Nature follows laws simply as its own process. It can't alter those laws, as it has no conscious desires.
We do. We have a choice, and we are aware that we have a choice. Yes, nature created us, but I do not think that there exists no distinction. By your analogy, one could also say that a murderer is a part of humanity, thus there can exist no distinction.
I still take issue with the separation of nature as something distinct. Nature doesnt follow laws, nature is both the laws and the end result. It just is.
Certainly we are unique in our consciousness, but even when we break nature down into physics, our molecules are all the same as all the other molecules. This might seem pedantic, but it's very significant. As far as "nature" is concerned, the same rules apply. The only distinction between us and nature/physical reality is our conceptual one, similar to the same distinction you make between a murderer and humanity - murderers are different only in our judgement, molecularly and physically - they're humans like the rest of us.
Concerning "flawed" genes, yes, "flaw" is a human term, but it expresses something that nature deals with. A flawed gene is one that is damaged that will give rise to an organism that does not function properly. Nature has measures to correct errors, such as those that may arise during DNA replication, but sometimes these measures fail, and mutants are born. On occasion, mutations are beneficial, and allow an organism a better chance of surviving. Other times, they inhibit the organism's ability to survive or reproduce, and those genes die with it. This is the measure by which something can be considered "flawed."
It can certainly be considered flawed in that sense - but that is only one sense. There are definitely going to be errors in replication that completely prevent the organism from surviving, but that is somewhat outside of the discussion - they can never reproduce, and can't possibly lead to our "de-evolution".
In the context of surviving humans, unless it completely sterilizes them, I wouldnt call it flawed. Perhaps not efficient for the niche its placed in, but being that the environment also consists of all the humans and their genes around them - that environment is ALWAYS changing.
True, too. In nature, "battles" are fought among individuals or very small groups over access to immediate resources. They live or die based on their own strengths, not on the technology thought up by someone else.
In the forest maybe, but in the human society part of nature, people certainly live and die based upon their own strengths just like the animals. The technology may have been thought up, and produced by someone else, but thats a society for you - everyone has their own niche, and the entire society benefits. A society consisting of humans, who consist of the same molecule and and subject to the same laws as the rest of "nature".
Originally posted by: BD2003
I'm sure apes would consider us quite devolved if they ever saw us trying to climb a tree and swing around.
Different priorities. An ape probably wouldn't care about how many transistors are in the latest quad-core processor, nor would it care to know how to calculate the area of a circle.[/quote]
Precisely...what is advantageous and important to one, can be quite the opposite for another. This is just as valid within the human species than it is between different species. Genetics plays a large part in how we interact with society and nature. A genetic disposition to bipolar disorder could be a goldmine to a musician, and the reproductive potential of a rock star is prolific compared to the average joe. Thats a very small niche, but that gene certainly isnt flawed for his purposes, nor will it be for the next bipolar rock star.
Anyways, we don't need to worry about the de-evolution of our society. Things change, and we change with it. If intelligence is going to be the deciding factor to survival and reproduction, then we will get smarter, and those things that are no longer selective, such as physical strength or good eyesight, will slowly fade away.
Should there ever be an apocalypse that completely destroys human society in such a way that we are forced back into the woods without glasses or machines, sure, we'll wish we were stronger and faster, but it won't matter - everyone else is weaker, and as long as you've got the edge over everyone else thats alive, thats all that counts in the end. Things havent become worse...just different.
Facebook
Twitter