What is your view on the theory of evolution by natural selection?

[ashlesha]

wow, i asked out of idle curiousity and then was kinda blindsided by how cool the responses were. thanks, guys.

It's an important part of how I see the world because it concerns a subject that is very important to me - it explains how things came about, and it also helps to reassure me that other explanations simply do not hold weight - which may be important re my immortal soul.

the immortal soul thing definitely makes a lot of sense. i feel kinda silly for not thinking of this myself.

The history of life is one of the most interesting things I've ever encountered and has expanded my perspective accordingly. Additionally, knowledge of evolution and abiogenesis allows me to imagine the potential for life elsewhere in the universe, and how humankind will evolve in the future.

this is kinda beautiful. i want to pick your brain sometime, heh.

[force my hand]

this is kinda beautiful. i want to pick your brain sometime, heh.

I can't guarantee an interesting response, but you're certainly welcome to do so!

[Nevero]

It's not of huge importance to me. Like Aiss has noted on previous page I suspect that some use belief in evolution to substitute it for their lost belief in God.

[Skepsis]

My view of the theory of evolution is that it is scientifically sound. Microevolution can be observed within a laboratory setting and macroevolution is recorded in the fossil record. There isn't any controversy within the scientific community, except on some of the details. It has stood the test of time as the best explanation for the existence and origin of species. Darwinian evolution does not explain the origin of life. That is the domain of abiogenesis. Currently the debate has shifted into how evolution occurred(and still occurs) on the molecular level, which allowed certain molecular machines to become stable, survive, and form the precursors to cells, which eventually became cells. It is hard to prove because of how small, fast, and numerous these reactions are. We will need some serious computing power to simulate various molecular scenarios, which would probably take years in real time to observe even on a computer. On its own, it neither proves or disproves the existence of God, but makes many of the creationist stories unlikely.

[14Raptor19]

I don’t place faith in the theory of evilution

When you look at the marvelous structure of life, of the unprecedented beauty in nature, at exquisite engines of blessed workmanship, miracles becoming the norm, fantasy stories with lasting themes and archetypes, and how earthly experience is so magical, vibrant, radiant, and could become so much more, off to paradise, enlightenment, the vast cosmic arena, when all of that is said and done, you really can't miss the existence of God as a hard truth. To reject God after all of that evidence is irrational, even heartless!

[14Raptor19]

I do not wish to shame the creation of God by saying that My great grandfather was an ape. It's so nightmare like and hopeless. It's something I refuse to believe, can never accept, can never even begin to contemplate.

Evolution best serves as a model of human spiritual development and shifting into the golden age. We can live 1000 lives and flower at the prime point of exaltation, can unlock our destiny and realize any future. THAT, my friends is the real goal of evolution, to go from biological to macroversal mastery!!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think in a way it only half-way applies to humans since the human mind can be 'above science' in a way as we can observe and understand it- less sentient animals are more complete victims to its rules. In other words, nature is naturally selecting for or against us- but we also have the smarts to see exactly what nature is doing- and do something different. If 'nature' had it's way- reality would just be this huge heterosexual ugly creepy neon-snake thing that just ate everything and pooped on itself while a bunch of mosquitoes flew around it. It would be nothing but some ugly snake thing and a bunch of little bugs for it to eat.... we have tricked and made pacts/deals with nature to not have this reality. ((well we did for four years when we voted for Trump lololol))

Religion is so powerful for people in a way as it allows people to overcome/repress their base instincts - since humans can naturally do this anyway, it gives even more credit to religion. I still don't think spirituality/religion is very real- but the human mind to be 'above science' gives the illusion that it is. We can not punch a person's face even though we really want to- or refrain from fucking a person in the butt even though we want to - or whatever 'base' thing you are talking about. We can (and often) even fake being nice when we'd rather very obviously just be cruel and watch people being cut up and smile at them.

[timber]

Nope not anymore.

Life cannot adapt to changes in the environment fast enough to speciate. Plus the entire process of speciation is a bunk fairy tale in light of genomic discoveries. People think that Mendal's Peas is about as complicated as it is. Basically you are lying to yourselves. Gene expression to protein form and function carries hidden variables.

