What evidence would you accept for human evolution?

[Immanuel Can]

Who are you quoting?

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

Not my job.

Then why ask, if you don't care enough to find out?

Again, where did you get that number from?

From Evolutionists. It is they that have set the timelines and terms of their theory. It certainly isn't me.

You are just making up any old bollocks.

Are you trying to argue that evolution's not supposed to take millions of years? You don't know the theory you're trying to defend, then. It's not supposed to be a quick process, nor is it supposed to be efficient. Look it up.

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't want to do that.

[Age]

Of course evolution is synonymous with human experience.

How did the 'human experience' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....Evolved from what exactly, or are we not entirely human at all. What exactly is able to know it is having a human experience, answer that?

Would you like the LONG or the SHORT ANSWER?

Why don't other animals ponder why they are the species they are, and how they evolved? Why only do humans think about how they evolved?

Is it an IRREFUTABLE Fact that ONLY you human beings ponder WHY 'you' are the species that you are, and how you evolved?

Thanks, I’m not fussy, a long or short answer will be helpful, I’ll leave it up to you to choose. I’m easy.

How did the 'human experience' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....

To me, asking, ' 'How did 'one species' own experience' evolve? ' is somewhat nonsensical.

Firstly, to me, the word 'evolution' is just more or less synonymous with 'change', or 'motion' if one likes, as it is through and because of matter always in continual 'motion' ALL visible objects thus 'change'. Or, 'evolve' into what 'they' are.

'Experience', itself, however is not some thing that does 'evolve', nor 'change'. ALL animal species, including all species of the 'homo genus' just 'experience'. Obviously, through the number of the senses on each body. So, to me, 'human experience' did not 'evolve', although, and obviously, 'the way' 'the senses', on bodies, allowed the 'input of information' may well have 'changed', and thus 'evolved', over 'time'. But, what the words 'experience', or 'human experience', are referring to, exactly, does not evolve.

Now, if you had asked, 'How did the 'human thinking' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....?' then this would have made more sense, well to me anyway. See, 'thinking', itself, although is like 'experience', itself, as it 'just happens and occurs', however, unlike 'experience', itself, 'thinking' has obviously 'changed', or 'evolved', over 'time', and will keep 'changing', and 'evolving', over 'time'. So, 'how' 'human thinking' 'evolves', and 'changes', over 'time', 'to be able to ponder and think about the 'human experience' of becoming a 'human species', who 'evolves', and 'changes', is because of how the Mind and the brain work.

Firstly, the word 'mind' refers to some thing invisible within the human body.

Secondly, the word 'mind', on just about every occasion when used, is just referring to the 'thoughts' or 'thinking' within. Which, by the way, are also invisible.

Now, what is within each and EVERY 'human body' is 'the ABILITY TO' learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing. 'This ABILITY' only exists or is only available WHEN 'one' is OPEN, TO ANY and EVERY thing. 'This ABILITY' is what 'Intelligence', itself, is, EXACTLY, and which is also known as, when having 'an OPEN mind'. However, what the 'mind' is, EXACTLY, is 'that ACTUAL part' of 'being', which has, and IS, what ALLOWS ALL 'human beings', individually AND collectively, to KEEP learning, understanding, and reasoning more and more newer and newer 'things'.

Just as long as one or all are completely OPEN, then 'they' can KEEP ON LEARNING MORE, which, in and of itself, is what 'WISDOM', or being 'WISE', itself, ACTUALLY IS.

Now, when one, or all, are 'LOOKING AT', or 'VIEWING', things from the Truly OPEN perspective, then what IS 'SEEN' is JUST the ACTUAL Truth of things, ONLY. In other words, 'LOOKING AT', what is sometimes referred to as 'the world', or EVERY thing, through the Mind, Itself, then because what IS SEEN is the ACTUAL Truth, ONLY, then 'KNOWING' also occurs. I use a capital 'M' with the word 'Mind' to refer to the fact that there really is only One Mind, ONLY. Which, by the way, exists EQUALLY, for lack of a better word, WITHIN ALL human bodies. The ABILITY TO KEEP LEARNING, TO KEEP UNDERSTANDING, and TO KEEP REASONING ANY and ALL 'things', is HOW 'human thinking' evolves.

