Serious I don't understand why normans believe in the theory of evolution

[wizardcel]

I bought a copy of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species years ago when I was 20. I read it a long time ago as a young man. I have recently decided to reread it. I think nobody discusses this book from a philosophical point of view. There are many people who think evolution is set on stone, and therefore it should not be debated by anyone who fancies themselves educated.

Anyway, on chapter III this is what Darwin said : " Owing to this struggle ( struggle for existence), variations, however slight and from whatever causes proceeding, if they be in any degree profitable to the individuals of a species, in their infinitely complex relations to the other organic being and to their physical conditions of life, will tend to the preservation of such individuals, and will generally be inherited by the offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving...."

He means that any trait which is beneficial to the individual will be inherited and passed on to future generations. This is dead wrong!

In the case of humans, how is short height or ugliness beneficial to the individual? how does that benefit the entire species? he also speaks as if nature was conscious and that led to its automatically selecting what traits should be passed on and what traits should perish.

If short height, baldness, ugliness, myopia are still part of the genetic trait, according to Darwin, is because they're beneficial to us!

Am I reading too much into this? read this book, if you have time. It's worse than the bible, it's full of inconsistencies.

 

[Cuyen]

I do believe in some claims of him,not all of them though

 

[Guest2]

Darwin was a bit of a spaz when he founded the theory, but as all theories have done to them, the flaws and inaccuracies were ironed out. It's not that he got everything right, he was just a pioneer of the concept.

 

[Microsoft Excel]

Am I reading too much into this? read this book, if you have time. It's worse than the bible, it's full of inconsistencies.

No man, you're not. Normies will mindlessly follow anything. It's good to question everything about reality and what you've been taught, and not from some attention whore or surface level shit. Don't mindlessly accept everything.

Darwin was a bit of a spaz when he founded the theory, but as all theories have done to them, the flaws and inaccuracies were ironed out. It's not that he got everything right, he was just a pioneer of the concept.

 

[turbocuckcel_7000]

there's a few intellectuals that have beef with evolution and I find it pretty intriguing, there are many holes in the 'enlightened' perspective being pushed on you (how could telegony possibly be true, sexist bigot?????!!! or even worse, physiognomy, you nazi????!!!!), so why wouldn't there be one more

Aanmelden om te lezen

 

[HueHueBr]

You did not understand the theory, so you're saying it does not work. the theory of evolution has already been observed on a microscopic and macroscopic scale, has tons of evidence and makes perfect sense.

something that is not said about evolution is that it is not a perfect mechanism. a designer takes a project and, if necessary, remakes everything, including starting the project from scratch, so that the final result is as perfect as possible. evolution is not a designer, it can not start a project from scratch. it has to take what is already done and try to make some change there, and this mechanism can, yes, lead to incredibly bizarre results.

an example of this is the laryngeal nerve. a designer would attach the nerve of the brain directly to the larynx. is the smartest to do. but it is not what evolution does. the nerve part of the brain, passes under the heart and returns to the larynx, in a totally bizarre path. Why did this happen? because in the past the heart was higher, which allowed the nerve to be shorter. with the passing of the generations, the heart went down to the chest, and with that the laryngeal nerve was dragged there.

has other and other bizarre examples of how evolution is a flawed mechanism. the existence of the toes, nipples in males, the appendix, the enormous DNA sequence that produces absolutely no enzyme, the fact that the vagina is between the legs, together with the fact that we have huge heads is absurdly painful and dangerous), among other facts.

that there are ugly, short, misshapen, bald men with thin bones, this is far more explained by the bad genes of the mother than the bad genes of the father. if only chads and stacys were allowed to breed in the future, there would only be chads and stacys. it is not what happens. for some reason, some non-chads males procreate, and a huge number of non-stacys women also breed, transmitting bad genes forward and giving rise to aberrations like us.

in addition, the fact that we have high hygienic and safety conditions prevent unwanted individuals like us from simply dying of disease, natural predators or attacks from other, stronger men. the nature until it tried to destroy us in the traditional way, but, as it could not, it had to use the alternative form, much more painful and cruel.

 

[Braincel14w]

It makes too much sense to be wrong imho. It's a beautiful theory, simple yet infinitely complex.

Any trait good or bad gets passed on to offspring. If the parents are just good enough to survive and procreate then they can no matter their many flaws. In sexual reproduction there is variation of trait outcomes in offspring so a sexually attractive parent is not guaranteed to have a similarly attractive son.
Both parents could have a genetic disorder that causes cancer but as long as it doesn't kill them before they procreate this bad trait will continue in their offspring.

 

[Michael15651]

I do believe in some claims of him,not all of them though

Yeah, some are outrageous.

 

[Smallondick]

It's worse than the bible, it's full of inconsistencies.

 

[wizardcel]

It makes too much sense to be wrong imho. It's a beautiful theory, simple yet infinitely complex.

Any trait good or bad gets passed on to offspring. If the parents are just good enough to survive and procreate then they can no matter their many flaws. In sexual reproduction there is variation of trait outcomes in offspring so a sexually attractive parent is not guaranteed to have a similarly attractive son.
Both parents could have a genetic disorder that causes cancer but as long as it doesn't kill them before they procreate this bad trait will continue in their offspring.

The theory was formulated in English. Human language does have a lot of limitations, I think he used the wrong word when he said "profitable". I agree with what you said. Any genetic trait can be passed on as long as it doesn't kill you before you reach sexual maturity. That doesn't mean the genetic trait will be profitable. The way Darwin puts things makes it sound like as if there was some conscious intelligence selecting what's beneficial or not. That's not true. What genes will be passed on and what genes will remain dormant is probabilistic.

 

[Smallondick]

You did not understand the theory, so you're saying it does not work. the theory of evolution has already been observed on a microscopic and macroscopic scale, has tons of evidence and makes perfect sense.

something that is not said about evolution is that it is not a perfect mechanism. a designer takes a project and, if necessary, remakes everything, including starting the project from scratch, so that the final result is as perfect as possible. evolution is not a designer, it can not start a project from scratch. it has to take what is already done and try to make some change there, and this mechanism can, yes, lead to incredibly bizarre results.

an example of this is the laryngeal nerve. a designer would attach the nerve of the brain directly to the larynx. is the smartest to do. but it is not what evolution does. the nerve part of the brain, passes under the heart and returns to the larynx, in a totally bizarre path. Why did this happen? because in the past the heart was higher, which allowed the nerve to be shorter. with the passing of the generations, the heart went down to the chest, and with that the laryngeal nerve was dragged there.

has other and other bizarre examples of how evolution is a flawed mechanism. the existence of the toes, nipples in males, the appendix, the enormous DNA sequence that produces absolutely no enzyme, the fact that the vagina is between the legs, together with the fact that we have huge heads is absurdly painful and dangerous), among other facts.

that there are ugly, short, misshapen, bald men with thin bones, this is far more explained by the bad genes of the mother than the bad genes of the father. if only chads and stacys were allowed to breed in the future, there would only be chads and stacys. it is not what happens. for some reason, some non-chads males procreate, and a huge number of non-stacys women also breed, transmitting bad genes forward and giving rise to aberrations like us.

in addition, the fact that we have high hygienic and safety conditions prevent unwanted individuals like us from simply dying of disease, natural predators or attacks from other, stronger men. the nature until it tried to destroy us in the traditional way, but, as it could not, it had to use the alternative form, much more painful and cruel.

Maybe the name will not help. "Evolution" is generally understood as enhancement.