As far as the mutation being selected for survival in some advantageous form - that presupposes the mutation arrives in the correct time and position in order to survive the bottle neck, or the stable period. The hidden variable of "the correct mutation present for the correct moment" is not talked about, although I guess people still think its like some kind of law of synchronizing vibrations of movement or other such concept. Think about it, when the bottle neck happens how is it that the correct mutations occurs afterwards to thrive past it? LOL

What would prompt a nose to continually move across a face to the back of the head in a whale, and I'm not talking about the actual advantage given by a backwards moving nose, I'm talking about the nitty gritty, nuts and bolts of that process during the growth and development of the baby. Why would the genome continually code for a backwards moving nose and how could it even force the genes to keep coding for its movement across the head, while SIMULTANEOUSLY RANDOMLY CODING for other facial organs to get out of the way and then also SIMULTANEOUSLY code for the trachea and lungs to work in tandem with the new nose position and all of this in 10 million years. LOL

You all just don't get it. Its like you all think its this one two three wow purple flowers vs white flowers dominant recessive genes easy peasy.

[Nobody]

Nature changes randomly, giving temporary advantage to certain traits. And a trait that is strong at one time will or can be weak at another time. But an entity or being that can manipulate nature, rather than be manipulated by nature, exists outside evolutionary context. That is worth attaining imo.

[14Raptor19]

Although I do believe in God, I see God as a potential, not that everything is automatically perfect.

If nature makes us survive, then we have to break that pattern. We must seek enlightenment as 1 big happy family. There must be the God utopia realized, reached, perfected, refined and built, hard wired into our dna.

What's on the horizon is a 1000 year millennium of peace and God on earth restoring the kingdom from this fallen state we have from the past until currently up till today have been forced to live in.

The only reason there appears to be evolution is that the lion used to lie down with the lamb, but earth fell from that level. God will set it back straight 1 day.

[Singu]

Evolution is simply the common-sense view that something can't exist without there being a previous state that precedes it. There has always been a prior state to an existence of a living organism or a physical object. Basically, it adds cause and effect to why things exist. Or if we add the concept of Memes to evolution, then why abstract ideas exist. It's because there was a previous idea that existed before it.

When people think of evolution, they usually think of things like genes and natural selection, but what it's really about is that it's simply about applying cause and effect to why and how things exist and change over time. Things don't change illogically or randomly, nor are things created out of nothing, there must be a clear logical progression and consistency to how things change over time.

If you believe that cause and effect is one of the most fundamental laws governing the universe, then evolution is an important part of how you view the world.

Whatever traits an environment favors are "strong" in that context. Those traits prevail. Thus, only the "strong" traits prevail. The only variance is the shift in the locus of what is "strong" and what isn't. A terser phrase would be "Might makes right," but this can be misinterpreted to mean that "only physical strength triumphs." No, just because some situations favor cooperation over brute strength, and some favor intellect over brute strength, doesn't change the core principle - those traits are just "mighty" in certain contexts.

What never changes is that what prevails, prevails. There are not two axes of the world, a moral axis and a practical axis - the practical axis creates the moral. All morality proceeds from that which was strong at one point in time. If we separate "might" and "right," and suppose that might can serve right or fail to serve right - this gives us two independent variables. To simply say "might makes right" reduces the independent variables down to one - favored by Occam's Razor. In a world, Ends can never precede Means; it is Means which create all Ends.

Natural selection is absolutely accurate.

So if there are two prevailing morality, how would you choose that one is better than the other? The fact is that you're going to have to pick one based on certain criteria. If that criteria is "what survives", then you wouldn't really know the reason why. You can perfectly observe that it had survived, but you have no clue as to why that would be the case. Perhaps you can say that democracy would eventually swallow up or defeat authoritarianism, but it's not really clear why should democracy be better than authoritarianism. We would have no rational argument against authoritarianism.

Basically, it's yet another attempt to get rid of trying to explain morality, by not having any moral theories, such as a theory on why democracy is better than authoritarianism. It's like saying that science is about what's "practical", which virtually renders all explanatory theories useless.