'Thinking', however, is NOT 'knowing', as 'knowing' is IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'thinking', or 'a thought', may well be REFUTABLE.

'Human thinking' exists within the 'human brain', (or as far as 'known' when this is being written, this is what is said to happen and occur). 'Human thinking' is what happens and occurs when 'information' has been 'inputted', through any of the five senses of the 'human body', to 'the brain', within a 'human body', and 'a process' of 'decision making' or of 'a pondering' is happening and occurring. 'Human thinking' is said to happen and occur within 'human brains', and as 'information' is obtained, it is gathered by and stored within 'the brain', which is then known as 'knowledge', 'thought', 'memory', and it is the combining of 'knowledge', 'thought', or 'memory', within one, or many brains, HOW 'human thinking', itself, evolves.

So, it has been over 'time', and through 'human beings', collectively, sharing 'previously gained knowledge', or the 'thoughts' within one, with one another, that 'human thinking', itself, has evolved to eventually end up to then 'ponder' 'human experience' and/or 'of becoming a human species who evolved'. The 'human brain' works, exactly, like a computer does in having the ability to gather 'information', store it, and to share it as 'knowledge', with other brains, or computers, and it is 'this process', itself, which has allowed 'human thinking' to evolve, to wherever it ends up 'pondering' or 'thinking' about.

Evolved from what exactly,

'Human beings' are made up of 'visible matter', this is what the 'human' word, here, refers to, exactly, to me, AND, 'invisible thoughts and emotions', which is what the 'beings' word, here, refers to, exactly, to me.

The 'human' part, of the 'human being', or the 'visible body' part, like ALL 'visible objects', have just evolved' from 'matter', itself. Which is ALWAYS 'in motion', and thus is ALWAYS 'changing' in shape or form. So, it is 'matter', itself, what the 'human body', part, has evolved from, EXACTLY.

What the 'being' part, of the 'human being', or the 'invisible person' part, like ALL persons, or beings, have just evolved from the 'thoughts', "themselves", from the 'people', or 'invisible thoughts and emotions' from within other 'human bodies'. See, what makes a 'person', a 'person', is the 'personality', itself, within a 'human body', and ALL 'personalities' come into 'being', AND 'evolve', from all of the 'other personalities', and 'persons', around 'that one'. So, it is 'persons', or 'people', "themselves", what the '(human) being', part, has evolved from, EXACTLY.

or are we not entirely human at all.

What the 'we' word is meaning and/or referring to, exactly, is whatever 'the one' USING 'that word' is DENOTING 'that word' TO, exactly.

What 'we' are, entirely, is ALL 'human beings', again, if that is what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly.

However, what 'we' are, when the 'we' word is referring to ALL things, entirely, is NOT 'you', 'human beings', at all.

What exactly is able to know it is having a human experience, answer that?

you 'human beings' are ABLE TO KNOW that 'you' are having a 'human experience', and 'you' KNOW 'this' because 'you' are A 'being', within a 'human body', and which ACTUALLY ONLY exists because of what 'that human body' has actually 'previously experienced'. 'you', an 'individual and unique human person', "itself", actually do ONLY exist because of that 'individual and unique human body' has previously individually and uniquely 'experienced'.

'you', 'human beings', have the ABILITY TO KNOW some things. However, what 'Its' is that is ABLE TO KNOW ALL and EVERY thing is the 'Mind', Itself. Which is just the 'Being' part of the Universe, Itself. See, just like the 'being' part, of the 'human being', is the 'invisible person', or the 'invisible thoughts, (and emotions'), "themselves". The 'Being' part, of the Universe, is the 'invisible Mind', Itself.

And, what happens and occurs is people, sometimes, 'mix up', and/or 'confuse', "their individual selves", with the, One and ONLY, ACTUAL REAL One.

