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?
No, I'm not proselytizing - I really wanted to explore these questions and figured that the lions den was the best place to do so - a group of intelligent people who have thought this stuff through - isn't that what we're all trying to do?
Speaking of evolution, and we were, though so far, no embassies nor bottling plants have been stormed, a group of theists have begun boycotting Dr. Pepper on the grounds that the beverage company, in an ad, dared to use the term, "Evolution," which as any good theist, who believes in an invisible sky-god knows, is nothing more than a fable:
I guess it's time to drink more of the stuff then.
My favorite drink just got favoriter.
I'll drink to that!
Yes, I have a thought: it’s that you haven’t a clue about how evolution works.
1) Evolution is not a forward-looking process.
2) Lots of species have self destructed. Humans are the only species smart enough to foresee that possibility, yet too stupid to prevent it.
3) As to sexual reproduction: there is no “point,” as you put it. During the course of evolution genetic material almost inevitably became mixed. The resulting offspring displayed a wider array of genomes than did binary fission and budding of unmixed material; and a few of those new forms found success in previously unexploited environments. Further, species that mutated forms that routinely mixed genes did so by what we now call “feritlization,” or “sex.” These species, because of their new-found multiplicity of attributes, adventitiously tended to evolve more complex phenotypes, such as ourselves. Complexity, in fact, may be an outgrowth of sexual reproduction.
At our current evolutionary stage, both sexual and asexual species are surviving, even thriving. Asexual species survive through roubust fecundity; whereas sexually reproducing species survive through genetic diversity.
Now here’s a thought for you to ponder: why didn’t God “intelligently design” all living things to have one, optimal method of reproduction? Given what happened with the apple in the Garden of Eden, It would be natural to suppose that God has favored the asexual species, like the bacteria, by allowing them to survive much longer than the accursed descendants of Adam and Eve.
Evolution has no design in mind; it just meanders through changing environments of the least resistance, with some species surviving longer than others. In recent times, sexual reproduction has assisted the propagation of more complex phenotypes. For US - here - today - that strategy is working pretty well. But the more simple, asexual organisms have survived for a MUCH longer time, and will likely continue to thrive long after our sexual selves and our impotent gods have faded from the evolutionary landscape.
Well put, Dale!
Your point regarding God, Adam and Eve, the apple etc (please keep in mind that this is probably a metaphorical way of describing this event - Genesis wasn't ever meant to be a text book on science, it was a history book for the Israelites, and chapter 1 - the 6 day chapter - is a piece of very early poetry probably written by the redactor who collated the first 5 books into what we know as the Pentatuch), I could answer by discussing God's intent and the concept of the imagebearer, but I suspect that that would not be relevant at this time. My core problem - as it has been all along - is simply trying to determine how the capacity to look forward, 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. As to the boycott of Dr Pepper, that is just ignorance of the worst kind - please don't associate me with that. I rang our local mosque last year when that idiot in Florida (I think) wanted to have a 'burn a Qu'ran day' to let them know that as a Christian I did not support those actions. This isn't about brownie points, this is common sense - attacking an individual or group because you're not prepared to ask questions, debate and perhaps be proved wrong, doesn't do anyone any favours and only belittles the whole process.
I recommend you research these websites as a start:
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.