Dylan Durst wrote:
>
> > Muscles and organs are not technology; they are the conditions of
> > our being-in-the-world's being-to-the-world, of our incarnation into
> > the midst of it. The dividing line is easy; evolution vs. innovation.
>
> The dividing line is always easy. Thats why the idea of it has stuck.
>
> Evolution has brought us to innovation.
This doesn't mean that evolution is the same kind of process as
innovation.
You wouldn't say that gasoline is driving a car, would you? You'd still
need
a car and some sort of driver, which are very different things from
gasoline.
Innovation is not evolution because the dynamics that evolution uses are
very different from innovation. This can be seen as a dividing line.
of course no division is black and white but differences are certainly
noticable.
so evolution has brought us humans which are capable of innovating..
evolution is not capable to control WHAT humans innovate.. it could
determine
in what WAY we do it
> Multi-cellular organization brought us to organs and muscles (and us, i
> assume). At the time, it was probably an 'innovation,' but now it is an
> evolved, hmmm, 'condition'(?).
to be precice, it were errors in the genepatterns of organisms which
gave
the organism an advantage that made organs like muscles see the light..
there were thousands of variations of the error and some have proofen
quite handy. I think that this is not the way most innovators work..
they
often start with a problem instead of trying possible sollutions
randomly..
Nature never had a problem....it was the same mechanism from the start..
> Innovation is just another part of evolution. As long as it is useful,
> it will stick.
What is determining what is usefull?... in evolution it is the balance
of
all the organisms living.. humanity tends to disrupt this balance in an
uncontrolled way by it's innovations...
What we have learned from evolution is now a means of controlling
innovation..
>Just like, arms & legs, words, drums, telephones. Yes, the
> code for a telephone does not exist in our DNA, neither is the code for
> some of the nutrients that we need to survive. But our body parts
> dependent on those nutrients, as may become dependent on raw materials for
> our innovations.
I think that even without the presence of evolution human minds will
find new
inspiration in things that are around them.. In this respect we are
decoupling ourselfes from evolution (medicine anyone? genetic
engineering?)