Avatar image for matthew
#1 Posted by Matthew (2151 posts) -
Avatar image for matthew
#2 Posted by Matthew (2151 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.     
Avatar image for greggd
#3 Posted by GreggD (4595 posts) -

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

Avatar image for dany
#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
Avatar image for greggd
#5 Posted by GreggD (4595 posts) -

Looks like we're boned, then.

Avatar image for matthew
#6 Posted by Matthew (2151 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.
Avatar image for landon
#7 Posted by Landon (4137 posts) -

I don't believe in EVILolution!!

Avatar image for kashif1
#8 Posted by kashif1 (1543 posts) -
@Matthew: there was a topic on this, a 40 page topic
Avatar image for allprox
#9 Posted by Allprox (626 posts) -

It's more of a fact than a view.

Avatar image for mooseymcman
#10 Posted by MooseyMcMan (12541 posts) -

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

Avatar image for matthew
#11 Posted by Matthew (2151 posts) -
@kashif1: Maybe on evolution, but I'm specifically asking about this statement.
Avatar image for mattyftm
#12 Edited by MattyFTM (14804 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.

Moderator
Avatar image for make_me_mad
#13 Posted by Make_Me_Mad (3227 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.

Avatar image for paterson
#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.

Avatar image for jimbo
#15 Posted by Jimbo (10472 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.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#16 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -

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

Avatar image for metroid545
#17 Posted by Metroid545 (1839 posts) -

Its a loose theory based on the words maybe and unkown

Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#18 Edited by ZanzibarBreeze (3210 posts) -

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

Avatar image for brendan
#19 Posted by Brendan (9038 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.
Avatar image for fiestaunicorn
#20 Posted by FiestaUnicorn (1673 posts) -

I know evolution has and is happening.
Avatar image for video_game_king
#21 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 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.
Avatar image for zanzibarbreeze
#22 Posted by ZanzibarBreeze (3210 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.
Avatar image for paterson
#23 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: 
Oh stop moaning, voice your opinion and move on.
Avatar image for handsomedead
#24 Posted by HandsomeDead (11853 posts) -

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

Avatar image for lordxavierbritish
#25 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6651 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.

Avatar image for man_flannel
#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. 
 
 
Avatar image for icemael
#27 Posted by Icemael (6860 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.

Avatar image for catolf
#28 Posted by Catolf (2791 posts) -

Yes plz...

Avatar image for allprox
#29 Posted by Allprox (626 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
Avatar image for semition
#30 Posted by Semition (728 posts) -

Yes. The statement is more or less correct.

Avatar image for video_game_king
#31 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -
@PATERSON: 
 
I did before I posted that. You're kinda proving that you're a lazy reader :P.
Avatar image for paterson
#32 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
@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.
Avatar image for video_game_king
#33 Posted by Video_Game_King (36564 posts) -
@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.
Avatar image for paterson
#34 Posted by PATERSON (256 posts) -
@Video_Game_King: 
 Touche jackass lol