The Coronavirus

[pbrower2a]

(12-26-2021, 04:31 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(12-26-2021, 02:25 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-24-2021, 05:41 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(12-24-2021, 03:43 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(12-24-2021, 09:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: Quite the opposite.  Being a survivor is not perpetual.  Today’s survivor may be overtaken tomorrow … or not.  In any case, the activity is fully dynamic.

Nature is, indeed. But Darwinism is not. It explains life through death.

Darwinism as a scientific theory is hard to argue with.  Species thrive to the extent that they fit their environment.  Darwinism as a moral philosophy and practical tool is something else.  When you start meddling with the environment to make it fit better with your group and less well with other groups, you loose me right quick.  It rapidly becomes a justification for immorality.

Evolution is how life adapts to its environment and unfolds it potential through time. We need better theories than Darwin's basic attempt to explain it, since by itself that explanation snuffs out our awareness of what lives. And these revisions are indeed appearing, and deserve our attention. But the moral imperative to adapt to and fit into rather than destroy our environment for our own narrow purposes is a positive interpretation of evolution.

The concept is 'survival of the fittest', and that still applies.  Dinosaurs were the fittest in their day ... then they weren't.  Adaptability gets species a long run, but not an infinite one.

The dinosaurs (aside from the avian ones that have since evolved into the creatures who dominate the skies) were simply living at the wrong time to be alive for any large creature. Man would not have survived the Chixculub disaster. Small, burrowing creatures and animals born small in nests (turtles, alligators and crocodiles) that need little parental care once hatched survived even if their parents did not.