longer take part in survival of the fittest. It has been thousands of years since there was any sort of real survival of the fittest for the majority of the species. There is nowhere on the earth where the stronger human will survive its predators by being stronger and smarter. This happens because we are undisputedly at the top of the food chain. There is no other species which attacks us and kills our weak. It just doesn’t happen. We also do not have to hunt for our food or be skilled gatherers. If there is a weak baby born it no longer dies but lives a normal life just as any other human would.

This state is not a bad thing. I personally doubt I would have been tough enough to fight my way through life. Very few people on this planet could go back to that way of life. Until there were humans, species evolved around strength and hardiness. They survived based on their ability to find food and protect themselves. Now we evolve around intelligence and wit. It is no longer important to be strong or hardy.

What will become of our species? There is nothing on record to prepare us for what is to come. Will we dwindle away into unimaginably weak bodied beings surviving only by our technology? It is a prospect that is not that far fetched. And I prospect I am glad I won’t be alive to see.

And in response to the "evolution can't go backwards" Evolution implies advancement. As defined by webster evolution is the opposite of involution which implies the loss of traits.
I think I would have to agree that Evolution doesn't go backwards, meaning both anti-evolution and devolution are somewhat bunk. I don't argue that human kind might be losing some of it's "virtues", or at least those things previously seen as its virtues. But, to say evolution is working backwards denies what evolution is.

Evolution: that process which develops, alters, and terminates species based on their reproductive success and genetic shifts(i.e. natural selection).

(definition taken from my "society killed evolution" WU)

The way that evolution works is to give a higher market share, so to say, to a species which fits its niche. Meaning, when the niche changes, -- when pollution increases, water-levels rise, other species die, or technology is born, those species which are adapted to the new environment will survive, reproduce more, and fill the gene pool.

And relatedly, when humans no longer need to have perfect eye-sight to survive, evolution will no longer select for vision. This doesn't mean, though, that the human species has devolved or experienced anti-evolution. It simply means that evolution no longer chose for that characteristic.

It is important to remember that Evolution has no long-term memory : it simply wants, if my anthropomorphism will be excused, to aid immediate survival. This is also the reason why the human brain can't really understand itself -- that was not necessary for survival, or why people have a tendency to be short-sighted -- the tiger around the corner is, in the eyes of evolution, more dangerous than the Global Warming a 100 years down the road.




Reply to No_comply's revamped WU:
Anti-Evolution is a state that a species will enter when it reaches a level of advancement sufficient to over rule the laws of natural selection and survival of the fittest. This is the state that the population of humans has reached.
I fear I can still not agree with this. First, to say that we break the laws of nature, requires us to re-examine whether or not they are laws. Personally, I think they hold. Despite the fact that we have technology and society, we continue to be mortal beings who feel these processes (i.e. evolution).

I don't know if I made it fully clear, but our technology does not remove us from the evolutionary loop rather it itself becomes part of our system. Evolution is the system. There's no stepping outside of it.

This definition of evolution as system might be a little loose, but I firmly believe that evolution is present at every level, and despite what "advancements" are made, it will be present. In an altered form perhaps, but there nonetheless. One other point:

Evolution implies advancement. As defined by webster evolution is the opposite of involution which implies the loss of traits.
First, we need a solid definition of advancement. In the biological sense, this is reversed. Advancement implies evolution. There is no other measurement that can be used other than the change of the species. (If the argument is that there is no change to the species, remember: evolution takes time - you'll be dead.)

And, if the measurement of advancement here is supposed to be based on technology, biologically that's non-sensical. Anthropologically, perhaps. But, not biologically.

Lastly, Evolution= ~involution. Involution= loss of traits. Anti-Evolution= ~(~loss of traits). Anti-evolution= loss of traits. Have we lost traits? And even if we did lose traits, would that imply a "backwards" direction? We're losing our molars and our appendix at the moment (As you read!), is that anti-evolution, or evolution?

I'll stick with evolution.

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.