As ALWAYS 'I' am more than READY and WILLING TO go INTO 'this', in as FAR as much MORE DEPTH and DETAIL as you would LIKE TO.

What, exactly, is able to know that 'you', human beings, are having a 'human experience' ARE,

1. The 'being', also known as the 'human one', or the 'human person'. And,

2. The 'Being', also known as the 'One', or the 'Spiritual, Allah, God, Enlightened One'.

The, 'invisible being part', within the 'human body', is the (human) 'one', or the 'personal self'. 'This one' is the 'illusioned self', that "fairy" talks about.

The, 'invisible Being part', within the 'Universe', and thus within EVERY thing, is the (universal) 'One', or the 'Real Self'.

The 'personal self' is just A 'character', acting, and just 'playing A role', in Life.

The 'Real, or True, Self', also known as God, is just 'the One', who has just been 'coming-to-know' 'thy Self'.

The 'person self' 'thinks', whereas, the 'True Self', 'KNOWS'.

[Age]

But I come back to the main question: evolution is alleged, by scientists, to be a massively "wasteful process."

Who are you quoting?

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection.

Again, where did you get that number from?

From Evolutionists. It is they that have set the timelines and terms of their theory. It certainly isn't me.

And, is it "creationists" who have set the timelines and terms of their theory/ies?

In fact, is it not ALWAYS 'the ones', "themselves", who have set the timelines and terms of 'their theory/ies'?

The word and term 'their' GIVES AWAY, or, could literally, SPELL OUT, FOR you, WHO, EXACTLY, 'sets out' the things within 'the theory/ies'.

So, just like so-called "evolutionists" 'set out' what is in 'their evolution' theories, SO TO do so-called "creationists" 'set out' what is in 'their creation' theories.

[Age]

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

Not my job.

Then why ask, if you don't care enough to find out?

you people who WANT TO come into a 'philosophy forum', CLAIM things, but then do NOT WANT TO PROVIDE the ACTUAL PROOF for your CLAIMS is REALLY QUITE BORING.

1. BY 'asking', "will bouwman" WAS, literally, SHOWING ENOUGH 'care' TO 'find out'.

2. TO FIND things OUT is DONE BY ASKING CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

3. TELLING 'another' TO GO and 'look it up' and/or TO GO 'read for yourself', is about the most ARROGANT, LAZY, and STUPID things one could do. Just for the SIMPLE FACT that OBVIOUSLY what one READS, SEES, and CONCLUDES will NEVER necessarily BE the EXACT same thing another READS, SEES, and CONCLUDES.

4. If, and WHEN, one TELLS another TO GO 'look, and/or find out, for yourself', is A SIGN that 'that one' ACTUALLY HAS NOTHING substantial that supports their CLAIM.

From Evolutionists. It is they that have set the timelines and terms of their theory. It certainly isn't me.

You are just making up any old bollocks.

Are you trying to argue that evolution's not supposed to take millions of years? You don't know the theory you're trying to defend, then.

Here is ANOTHER PRIME example of one who IS ABSOLUTELY CLOSED. 'This ones' 'asks' A QUESTION, UNDER THE PRETENSE of 'seeking an answer', HOWEVER, its very next sentence PROVES that it is NOT OPEN, AT ALL. In fact 'this one' is NOT just CLOSED, it ALSO BELIEVES that it ABSOLUTELY KNOWS the 'thoughts and thinking' WITHIN 'another', here.

And, WORSE STILL, what 'this one' ACTUALLY BELIEVES THAT IT KNOWS could NOT BE MORE False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect.

Now, Correct 'me' if 'i' AM Wrong, here, but "will bouwman" NEVER tried to argue that evolution is not supposed to take millions of years. Therefore, your claim "Immanuel can" then does NOT KNOW 'the theory', that "will bouwman" is what you call and claim, 'trying to defend'.

you are SO ABSOLUTELY DELUSIONAL, here, "Immanuel can", and this is BECAUSE you are FOOLING and DECEIVING "your" OWN 'self', here.

What do you think, or BELIEVE, is the ACTUAL 'timeline' of the Universe, Itself, EXACTLY?

