How could an intelligent person still believe in evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

^i think so too. and we fell for it, noone to blame but ourselves.

creationism? divinely-aided evolution?

I did read Signature back when it came out.

If his numbers and math are correct I think the evidence might be better made against a completely non-mental or non-animistic universe, and that's really a questioning of random-cause posited for the origin of life question rather than evolution itself so much.

Intelligent design by way of extra terrestrials? Didn't you see Prometheus for pete's sake?

can't tell if poe's law, so I'll treat it seriously by demanding: show me the fossil record.

Nope, but I see about as much evidence for ancient aliens as I see evidence for yugas.

My 2nd sentence qualifies as poe's law. The first sentence shouldn't have any effect on the current fossil record. It's simply a hypothesis that the complexities of what exists on earth had a designer(s) rather than it all just being a spontaneous series of random events.

From my purely personal perspective, I really don't care one way or the other.

We have seen "natural selection" in action over a period of merely a few generations.

Animals adapt to their environment; eventually, these "adaptations" are passed down in the genes to future generations. Sometimes, the process is very quick; other times, it's quite slow.

If there was no evolution, we would still be one-celled creatures.

It seems plausible, considering his unresponsiveness.

He's a guy who has a strong belief in the Creationist viewpoint.

<chuckle>...
Don't feed the trolls...

It's a brilliant troll if it is one, but I have read a lot of the OP's posts. I don't believe it.

If so, well done indeed, then.

ETA: I can't consider it a loss on my end. I found that great Scientific American article, and now I know their every move. AND, it's only like 12.

Whether it's anti-evolution, anti-climate change, or flat earthers, it all comes down to one thing: rejection of science and modernity. And that is never a good thing.

If you find a neocortex straight jacket gives you comfort and a sense of security, embrace theist philosophies...
If you find discovering esoteric intellectual constructs exhilarating, perhaps that isn't for ewe...

it is evident to the logical mind.
the "theory" of evolution is not a mathematical one, it is a justifiable and empirical set of logical observations whether or not one has witnessed it in progress.

it revolves around the concept of the "survival of the fittest"
genetic inheritance has been proven, and genetic mutation has been proven.

instead of stating at the primordial soup, i will just describe a snapshot of the process.

if the environment within which a set of flourishing organisms changes to their detriment, then the importance of genetic mutations comes into play.

some organisms will be better suited to the new environment than others, and their rate of transmission of their genes (containing the inherited "mutation" of the original common gene and who's serendipitous effect was to improve their coping ability) will ensure that their progeny is better suited to thrive within the new environment. and they will all have that genetic "mutation" which is then not able to be called a "mutation".

we see it everywhere.

examples are flowering plants. in the beginning, plants propagated by spores blown in the wind, and their chances of fertilizing another plant was random and dependent of the wind direction.
but some insects liked the taste of them (this is very simplistic), and they learned to visit those plants, and they therefore introduced an element of "deliberation" to those plant's spores dispersal and propagation.
so as more plants thrived that were attractive to insects and not reliant on the whims of the breezes, successive mutations that were beneficial ones (rare for a mutation) that took root were superior in attracting insects, and .....blah...blah...etc.....
that is what the "competition" element" is.
none of those plants is aware of anything, and they do not consciously "compete", but they do compete in a circumstantial way.

but as many plants evolve to be ever more attractive to insects (due to the propagation rate of desirable mutations) then other plants go through the same process, and eventually flowers come into play.

specializations start to appear because insects also dovetailed in their evolutionary reaction to this into various types, which were symbiotic, and so colors start to become important.

but none of this is planned. it is all just the path of least resistance for all organism's ancestry that has built all kingdoms of life as we know it.

it is a logically incontrovertible observation.


___________
another few examples but just summary ones:

antibiotics become ineffective after a while due to evolution.
there is a formula that one can apply to a pathogen to determine the structure of the new antibiotic to deal with it.
but if it is not 100% effective, then the logarithmic progression of organisms that can survive it become the new scourge.
it's always a battle between us and the diseases.
when we think we have everything covered to our highest intellectual degree, then something will slip through and cause the extinction of us.

if only we did not fight the battle at the start with such biological weapons as antibiotics, then ...who knows?

it is the concentration of crowding of humans close together that puts them all at so much risk eventually.
anyway that's all.
someones ringing my phone.

The entire post was very nicely said...
Pity it won't convince someone who doesn't want to listen to reason...

"The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters".