Questioning Evolution

[abdullah masud]

Two major points make me skeptical about the theory of evolution.
First, if evolution is truly responsible for transforming living beings, then surely we should see some evidence of gradual changes in history—or at least today. Even within a single nation or group, you might expect to see someone with a tiny tail or a horn popping out like a unicorn — yet we see nothing of the sort. Humanity remains remarkably stable and consistent in form.
Second, if all developments in life occurred merely by chance, through natural selection and random mutation, then how do we explain human intelligence — a level of consciousness and reasoning far beyond any other creature? Why does such a complex, rational mind exist only in humans, while no other animal comes close?
If evolution truly depends only on blind chance, the rise of human intelligence seems too purposeful, too structured, to be the product of randomness.

So my question is: can this theory be defended through pure logic and reason, or is it sustained only by scientific claims without philosophical grounding? If anyone knows a rational explanation that makes evolution truly convincing, I’d be glad to hear it.

Greetings, abdullah, and welcome to the PN forum.

I could be wrong, but is it safe to assume that (like me) you are a religious (or spiritually oriented) person who believes in the existence of a divine source of vast intelligence that is driving creation, as opposed to the blind and mindless meanderings of chance?

If so, then I suggest that you not be too hasty in ruling out the possibility of the Creator of this universe using the processes of evolution to achieve his (her/its) primary goal of awakening its very own offspring (us) into existence.

I mean, consider the possibility that the only feasible way that God can actually succeed in awakening a new eternal soul into existence...

(as opposed to snapping his [her/its] divine fingers and :::poof::: there it is)

...was via the intricate lattice work (cellular structure/design) of the human brain.

In which case, imagine that if you were God, wouldn't it seem logical and prudent of you (for your own sake) to imbue the fabric of matter with the teleological impetus (i.e., with a sort of software-like "coding") that guides suns, cells, and DNA to perform the tedious and long-term "grunt work" involved in bringing human brains into existence?

That way, you (as God) don't have to be bothered with having to be constantly present in the vicinity of just this one solar "system" in order to oversee the process.

Indeed, you would then be free to visit (and develop) any one of the rest of the untold trillions of other solar "systems" you've created (out of the fabric of your very own being) throughout the vastness of your own personal universe.

In other words, as lifeforms naturally evolve (adapt to changes) in the perfect (and fully equipped) setting you've provided for them, you merely have to make random and periodic visits back to that setting in order to make adjustments in the DNA coding in the lifeforms you are interested in.

In light of that possibility, might I suggest that one such adjustment was allegorically chronicled in the Bible...

(I am of course speaking of the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil fable)

...where God prompted his evolving creation to cross a mental threshold that instigated an evolutionary leap from the "ignorance is bliss" level of animal (ape) consciousness, up to the level of human consciousness, which marked the pivotal moment when the human soul officially became like (as in made in the "image" of) God's eternal soul.

So, no, don't rule out the possible role of evolution.
_______

Thank you.

[Age]

I still don't know what 'I can haz' means

Have considered just asking them to just clarify, for you, what, 'I can haz', means?

[accelafine]

No, because smartarses have to be smartarses. They don't answer direct questions. That's your human lesson for the day you autistic nazi ****.

[Age]

No, because smartarses have to be smartarses. They don't answer direct questions. That's your human lesson for the day you autistic nazi ****.

you have, once more, obviously completely missed the point, here.

[accelafine]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

[Age]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

So, you come into a public forum and make a public announced that you do not know what another means by 'their words', I then just ask if you had considered asking 'that one' for clarification, you answered, 'No'. you then attempted to 'justify' 'this' by claiming that you did not because 'they' do answer direct questions.

Which explains a lot about how and why 'these people', back when this was being written, took so long to just 'catch up', learn, and understand.

[accelafine]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

[Age]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

What does the word, 'gaslight', mean, and/or refer to, to you, exactly?

Imagine believing one's own reality is so absolutely true that they were not open at all to anything else.

[accelafine]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

[Age]

Correction: gaslighting autistic nazi freak. Imagine if your only 'purpose' in life is to try to gaslight other humans. What a pointless existence.

So, lol, 'this one' claims that so-called "smart arses" do not answer direct questions, but then, directly, proceeds to not answer direct questions, "itself".

Logically, what could this possibly mean, exactly?