It's not supposed to be a quick process, nor is it supposed to be efficient. Look it up.

ONCE AGAIN, SAYING, 'look it up' NEVER MEANS that 'another one' is GOING TO END UP READING the EXACT SAME WORDS, which you did, NOR WILL it EVER MEAN that 'they' ARE GOING TO READ, even if it were the EXACT SAME WORDS, WITH the EXACT SAME EXPERIENCES you HAVE HAD and thus WITH the EXACT SAME VIEWS and BELIEFS that you HAVE. Which, OBVIOUSLY, COMPLETELY AFFECT what IS THEN 'SEEN', and CONCLUDED.

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't want to do that.

See, HOW OFTEN 'this one' DOES 'this' CONCLUDES and DECIDES what 'another' IS 'thinking or believing', and then ADDS 'that in' AS THOUGH it is ACTUALLY TRUE.

The TYPE of DECEPTION, and thus the type of ATTEMPTING TO DECEIVE others, "Immanuel can", which you DO, here, can be considered the WORST TYPE OF DECEPTION, and thus THE TYPE talked ABOUT, and DEPICTED, in your CHOICE OF BOOKS, and READINGS, namely the 'bible' and "christian literature".

What you are DOING, and SHOWING, here, are what the stories of 'the DEVIL' were and are REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

A lot of what you are DOING, here, are PRIME examples of what is Wrong, and NOT TO DO, in Life.

[Will Bouwman]

Dennett, among others. It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda. Look it up, if you doubt.

Not my job.

Then why ask, if you don't care enough to find out?

Why make a case, if you don't care enough to support it? It is not for me to find your evidence for you. If you put something in quotation marks and no one actually said it, you are lying. If you care enough, prove you are not a liar.

Are you trying to argue that evolution's not supposed to take millions of years? You don't know the theory you're trying to defend, then. It's not supposed to be a quick process, nor is it supposed to be efficient. Look it up.

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't want to do that.

You can't follow an argument. This is the bollocks you made up:

That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection.

[Flannel Jesus]

Are you trying to argue that evolution's not supposed to take millions of years? You don't know the theory you're trying to defend, then. It's not supposed to be a quick process, nor is it supposed to be efficient. Look it up.

Oh, sorry...I forgot...you don't want to do that.

You can't follow an argument. This is the bollocks you made up:

That is, for every success story, there are supposed to be billions of random-mutation failures, all exterminated by natural selection.

Ugh, the goalpost moving lol. I don't think he is even aware enough of evolutionary theory to realize that's what he's doing.

[Immanuel Can]

Not my job.

Then why ask, if you don't care enough to find out?

Why make a case, if you don't care enough to support it?

I did. You asked whom I was quoting, and I told you exactly. I even invited you to check me. You can't be bothered, and so you don't have to: you can take me at my word, then.

[Fairy]

Would you like the LONG or the SHORT ANSWER?


Is it an IRREFUTABLE Fact that ONLY you human beings ponder WHY 'you' are the species that you are, and how you evolved?

Thanks, I’m not fussy, a long or short answer will be helpful, I’ll leave it up to you to choose. I’m easy.

How did the 'human experience' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....

To me, asking, ' 'How did 'one species' own experience' evolve? ' is somewhat nonsensical.

Firstly, to me, the word 'evolution' is just more or less synonymous with 'change', or 'motion' if one likes, as it is through and because of matter always in continual 'motion' ALL visible objects thus 'change'. Or, 'evolve' into what 'they' are.

'Experience', itself, however is not some thing that does 'evolve', nor 'change'. ALL animal species, including all species of the 'homo genus' just 'experience'. Obviously, through the number of the senses on each body. So, to me, 'human experience' did not 'evolve', although, and obviously, 'the way' 'the senses', on bodies, allowed the 'input of information' may well have 'changed', and thus 'evolved', over 'time'. But, what the words 'experience', or 'human experience', are referring to, exactly, does not evolve.