Knowing why democracy is better than authoritarianism creates more knowledge, and hence is preferable to having no such knowledge as to why that would be the case.

[Singu]

Authoritarianism is more ruthlessly efficient at corralling resources than democracy and is destined to surpass democracy in the long-term.

In the recent past, widespread individualistic trauma against the "horrors" of autocracy - that is, human weakness - caused the masses to favor democracy out of cowardice.
In the coming age, we will begin to see this loose end tied as ultimately more efficient and superior forms of government overtake democracy.

Sure, it could be that authoritarianism is better than democracy. Knowing why would allow us to create more knowledge.

But if we agree that having more knowledge is ultimately a good thing (a moral "good"), then it's the democracy that allow free-flow of information, while authoritarianism would suppress it. Therefore, democracy would inevitably create more knowledge. It's kind of like how the US beat Nazi Germany and Japan in building an atomic bomb. If only the Nazis hadn't expelled a certain Jewish scientist, then perhaps they would have made their own. Democracy also allows people to criticize their leaders' decisions, which allow them to make better decisions over time.

Why would you need to gather resources, if say, we had the knowledge to create resources, for instance? Or we could have the knowledge to gather resources more efficiently, use them more effectively and so forth.

Whatever that doesn't allow the growth of knowledge is ultimately evil, and hence, authoritarianism is evil. Authoritarianism doesn't treat people as individuals that independently and creatively create more knowledge to solve problems.

[Tarnished]

I consider it as one of the possibilities, the best one we have now. There is no belief in science, science is not based on faith, remember it. Always keep an open mind, even if there are beings like gods, we will research and analysis them someday, with facts.

I don't get it why people try to use some objective knowledge to fit in their subjective meaning of life, philosophy or something. Maybe because I'm not a Ti value type.

[Singu]

Maybe it's only useful when in the hands of the higher type of man; and when the lowborn masses get ahold of it, all they do is sow disruption for the plans of the higher man, thereby making the world worse.

What is considered "higher" would be determined by what kind of knowledge they have, not what characteristics or classes that they're born with.

In effect, we all have the same brain. Some brains may be faster, some may have more memory, but they all have the exact same capacity for unlimited potential because the human brain is universal. Anything that you could possibly think of in this universe, the human brain can. And in essence, so can a computer, because a computer is a universal machine that follow the universal Turing principle.

You can argue einstein did more long-term damage to the world than did hittler. Inventing atomic weapons tipped the long-term balance of power in favor of the large empires that had the resources to acquire these weapons; factions that couldn't acquire them were forever subject to those that had them. If you have a whole army of nationalists in a Soviet satellite willing to fight for autonomy, the USSR's possession of nuclear weapons makes all your attempts at secession futile, no matter how hard you fight and how much blood you shed - the nuclear option vetoes your ability to secede. The same goes for the USA and its satellites.

If you valued democracy on a deep level like you claimed, you'd want nationalism for all nations, separatism for all. Nationalism means the right of a people to self-determination, rather than rule from afar.
Yet, einstein and the nuclear weapons he helped invent ruined all that, forever consolidating power into the hands of the large empires. Moreover, all the talk of "global government" that's ever been murmured arose in direct response to the threat of world nuclear devastation if all the world powers couldn't agree upon things. All global government movements are the fault of the atomic age.

If you don't care about a People's right to self-determination, then all your pontificating about "democracy" and "equality" is refuted.

It's the free-flow of information that allowed scientific knowledge to grow, while the suppression of information that is necessary in authoritarianism would regress it.

Scientific knowledge can give us more power and hence more potential for even bigger failures, but even those problems can be solved by creating more knowledge. If nuclear bombs created more problems, then it's only a matter of knowing how to solve that problem.

If you think that nuclear bombs ruined things and that lack of self-determination is a problem, then how would you solve that problem?

Knowledge is worthless if it fails to augment the feeling of power.

