When would cybernetics no longer make a person be human?

[Shadowferal]

It's likely we're seeing it now with rats in NYC.

- - - Updated - - -

Carnivores are still around, what are you talking about?

Ack!
Wrong word.
I meant whst replaced creodonta. Which were carnivores. (Editing my post)

[Mayhem]

I'm not claiming anything like xmen. This is a process that takes 100/1000 if not 100,000 of years.

Galapagos island finches is a perfect example. Finches that came from the main land and adapted/evolved to survive their current habitat.

You're still going about this the wrong way. They didn't adapt, they already survived their current habitat or else they would've gone extinct. What looks to us like adaptation is just thousands of generations breeding out the ones that didn't mutate positive traits.

- - - Updated - - -

Ack!
Wrong word.
I meant whst replaced creodonta. Which were carnivores. (Editing my post)

I have not enough knowledge nor the time to read up on creodonta (apparently that term isn't used anymore) and what lead to their extinction.

[Orange Joe]

You're still going about this the wrong way. They didn't adapt, they already survived their current habitat or else they would've gone extinct. What looks to us like adaptation is just thousands of generations breeding out the ones that didn't mutate positive traits.

You clearly know nothing about them of you wouldn't be saying this. Nor am I sure why you are stuck on this "already survived" kick. Just because they are currently surviving doesn't mean they don't adapt to better suit the environment. Which is exactly what the finches did.

[Shadowferal]

Creodonta couldn't compete with the newer species called carnivorans.

Too big and too slow...the subject of creodonta and old world species was an old fascination of mine.

[Mayhem]

You clearly know nothing about them of you wouldn't be saying this. Nor am I sure why you are stuck on this "already survived" kick. Just because they are currently surviving doesn't mean they don't adapt to better suit the environment. Which is exactly what the finches did.

You clearly ignore your own posts.

The first finches that came to the islands didn't suddenly evolve to survive the conditions. That took generations, thousands probably. So the ones that went there were already equipped to survive, they weren't as well equipped as they are now, but they survived, through time mutations occurred that made some of them better at surviving than their ancestors and other finches, therefore they mated like crazy while others were shit out of luck at finding partners and over time all of their descendants replaced the whole finches population.

- - - Updated - - -

Creodonta couldn't compete with the newer species called carnivorans.

Too big and too slow...the subject of creodonta and old world species was an old fascination of mine.

Right, they couldn't compete, that is a remarkable example of evolution not happening through changing conditions.

[Orange Joe]

You clearly ignore your own posts.

The first finches that came to the islands didn't suddenly evolve to survive the conditions. That took generations, thousands probably. So the ones that went there were already equipped to survive, they weren't as well equipped as they are now, but they survived, through time mutations occurred that made some of them better at surviving than their ancestors and other finches, therefore they mated like crazy while others were shit out of luck at finding partners and over time all of their descendants replaced the whole finches population.

Where am I saying anything other than this? Their environment changed. And they adapted to better survive in that environment. They therefor adapted because of their environment.

Which of my post contradicts this statement?

[Mayhem]

Where am I saying anything other than this? Their environment changed. And they adapted to better survive in that environment. They therefor adapted because of their environment.

Which of my post contradicts this statement?

You're not reading my posts, do you? Adaption is an active process, evolution is not an active process.

[Orange Joe]

You're not reading my posts, do you? Adaption is an active process, evolution is not an active process.

And? that doesn't really contradict my claim?

Evolution is the process of a creature adapting over time. You can't have evolution (long term) without adaption(short term)

In evolutionary theory, adaptation is the biological mechanism by which organisms adjust to new environments or to changes in their current environment. Although scientists discussed adaptation prior to the 1800s, it was not until then that Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace developed the theory of natural selection.

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...ia/adaptation/

Wallace believed that the evolution of organisms was connected in some way with adaptation of organisms to changing environmental conditions. In developing the theory of evolution by natural selection, Wallace and Darwin both went beyond simple adaptation by explaining how organisms adapt and evolve. The idea of natural selection is that traits that can be passed down allow organisms to adapt to the environment better than other organisms of the same species. This enables better survival and reproduction compared with other members of the species, leading to evolution.

[PC2]

You're not reading my posts, do you? Adaption is an active process, evolution is not an active process.

I think you're saying that genetic evolution is not an active process because it's stochastic and therefor passive? That sounds right but I think you and Orange Joe may be talking past each other and not arguing over the same thing.

[Shadowferal]

Right, they couldn't compete, that is a remarkable example of evolution not happening through changing conditions.

But conditions did change
Prey became faster and smaller.

Have to keep in mind thst species that can't adapt...die.

[Mayhem]

And? that doesn't really contradict my claim?

Evolution is the process of a creature adapting over time. You can't have evolution (long term) without adaption(short term)



https://www.nationalgeographic.org/e...ia/adaptation/

Yes, it does contradict your claim because the adaptation you're citing is not an actual biological change to the species but a behavior change to new or changing environments.

Migrating to warmer regions due to changing climate - adaptation
Parts of the species who are coping better with colder climate due to mutations - not adaptation

[Shadowferal]

Kudos on mentioning Wallace. It's amazing how often his name gets omitted.

[Orange Joe]

Yes, it does contradict your claim because the adaptation you're citing is not an actual biological change to the species but a behavior change to new or changing environments.

Migrating to warmer regions due to changing climate - adaptation
Parts of the species who are coping better with colder climate due to mutations - not adaptation

Well no offense but I'll take Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace's word over yours.

Not to mention your bottom claim is 100% false and the opposite of truth....

Seriously here is the defintion of adaption

ad·ap·ta·tion

/ˌadapˈtāSH(ə)n/
Learn to pronounce



noun
noun: adaptation; plural noun: adaptations

a movie, television drama, or stage play that has been adapted from a written work, typically a novel.

• Biology
  
  a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

[Mayhem]

But conditions did change
Prey became faster and smaller.

Have to keep in mind thst species that can't adapt...die.

Yes, conditions changed and the ones unfit for these changing conditions went extinct. I never said conditions didn't change, I said changing conditions didn't trigger evolution happening in creodonta.

- - - Updated - - -

Well no offense but I'll take Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace's word over yours.

No offense taken, but by your definition of evolution, species can't go extinct which obviously is not the case.

[Shadowferal]

Yes, conditions changed and the ones unfit for these changing conditions went extinct. I never said conditions didn't change, I said changing conditions didn't trigger evolution happening in creodonta.

But the order carnivoran did evolve.

[Orange Joe]

Yes, conditions changed and the ones unfit for these changing conditions went extinct. I never said conditions didn't change, I said changing conditions didn't trigger evolution happening in creodonta.

- - - Updated - - -



No offense taken, but by your definition of evolution, species can't go extinct which obviously is not the case.

? My definition of evolution? Can you quote me saying it? And where I say species can't fail?


Just because some adapt and evolve doesn't mean all species do. It's survival of the fittest, The species that adapt faster generally survive better.


Adaption and evolution don't guarantee survival. It just generally gives them a better chance at survival.

[Mayhem]

But the order carnivoran did evolve.

It's going in circles at this point. You said it yourself, creodonta were too big and too slow, the obvious solution if changing conditions could trigger evolution in a sense that the species itself changes would be to become smaller and faster.

[Orange Joe]

It's going in circles at this point. You said it yourself, creodonta were too big and too slow, the obvious solution if changing conditions could trigger evolution in a sense that the species itself changes would be to become smaller and faster.

Adaption doesn't happen 100% of the time. No one made that claim. Sometimes species are too slow to adapt to the new environment, or the new environment changes to fast for adaption to matter.

[Mayhem]

? My definition of evolution? Can you quote me saying it? And where I say species can't fail?

Your definition of "something triggers evolution".

Just because some adapt and evolve doesn't mean all species do. It's survival of the fittest, The species that adapt faster generally survive better.

No, all species evolve, all the time. Stop equating adaptation with evolving, those are different things.

Adaption and evolution don't guarantee survival. It just generally gives them a better chance at survival.

That depends on what you mean with those terms. Considering evolution is the process of a species surviving and the whole purpose of adaptation is to survive I am not sure what you're trying to say.

[Orange Joe]

That depends on what you mean with those terms. Considering evolution is the process of a species surviving and the whole purpose of adaptation is to survive I am not sure what you're trying to say.

then you are using incorrect definitions. I already posted the definition of adaption.

ad·ap·ta·tion
/ˌadapˈtāSH(ə)n/
noun

noun: adaptation; plural noun: adaptations

• the action or process of adapting or being adapted.
  "the adaptation of teaching strategy to meet students' needs"

• Biology
  a change or the process of change by which an organism or species becomes better suited to its environment.

adaption = process in which animals change to better suit the environment. This is a short term process and doesn't change the overall species much.

• ev·o·lu·tion
  
  /ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
  
  noun
  
  noun: evolution; plural noun: evolutions1.
  
  • the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
    h
    Similar:
  
  
• natural selection
• 2.
  the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
  "the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"

evolution = long term process in which species change from multiple adaptions and become something different.