Now, if you had asked, 'How did the 'human thinking' evolve then to be able to ponder and think about it's own human experience of becoming a human species who evolved....?' then this would have made more sense, well to me anyway. See, 'thinking', itself, although is like 'experience', itself, as it 'just happens and occurs', however, unlike 'experience', itself, 'thinking' has obviously 'changed', or 'evolved', over 'time', and will keep 'changing', and 'evolving', over 'time'. So, 'how' 'human thinking' 'evolves', and 'changes', over 'time', 'to be able to ponder and think about the 'human experience' of becoming a 'human species', who 'evolves', and 'changes', is because of how the Mind and the brain work.

Firstly, the word 'mind' refers to some thing invisible within the human body.

Secondly, the word 'mind', on just about every occasion when used, is just referring to the 'thoughts' or 'thinking' within. Which, by the way, are also invisible.

Now, what is within each and EVERY 'human body' is 'the ABILITY TO' learn, understand, and reason ANY and EVERY thing. 'This ABILITY' only exists or is only available WHEN 'one' is OPEN, TO ANY and EVERY thing. 'This ABILITY' is what 'Intelligence', itself, is, EXACTLY, and which is also known as, when having 'an OPEN mind'. However, what the 'mind' is, EXACTLY, is 'that ACTUAL part' of 'being', which has, and IS, what ALLOWS ALL 'human beings', individually AND collectively, to KEEP learning, understanding, and reasoning more and more newer and newer 'things'.

Just as long as one or all are completely OPEN, then 'they' can KEEP ON LEARNING MORE, which, in and of itself, is what 'WISDOM', or being 'WISE', itself, ACTUALLY IS.

Now, when one, or all, are 'LOOKING AT', or 'VIEWING', things from the Truly OPEN perspective, then what IS 'SEEN' is JUST the ACTUAL Truth of things, ONLY. In other words, 'LOOKING AT', what is sometimes referred to as 'the world', or EVERY thing, through the Mind, Itself, then because what IS SEEN is the ACTUAL Truth, ONLY, then 'KNOWING' also occurs. I use a capital 'M' with the word 'Mind' to refer to the fact that there really is only One Mind, ONLY. Which, by the way, exists EQUALLY, for lack of a better word, WITHIN ALL human bodies. The ABILITY TO KEEP LEARNING, TO KEEP UNDERSTANDING, and TO KEEP REASONING ANY and ALL 'things', is HOW 'human thinking' evolves.

'Thinking', however, is NOT 'knowing', as 'knowing' is IRREFUTABLE, whereas 'thinking', or 'a thought', may well be REFUTABLE.

'Human thinking' exists within the 'human brain', (or as far as 'known' when this is being written, this is what is said to happen and occur). 'Human thinking' is what happens and occurs when 'information' has been 'inputted', through any of the five senses of the 'human body', to 'the brain', within a 'human body', and 'a process' of 'decision making' or of 'a pondering' is happening and occurring. 'Human thinking' is said to happen and occur within 'human brains', and as 'information' is obtained, it is gathered by and stored within 'the brain', which is then known as 'knowledge', 'thought', 'memory', and it is the combining of 'knowledge', 'thought', or 'memory', within one, or many brains, HOW 'human thinking', itself, evolves.

So, it has been over 'time', and through 'human beings', collectively, sharing 'previously gained knowledge', or the 'thoughts' within one, with one another, that 'human thinking', itself, has evolved to eventually end up to then 'ponder' 'human experience' and/or 'of becoming a human species who evolved'. The 'human brain' works, exactly, like a computer does in having the ability to gather 'information', store it, and to share it as 'knowledge', with other brains, or computers, and it is 'this process', itself, which has allowed 'human thinking' to evolve, to wherever it ends up 'pondering' or 'thinking' about.

Evolved from what exactly,

'Human beings' are made up of 'visible matter', this is what the 'human' word, here, refers to, exactly, to me, AND, 'invisible thoughts and emotions', which is what the 'beings' word, here, refers to, exactly, to me.