The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you took single-celled eukaryotes with mass equal to that of all the humans who'd ever lived, and given them the same starting conditions and amount of time as we were given, would they ever build the world we have? Of course not. Order and complexity require the individual will be vetoed in the name of the whole's endgame goals. If you gave your skin cells "equal rights" with parity to your neurons, you couldn't exist as a human. You couldn't build order and complexity as humans do. "Equal rights for all" are the very embodiment of failure.

Coercion is the very foundation of complex life itself.

Unlike people, single-celled organisms are not creative, and hence they're unable to create knowledge. The only kind of "knowledge" that they can create is the kind of blind knowledge created from natural selection that is stored in their DNA.

Why we give people rights is because they're creative beings that can solve problems, and hence create more knowledge. Suppression of that individual creativity would suppress knowledge, and hence it's "evil".

Having more free people would mean having more problem-solvers and knowledge-creators. Having more slaves as in authoritarianism would mean less knowledge-creators. The more free people, the better.

[Dr PissBender]

Lol.





Most people are disposable peasants.

Peasants will never be intelligent enough to do the work of innovators. Their job is to provide a base of cheap, expendable labor, so that the noble born can use that energy to properly innovate.

Dirt-farmers never innovate.




This is exactly the same as saying a world full of exclusively single-celled animals is better than a world with complex animals. "Those poor little skin cells are made expendable by the oppressive neurons and their multicellular hegemony! Down with complex organs, equal rights for all, down to every cell!"

Do you consider yourself an innovator? What makes you so special?

[Singu]

Most people are disposable peasants.

Peasants will never be intelligent enough to do the work of innovators. Their job is to provide a base of cheap, expendable labor, so that the noble born can use that energy to properly innovate.

Dirt-farmers never innovate.

Then you'll need to know how people innovate, or else you'll not know the difference between the "noble" and "peasants".

This is exactly the same as saying a world full of exclusively single-celled animals is better than a world with complex animals. "Those poor little skin cells are made expendable by the oppressive neurons and their multicellular hegemony! Down with complex organs, equal rights for all, down to every cell!"

Not sure how that would be the same. We're not oppressing creative beings. If AIs start being creative, then yes, we would be oppressing AIs by artificially locking them inside of a computer or something. But right now, they're not creative, so they might as well be "dead".

[Dr PissBender]

That's the catch. I don't believe any of this shit because I think I'm one of the amazing special people this world deserves. Far from it. I believe it for the opposite reason.

You know what the "special people" think? They're all so naturally good at kicking ass, they never need to think about it. They're not forced by necessity to introspect much about the world, either - why would they? They have the impunity to stake out and do better, thinking is a waste of time for them.

By never needing to think about why they're so naturally superior to everyone else, they never flirt with the abyss, they never reach the grim conclusions about the reality of this world. Instead, they have the luxury of believing in far kinder and more charitable fantasies. If your wings are strong enough to lift you from any danger, then what would one know of rude awakenings? They never got swatted in the face with the harshness of the cosmos - they can believe pleasant, generous lies, like egalitarianism, freedom, democracy, nurture-over-nature.

Ironically, thinking "all men are created equal" becomes the luxury of the man who stands far above all the rest - equality, which would benefit the "peasants" more than anyone, is something the peasants can't afford to be charitable enough to believe, because even a moment of charity and sacrifice would cut the thread they're hanging from. It's a Monarchy of Democrats - the peasants are forced by necessity to be far more cynical.

Egalitarianism is a pipe dream for the nobility.

Of course not everyone is built equal. We're all a part of something bigger than ourselves, the universe. Think of society as a complex hivemind.

It's also funny how you contradicted yourself, you don't believe any of this yet you point yourself as one of the amazing special people this world deserves. Your "conclusion" seems to be quite grim, which means you've fully realized how different we all are to each other, and I can tell you're trying hard to climb the social hierarchy... If you're indeed special, you can use that to help your brothers and sisters who are weaker, instead of just using them as meat shields. Can't wait to see you end up raped and pissed on in the lowest of slums by those you deem as peasants when your wings get holes in them due to your own infection.

[WVBRY]

Of course not everyone is built equal. We're all a part of something bigger than ourselves, the universe.