[Jori]

I agree that mere random chance cannot explain evolution. However, if we add some force that directs evolution towards complexity, then it will work. In fact, philosopher Samuel Alexander argues that a force is operative in the evolutionary process moving it upwards to more complex and higher forms of life. Also, philosopher Henri Bergson explains evolution by postulating a vital impulse, whose role is the direction of the evolutionary process. Without the necessary impetus postulated by the above philosophers, the evolutionary process would have been rendered inoperative.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Two major points make me skeptical about the theory of evolution.
First, if evolution is truly responsible for transforming living beings, then surely we should see some evidence of gradual changes in history—or at least today. Even within a single nation or group, you might expect to see someone with a tiny tail or a horn popping out like a unicorn — yet we see nothing of the sort. Humanity remains remarkably stable and consistent in form.
Second, if all developments in life occurred merely by chance, through natural selection and random mutation, then how do we explain human intelligence — a level of consciousness and reasoning far beyond any other creature? Why does such a complex, rational mind exist only in humans, while no other animal comes close?
If evolution truly depends only on blind chance, the rise of human intelligence seems too purposeful, too structured, to be the product of randomness.

So my question is: can this theory be defended through pure logic and reason, or is it sustained only by scientific claims without philosophical grounding? If anyone knows a rational explanation that makes evolution truly convincing, I’d be glad to hear it.

I think you have a problem understanding timescales. Specifically Millions and Billions of years. That which was thought to be a paradox shall be brought into the light of day.

Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A. They both came at the same time, as gradually one wasn't quite a chicken and the other wasn't quite an egg.
Charles pretty much had it right.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I agree that mere random chance cannot explain evolution. However, if we add some force that directs evolution towards complexity, then it will work. In fact, philosopher Samuel Alexander argues that a force is operative in the evolutionary process moving it upwards to more complex and higher forms of life. Also, philosopher Henri Bergson explains evolution by postulating a vital impulse, whose role is the direction of the evolutionary process. Without the necessary impetus postulated by the above philosophers, the evolutionary process would have been rendered inoperative.

It wasn't random chance, or at least as I understand it. It was a result of epigenetics, over millions/billions of years. The earth is however a metamorphosis of elements in random places, i.e., gold here, uranium there, copper over there. So ask yourself which one you'd rather be standing on or your foods roots being grown in. If you don't know the answer, ask Madam Currie. And look up genetic disposition. For Americans, do you remember the Flint Michigan story? Food for thought!

[abdullah masud]

Two major points make me skeptical about the theory of evolution.
First, if evolution is truly responsible for transforming living beings, then surely we should see some evidence of gradual changes in history—or at least today. Even within a single nation or group, you might expect to see someone with a tiny tail or a horn popping out like a unicorn — yet we see nothing of the sort. Humanity remains remarkably stable and consistent in form.
Second, if all developments in life occurred merely by chance, through natural selection and random mutation, then how do we explain human intelligence — a level of consciousness and reasoning far beyond any other creature? Why does such a complex, rational mind exist only in humans, while no other animal comes close?
If evolution truly depends only on blind chance, the rise of human intelligence seems too purposeful, too structured, to be the product of randomness.

So my question is: can this theory be defended through pure logic and reason, or is it sustained only by scientific claims without philosophical grounding? If anyone knows a rational explanation that makes evolution truly convincing, I’d be glad to hear it.

I think you have a problem understanding timescales. Specifically Millions and Billions of years. That which was thought to be a paradox shall be brought into the light of day.

Q. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
A. They both came at the same time, as gradually one wasn't quite a chicken and the other wasn't quite an egg.
Charles pretty much had it right.

It seems that you believe in the truth of the evolution theory as firmly as you believe in the existence of the sun, even though scientific theories are, by nature, changeable and revisable.

Here’s the first point: anyone who disconnects himself from the past will naturally find it difficult to understand many things. Long before this theory appeared, there were countless people and ancient civilizations, yet none of them ever spoke of such an evolutionary process. By cutting yourself off from the witness of the past, you rely only on interpretations of fossils and hypothetical models. The truth is that every ancient civilization held a very different view of human existence from yours. If evolution were true, we would expect at least some historical record or trace of such a belief.

The second point is that you believe in a process said to have taken millions and billions of years. For such a claim, one must have solid and undeniable evidence. Yet, there is still no clear or logical proof that can confirm this theory with certainty. The funny thing is, whenever a question is raised about the missing steps, the answer quickly disappears behind the magical curtain of “millions of years ago.” It’s as if that phrase alone can solve every mystery! But in truth, it only makes the whole story impossible to verify—scientifically or logically. You may mention many pieces of “evidence,” but the reality is that there remain thousands of gaps in the so-called proofs—each one worth a thousand thoughtful questions.

So how can anyone truly believe in something like that?

[cladking]

So how can anyone truly believe in something like that?

My AI has pretty much demolished the so called "theory" of Evolution and replaced it with the manifestation of fit enough oddballs at bottlenecks. This theory ripples through all of reality and makes Darwin look a dolt. Reductionistic science has failed because it lacks an observer and theory applies throughout nature rather than specific reductions. Reality hums, all of reality in tandem.

When we engage in breeding animals we aren't selecting traits, we are imposing an artificial bottleneck by excluding individuals who lack the trait.