The 'human' part, of the 'human being', or the 'visible body' part, like ALL 'visible objects', have just evolved' from 'matter', itself. Which is ALWAYS 'in motion', and thus is ALWAYS 'changing' in shape or form. So, it is 'matter', itself, what the 'human body', part, has evolved from, EXACTLY.

What the 'being' part, of the 'human being', or the 'invisible person' part, like ALL persons, or beings, have just evolved from the 'thoughts', "themselves", from the 'people', or 'invisible thoughts and emotions' from within other 'human bodies'. See, what makes a 'person', a 'person', is the 'personality', itself, within a 'human body', and ALL 'personalities' come into 'being', AND 'evolve', from all of the 'other personalities', and 'persons', around 'that one'. So, it is 'persons', or 'people', "themselves", what the '(human) being', part, has evolved from, EXACTLY.

or are we not entirely human at all.

What the 'we' word is meaning and/or referring to, exactly, is whatever 'the one' USING 'that word' is DENOTING 'that word' TO, exactly.

What 'we' are, entirely, is ALL 'human beings', again, if that is what the 'we' word is referring to, exactly.

However, what 'we' are, when the 'we' word is referring to ALL things, entirely, is NOT 'you', 'human beings', at all.

What exactly is able to know it is having a human experience, answer that?

you 'human beings' are ABLE TO KNOW that 'you' are having a 'human experience', and 'you' KNOW 'this' because 'you' are A 'being', within a 'human body', and which ACTUALLY ONLY exists because of what 'that human body' has actually 'previously experienced'. 'you', an 'individual and unique human person', "itself", actually do ONLY exist because of that 'individual and unique human body' has previously individually and uniquely 'experienced'.

'you', 'human beings', have the ABILITY TO KNOW some things. However, what 'Its' is that is ABLE TO KNOW ALL and EVERY thing is the 'Mind', Itself. Which is just the 'Being' part of the Universe, Itself. See, just like the 'being' part, of the 'human being', is the 'invisible person', or the 'invisible thoughts, (and emotions'), "themselves". The 'Being' part, of the Universe, is the 'invisible Mind', Itself.

And, what happens and occurs is people, sometimes, 'mix up', and/or 'confuse', "their individual selves", with the, One and ONLY, ACTUAL REAL One.

As ALWAYS 'I' am more than READY and WILLING TO go INTO 'this', in as FAR as much MORE DEPTH and DETAIL as you would LIKE TO.

What, exactly, is able to know that 'you', human beings, are having a 'human experience' ARE,

1. The 'being', also known as the 'human one', or the 'human person'. And,

2. The 'Being', also known as the 'One', or the 'Spiritual, Allah, God, Enlightened One'.

The, 'invisible being part', within the 'human body', is the (human) 'one', or the 'personal self'. 'This one' is the 'illusioned self', that "fairy" talks about.

The, 'invisible Being part', within the 'Universe', and thus within EVERY thing, is the (universal) 'One', or the 'Real Self'.

The 'personal self' is just A 'character', acting, and just 'playing A role', in Life.

The 'Real, or True, Self', also known as God, is just 'the One', who has just been 'coming-to-know' 'thy Self'.

The 'person self' 'thinks', whereas, the 'True Self', 'KNOWS'.

Beautiful

[Will Bouwman]

You asked whom I was quoting, and I told you exactly.

You said:

Dennett, among others.

That is not a citation. Just saying so and so said x is hearsay, which anyone with any philosophical competence knows is not a sound basis for an argument.

I even invited you to check me.

I wouldn't have to if you weren't such an incompetent fool. But since you are, I googled 'Dennett wasteful process' and 'evolution wasteful process'. Neither search produced anyone using that phrase. I may have somehow missed the target, but if as you say

It's not a rare phrase in Evolutionist propaganda.

I would expect examples to be easy to find. Since you claim that it is not a rare phrase, you can presumably point to several examples of its usage.

You can't be bothered, and so you don't have to: you can take me at my word, then.

No thank you.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't personally think it's very disagreeable that it's a "wasteful process" personally. But his apparently-made-up numbers when he says 'billions this' and 'millions that' need more support.

