I've been thinking about evolution, and it has occurred to me that there are 3 problems with it. 1.) evolution by definition is a reactionary process, so how can it look forward - eg how can we as end results of the process ask "what if?" 2.) humanity has the potential to self destruct - Ayn Rand in Atlas Shrugged recognised that we were the only species that could do that - how can an evolved / reactive process develop a self-destruct mechanism? 3.) At what point along the evolutionary process did it decide to split out into separate genders, and where can we point to to demonstrate this? Any thoughts?

Views: 902

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Thanks - I will

Yah I'm gonna go with you are most definately over complicating this for yourself.  Personally I'm not sure that anything you read that those here have suggested will sway your thinking as I don't think you will comprehend what they say, given some of the questions you have posed here.  I'm not trying to be a dick, just like you arn't trying to overcomplicate this, but really you need to start from scratch like I believe Hawk said.  Go back and read everything he posted. And get rid of the philosophy when you are talking about science it's just two different things completely.   

That you are a religious person is no surprise. Only a religious person could have such a grotesque mis-understanding of evolution. Get any decent high school or college science text book (not some creationist piece of junk) that describes evolution, do some study and you will quickly see how your questions have nothing to do with evolution. And, just how poor your understanding of evolution is.

Kris Feenstra posted an accurate description of evolution and explained just how wrong your understanding of evolution is. However, you will not completely understand how wrong you are unless you do some honest research on your own.

Oh yes, please do not lamely tell me how "deeply offended" you are by my response. Religious people almost always fall back on being "deeply offended" when they do not understand something or chose not to understand something because the something is in opposition to their religious based ignorance. 

Telling other people how they're going to think and react is always an effective communication method :) Its like a more verbose form of the mind reading cognitive distortion.

I'm not in the least bit offended by your comments. My only suggestion would be that your definition of religious seems to be anyone who thinks more broadly than strict science.

The reason I started this discussion was honest research as you suggest - I have been recommended several books so far which I hope to read over the Christmas holiday period, but I still cannot reconcile humanities ability to look forward with blind evolution as it has been described - I'm still trying to get my head around that.

I must protest this; it's not a dichotomy between "religious" and "understanding of evolution"; it's quite possible to be both, and it's certainly possible to be neither.  I've run into many an atheist (but not here!) whose understanding of evolution lacked any real depth; and many who are unbelievers who, rather than looking into it, find their interests lie elsewhere than the sciences and simply defer to the experts.

It's certainly true that Eric James has shown his ignorance of evolution here, and he happens to be religious, but you cannot simply generalize to say "Only a religious person could have such a grotesque mis-understanding of evolution..."

I hate to call out a fellow atheist for bigotry, but... you are being a bigot here.

I wouldn't lump you in with the DP boycotters :) I had you pegged (like ~60% of Americans) as a Dr. Pepper fan, myself.

to create - the basis of art - to contemplate, to ask "what if" - aspects that are part of every day existence - how did they come to be? Even the ability to consider divinity, even if you choose to reject it, doesn't appear to me to be the natural outcome of a non-forward looking reactive process.

The ability to think abstractly, artistically, logically, etc. are all known to come from various areas of the brain, to be lost when those parts are damaged, or to be missing or enhanced depending on biological factors which sometimes come into play as early as birth.

We know that the brain is the source of these traits (i.e. for the reasons stated above) and that it operates entirely on cells and chemical signals and interaction. All of our biological matter (i.e. said cells and chemical emitters) is patterned and produced from the blueprints of our DNA, interaction from also evolving ribosomes, etc., and that blueprint changes with each generation.

In other words, given infinite time, these traits (abstract thought, artisticness, logic, etc.) are guaranteed to rise in the gene pool, but it just so happens that they rose in billions of years instead, alongside billions of other traits and combinations of traits. How complex brain cell activity can result in abstract thought or conscience is nowhere near a hard science as of yet, but the above facts supersede any explanation involving supernatural, planned or reactive process as causing the traits.

I'm not a fan of Dr Pepper - what little I've had of it I find too sweet - neither am I American. My beverages of choice are a nice dark beer (although I don't like Guinness), a solid black coffee, a decent Riesling or a decent Port.

I have no problem with our abstract cognitive abilities being formed as a result of chemical processes in our brain, patterned on our DNA etc, but I'm not convinced by your "guaranteed to rise" statement. I'm not being obtuse or obstinate, I just fail to see how a blind, non-looking forward, reactive process - no matter how much time you throw at it - can make that jump.

There are no "jumps" in evolution, that is the fundamental problem with your understanding.

Humans aren't the only species that can self-destruct. Any species can do that by becoming too prolific and exhausting its food source while at the same time poisoning itself with its waste products.

Eric,

Several posters have recommended reference books to aid you in gaining a better understanding of the  process of  evolutionary development. I applaud your willingness to read Dawkins, Harris and others. It could provide you with the insight needed to correctly question your current modes of thinking. The difficult part of your journey will be whether you can accept the realization that evolution exists and even galaxies are born, live, and die without supernatural influence. 

RSS

Forum

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer 48 minutes ago. 39 Replies

I don't know what to say

Started by Belle Rose in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Ward Cressin 2 hours ago. 2 Replies

where when how who why ?

Started by aubrey knows nothing * in Small Talk. Last reply by Ward Cressin 2 hours ago. 4 Replies

Blog Posts

coexist

Posted by aubrey knows nothing * on October 23, 2014 at 9:25pm 1 Comment

A Life-Changing Confrontation

Posted by Belle Rose on October 23, 2014 at 2:55am 8 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service