Evolution is an unreasoning statistical process which represents no more than the blind conservation of accidental life forms capable of surviving within their environments.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Use your keyboard!
Log in to comment