Evolution is a "wasteful" process, in the sense that it has to iterate through a lot of crap before it comes to any good feature. Citing Dennet seems weird, I don't think Dennet is considered any kind of expert in evolution (even if he happens to be well-read about it and even correct about it).

[Will Bouwman]

I don't personally think it's very disagreeable that it's a "wasteful process" personally. But his apparently-made-up numbers when he says 'billions this' and 'millions that' need more support.
Evolution is a "wasteful" process, in the sense that it has to iterate through a lot of crap before it comes to any good feature.

I'm not sure that's true. I suppose it depends on how you interpret it. As far as I know, the vast majority of creatures on this planet are reproductively functional. No two people have the same dna; that is true even for identical twins, I gather, and I assume the same is true for other creatures. So we are all evolutionary experiments - mutants to some degree. And yeah, there are billions of us, but to call that process wasteful is a bit harsh on the billions of people who are not as drop dead gorgeous as yours truly.*

Citing Dennet seems weird, I don't think Dennet is considered any kind of expert in evolution (even if he happens to be well-read about it and even correct about it).

Dennett turns up a lot in right wing religious literature, which is where Mr Can appears to get a lot of his information. Dennett wrote 'Darwin's Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life', which clearly upset a lot of fundamentalists, and as a public figure, I guess he's fair game.

*Warning: If this was ever true, it was a long time ago.

[Flannel Jesus]

And yeah, there are billions of us, but to call that process wasteful is a bit harsh on the billions of people who are not as drop dead gorgeous as yours truly.*

The fact that a person doesn't look the same as their parents isn't generally due to functional mutations, but instead due to a unique combination of existing genes.

Out of curiosity, have you tried googling the phrase "evolution is a wasteful process"? It seems largely accepted, and it's not a criticism of the theory of evolution. Gene mutations aren't driven by a desire to improve, they're random.

[Will Bouwman]

And yeah, there are billions of us, but to call that process wasteful is a bit harsh on the billions of people who are not as drop dead gorgeous as yours truly.*

The fact that a person doesn't look the same as their parents isn't generally due to functional mutations, but instead due to a unique combination of existing genes.

Sure, but how do you get a range of existing genes to combine in the first place? If it not by mutation, then evolution isn't dependent on wasteful mutation, it simply means that genes which reproductive success will eventually dominate.

Out of curiosity, have you tried googling the phrase "evolution is a wasteful process"? It seems largely accepted, and it's not a criticism of the theory of evolution. Gene mutations aren't driven by a desire to improve, they're random.

Well, if only to say 'Yes I did', yes I did. But, as I said to Mr Can:

...I googled 'Dennett wasteful process' and 'evolution wasteful process'. Neither search produced anyone using that phrase.

[Flannel Jesus]

And yeah, there are billions of us, but to call that process wasteful is a bit harsh on the billions of people who are not as drop dead gorgeous as yours truly.*

The fact that a person doesn't look the same as their parents isn't generally due to functional mutations, but instead due to a unique combination of existing genes.

Sure, but how do you get a range of existing genes to combine in the first place? If it not by mutation, then evolution isn't dependent on wasteful mutation, it simply means that genes which reproductive success will eventually dominate.

We only call a gene a mutation when is new afaik. All genes, probably, were a mutation at some point, but as they propagate through a population we eventually stop calling them a mutation.

[Immanuel Can]

You asked whom I was quoting, and I told you exactly.

You said:

Dennett, among others.

That is not a citation.

[Evolution is] ...“a massively parallel, and hence prodigiously wasteful, process of mindless, algorithmic design-trying, in which, however, the minimal increments of design have been thriftily husbanded, copied, and re-used over billions of years. The wonderful particularity or individuality of the creation was due, not to Shakespearean inventive genius, but to the incessant contributions of chance, a growing sequence of what Crick has called ‘frozen accident.'" (Daniel Dennett, Darwin's Dangerous Idea).

Happy? Of course not. You'll never be. You're merely contentious.

It's a stupid quotation, I'll admit. But then, Dennett was quite a stupid man, who espoused quite a stupid theory, so it all works out.