Evolution. Do you agree with this view? - Off-Topic

#1 Posted by Matthew (1890 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

#2 Posted by Matthew (1890 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (3325 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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

#4 Posted by Dany (7877 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (3325 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

Looks like we're boned, then.

#6 Posted by Matthew (1890 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (3963 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

I don't believe in EVILolution!!

#8 Posted by kashif1 (1428 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@Matthew: there was a topic on this, a 40 page topic

#9 Posted by Allprox (529 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

It's more of a fact than a view.

#10 Posted by MooseyMcMan (8563 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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

#11 Posted by Matthew (1890 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@kashif1: Maybe on evolution, but I'm specifically asking about this statement.

#12 Edited by MattyFTM (13814 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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.

Moderator

#13 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (2711 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (248 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (8897 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (29329 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (1823 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

Its a loose theory based on the words maybe and unkown

#18 Edited by ZanzibarBreeze (3051 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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

#19 Posted by Brendan (6769 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (1552 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

I know evolution has and is happening.

#21 Posted by Video_Game_King (29329 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (3051 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (248 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@Video_Game_King:
Oh stop moaning, voice your opinion and move on.

#24 Posted by HandsomeDead (11863 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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

#25 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6237 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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 (2427 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (6099 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

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.

Online

#28 Posted by Catolf (2647 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes plz...

#29 Posted by Allprox (529 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@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 (731 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

Yes. The statement is more or less correct.

#31 Posted by Video_Game_King (29329 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@PATERSON:

I did before I posted that. You're kinda proving that you're a lazy reader :P.

#32 Posted by PATERSON (248 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@Video_Game_King:
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 (29329 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@PATERSON:

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 (248 posts) - 2 years, 9 months ago

@Video_Game_King:
Touche jackass lol