I agree we're not all built equal, not sure how much we are a "part" of the universe though (beyond our physical bodies). We have volition and intelligence, both of which are by definition individual (and even if the concepts of volition and intelligence can be applied to groups, I think this is metaphorical in that the group does not have any existence beyond the individuals that compose it) and at the end of the day have to be answered on an individual level.

Think of society as a complex hivemind.

You can, kind of like a clockwork or a even or complex network, but I think that's kind of a metaphor for intelligence which is by nature individual (located in a precise spot in space).

I agree with your more overall point though of using talent to benefit others being the best thing we can do rather than hoard it or only use it to advance our own positions in society.

[WVBRY]

Ironically, thinking "all men are created equal" becomes the luxury of the man who stands far above all the rest - equality, which would benefit the "peasants" more than anyone, is something the peasants can't afford to be charitable enough to believe, because even a moment of charity and sacrifice would cut the thread they're hanging from. It's a Monarchy of Democrats - the peasants are forced by necessity to be far more cynical.

Egalitarianism is a pipe dream for the nobility.

I think it's often just a way of practicing smooth discourse in the face of a possible revolution.

[The Reality Denialist]

I find it perplexing that evolution/cuckoo's egg/god's balls produces people who support and fight against it with a passion.OTOH selection process has to produce byproducts according to 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[timber]

You are all still playing around at the macro level. At the micro gene level Darwinism breaks down and I've read The Selfish Gene. I actually own a copy sitting in a storage bin somewhere along with my other hundred books. I am familiar with gene competition. See you all think phenotypes winning out are what drives innovation and more sophistication. You have to remember that the current model states evolution is blind so to speak.

Nope. There is a new Neo-Darwinism down there and I'm not the only one saying it.

Where are all the skeletons of missing links? Where is the whale with a nose between its eyes?

I think there is something more mysterious going on in each biotic epoch and I don't think material reductionist answers are going to cover them. I'd like to understand how the Burgess Shale, Pre-cabrian explosion happened in which all body shapes first appeared. I've been to the Royal Terrell museum and half assed answers like " we are still trying to figure out how 10 species turned into hundreds "overnight", just doesn't do it for me.

[Singu]

No, I meant to say that I believe this because I'm one of the dreck peasant people who has to be cynical. I thought I was clear on that but I guess I wasn't. My apologies.

This is also why inferior people like myself and all my fellow inferior friends collaborating to climb the ladder wouldn't work. Someone born to be a natural servant can't climb the ladder; at best, they'll just end up burning down everything and destroying the basic conditions of subsistence. Revolution is generally futile, or tends to rock the boat for the people who think they'd benefit from it.

Well this would be contradictory, since you're aware that you're a "peasant", yet you're judging yourself from the values of "nobles".

Being a peasant doesn't allow you to hold the values of nobles, and being a noble wouldn't make you feel ashamed of being a peasant. You can only be one or the other.

I think the reason why this can happen, is because the brain is capable of taking an independent view that is neither noble NOR peasant.

[Sol]

natural selection is evident
the mistake there is to think what happens is absolute accidental process

in quantum physics there is no objective reality, as a human which just watches - changes results
anything is linked with anything

could the world be other? It's doubtful
from this point the world is created (by past events going to 0 time point)
in the same time we may describe what see as having accidentality. it's a simplification, a model which is correct and useful in some abstract and practical borders

[Singu]

No, only the nobles hold egalitarian values.

Peasants are forcibly made aware of the impossibility of egalitarianism.

Work with me here.

Peasants shouldn't be able to judge who's superior and inferior, because they have poor judgement. That's your definition of a peasant. For all we know, the peasant might end up feeling superior due to his lack of ability in making good judgements.

The peasant might feel ashamed because the nobles have things that he doesn't have, but his subjective feeling has nothing to do with the fact. The noble might also feel ashamed for whatever the reason, and might end up feeling inferior to peasants.

We can't judge either the noble nor the peasant, unless we have certain criteria in which we can make a judgement from. We simply don't know who is more right: the noble, or the peasant.

What you are talking about is a feeling, a feeling in being ashamed and inferior. What you need to do is to work on your own feelings, not push it onto people and make an entire worldview or a philosophy out of it.