#1 Posted by Matthew (2141 posts) -
#2 Posted by Matthew (2141 posts) -


Evolution is an unreasoning statistical process which represents no more than the blind conservation of accidental life forms capable of surviving within their environments. 

Albeit, it's simply a view one would take if they were simply observing evolution from an outsiders perspective.  Well, I guess you don't have to be an evolutionist to have an opinion on this statement... I found it in Empire from the Ashes by David Weber.  Nifty sci-fi book compilation I'd recommend to somebody if they've got some time and enjoy sci-fi.     
#3 Posted by GreggD (4582 posts) -

Yeah, this thread will either be full of intelligent discussion or bullshit.

#4 Posted by Dany (8018 posts) -
@GreggD said:
" Yeah, this thread will either be full of intelligent discussion or bullshit. "
It would be intelligent discussion if I could remember anything from AP Biology
#5 Posted by GreggD (4582 posts) -

Looks like we're boned, then.

#6 Posted by Matthew (2141 posts) -
@GreggD: Yea, thats what I realized after I hit the submit button and saw the "Religion. Whats your stance on it?" topic.  I have off-topic board filtered out in my settings, so typically I avoid this kinda thing... 
If things take a turn for the worst, I'll just ask a mod to lock it.
#7 Posted by Landon (4134 posts) -

I don't believe in EVILolution!!

#8 Posted by kashif1 (1543 posts) -
@Matthew: there was a topic on this, a 40 page topic
#9 Posted by Allprox (608 posts) -

It's more of a fact than a view.

#10 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11933 posts) -

I'm pretty sure this is pretty much established fact at this point. At least to non-religious zealots. 

#11 Posted by Matthew (2141 posts) -
@kashif1: Maybe on evolution, but I'm specifically asking about this statement.
#12 Edited by MattyFTM (14593 posts) -

That pretty much sums up evolution. It's random gene mutations, leading to species variation, leading to natural selection/survival of the fittest. Which is essentially what that statement describes, it just does it in a far more wordy way.

#13 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3211 posts) -

I really don't see how you could deny Evolution at this point.  I mean, assuming that something weird doesn't happen, and you can take the human interaction factor out of the way, it's pretty much just how Nature works.  Things that learn/mutate a way to survive better, big surprise, survive better.  Then they make more things that, odds are pretty good, will also survive better, rinse, lather, repeat, evolution.

#14 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -

erm, seems the most logical to me, plus there is evidence to support it. I hope it's not real and I hope there is a god who, when I die, will party with my soul forever. But evolution seems to be the most logical way of thinking.

#15 Posted by Jimbo (10173 posts) -

The statement is accurate.  It only reads so negatively because they have chosen to use 'unreasoning', 'blind' and 'accidental' to make their point - all words which in most contexts have a negative connotation.  In this context however they just mean that reason, foresight and purpose play no part in evolution. ie. there is no design taking place.  This is accurate.

#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -

The language seems to be loaded (blind? I see somebody prefers their Lamarckian evolution), but yea, the notion seems accurate enough.

#17 Posted by Metroid545 (1839 posts) -

Its a loose theory based on the words maybe and unkown

#18 Edited by ZanzibarBreeze (3205 posts) -

It's not a question of agreeing with it or believing in it. Evolution is fact.

#19 Posted by Brendan (8664 posts) -

That pretty much sums it up, albeit in an oddly phrased way.  Living things compete for resources, and the ones that fit best win.
#20 Posted by FiestaUnicorn (1663 posts) -

I know evolution has and is happening.
#21 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -
@Allprox: @MooseyMcMan: @PATERSON: @ZanzibarBreeze: @FiestaUnicorn: 
Gotta love the people who didn't bother reading the original post, since it changes the nature of the discussion considerably.
#22 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3205 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: I see what you mean. I read it; I just didn't associate the poll with the quote Matthew had pulled. I assumed it was a poll about evolution in general.
#23 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
Oh stop moaning, voice your opinion and move on.
#24 Posted by HandsomeDead (11854 posts) -

I don't know how you can't agree with it.

#25 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6652 posts) -

There is no point in denying evolution at this point, only in researching it. 
For instance, I am very interested in evidence recently acquired that suggests that the way a parent lives their life has a direct impact on the offspring. 
What I am not interested in are people trying to represent evolution in "their own way." Science is about laws and rules, opinions don't matter.

#26 Posted by MAN_FLANNEL (2472 posts) -
@Metroid545 said:

" Its a loose theory based on the words maybe and unkown "

No. It isn't.  This is the biggest misconception of Scientific Theory.  This video explains what Theory is. 
#27 Posted by Icemael (6795 posts) -

Well, considering that evolution has been pretty much proven (bacteria's lifespans are a whole lot shorter than humans', so in them, you can literally see evolution happen in a matter of days), I don't see how it's possible not to agree with it without some really, really convoluted, far-fetched reasoning.

#28 Posted by Catolf (2788 posts) -

Yes plz...

#29 Posted by Allprox (608 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: While you are right that I didn't actually read his full post on that particular definition of evolution, I still think that my comment would have held up anyway with regards to it. Even still, you must have some power within you to know that I'm a lazy reader who skims over posts all the time by just reading mine. I hope you use your powers for good and not evil. :P
#30 Posted by Semition (728 posts) -

Yes. The statement is more or less correct.

#31 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -
I did before I posted that. You're kinda proving that you're a lazy reader :P.
#32 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
You moved on did you? obviously not and no I'm not a lazy reader, I missed the post made by creator of this topic and thought it applied to evolution in general. I did read your post before the one where you addressed me. Like I said, move on.
#33 Posted by Video_Game_King (36566 posts) -
Depends on how you apply the phrase. Since we're on a different subject, I'd say I've moved on. Tee-hee, I win :P.
#34 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
 Touche jackass lol