/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5855521]

is the theory of Evolution appropriate, philosophically speaking?

Inb4 creationism

[Anonymous No.5855527]

>>5855521
What the fuck does that question even mean?

[Anonymous No.5855533]

>>5855521
>american education

[Anonymous No.5855535]

What?

[Anonymous No.5855549]

>>5855527
Consider:


"Experience does not reveal the continuity of nature as such, but gives it to us both broken up...and blurred, since the real, geographic and terrestrial space in which we find ourselves confronts us with creatures that are interwoven with one another, in an order which is...nothing more than chance, disorder, or turbulence.”

[Anonymous No.5855557]

>>5855527

Consider:
Discontinuity
Intervention (human or otherwise)
Contingency
And the obvious

Theory of Evolution as a Means to a (political) End

[Anonymous No.5855565]

>>5855527
The idea isn't "Is it True"

But is it an appropriate way for the body to frame itself on the earth

[Anonymous No.5855698]

>>5855565
all those words seem to make sense, and yet when you put them all together, you're still talking rubbish

[Anonymous No.5855713]

>>5855549
>>5855557
>>5855565
But that seems to be addressing the question of "Can we take evolution in a philosophical sense" or "What, if anything, are the philosophical implications of evolution" (and answering those questions in the negative). Which is, IMO, a significantly different question.

Or, in other words, you're kinda talking rubbish.

[Paradise !!vh7XQhHe/pR No.5855721]

It has pretty much no impact whatsoever on rational thought, so no.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.5855824]

>>5855521
It's science while philosophy is not. How could that be either appropriate on inappropriate?
>the theory of Evolution
It's not even a mere theory anymore

[Anonymous No.5855874]

>>5855565
>>5855549
Do you even know what you're talking about? Because I sure don't.
Also, if you're going to accuse evolution of being a means to a political end rather than scientific fact, you're going to have to provide some proof.

[Anonymous No.5856302]

The observations are "appropriate", of course, they are scientifically logical, follows the method, it works.

A philosophical standpoint to evolution would go to a different route. For example, whether darwinism justifies social darwinism is a philosophical question. You can have a critical philosophical eye for the history of evolution and how it changed the way we see the world. How does it affect our relation to nature? On one side, it shows ourselves as brothers to other animals, but isn't it weird how it coincides in time with the industrial revolution and all the destruction it brought to the fauna and flora? In the XIX century, books would place man on top of the world, much distant from animals. In some bizarre way, though, the common image of evolution is of the ape walking and going more and more human. A lot of people ask whether dinosaurs would go smarter if they lived longer, or if man vanished whether other species would grow smart as well. This denounces still a sense that we are better than other animals. This is merely tangencial to evolution, it is a notion that existed before, but dressed itself with scientific clothes instead of the previously religious ones.

Philosophy is the act of discussing those things and not the conclusion in itself. In the same way that the scientific method is science and not the subject, or how religion is a relationship to a deeper all embracing numinous sensation and not the priest's robe. If any of them have an authority on something, it is merely by a limited consensus.

Evolution can be throughly used in philosophy to better understand the development of ideology. You can argue on identity when discussing concepts such as "survival of the species" vs "selfish gene". These are philosophical subjects, that work in spite of the scientific discoveries.

[Anonymous No.5856339]

>>5855824
Damn it, butters, stop propagating the ill concieved notion that a the scientific use of the word theory is comparable to its general use.

[Anonymous No.5857087]

>>5855521
>>5855549
>>5855557
>>5855565
>>5856302
Let me start by saying that I like all of you, you make my brain itch in the pleasant way.

Then let me answer as a person who from the youngest age had strong interest in biology and evolution (at the end I choose medical studies). I was living with the evolution in my mind my whole life. Evolution was my guide to humans, interaction and almost all my questions regarding humanity, intelligence and so.

Now let me adress your points and then I will try to stand my point:
>>5855549
>order which is...nothing more than chance, disorder, or turbulence.”

That's totally wrong evolution is precisely the opposit of "chance, disorder, or turbulence" evolution describes how order (higher complicated systems) emerges in the world. Chance is not a part you should stress out while looking at the evolution. It was only needed when first complex self-replicating being first came into being and when information is disturbed (so that mutation happens). It is all superficial. Proto-soup from which first living beings emerged existed for billion of years, chaoticly creating systems from naturally and inorganicly occuring amins, by the chance it actually created couple that were able to replicate and propagate it's information further. But the whole process took billions of years and it was bound it happen sooner or later just by sheer "luck". Than we have chance in mutations. Again it's not a mutation that is a core of evolution but the individual pressure that actually is weeding out all the not profitable mutations and let the worthwhile propagate into the future. There is much subtlety in the whole process, it's not binary, aspects can show whole range of intensivity.

Evolution is that. Way of order/complexity emerging from the chaos using naturally occurring phenomenones.

[Anonymous No.5857096]

>>5857087
You're even more of an idiot than OP.

[Anonymous No.5857103]

>>5857087
>Again it's not a mutation that is a core of evolution
Yes it is. Without mutation, organisms wouldn't change from one generation to another.

[Anonymous No.5857160]

Evolution may be true, but I can't wrap my head around when people say there is no creator of some sort that originally sparked the occurance.

Of course, that begs the question of who created the creator, and who created that creator.

I think there is a creator, I just don't know what form it would take.

[Anonymous No.5857166]

>>5856302
>On one side, it shows ourselves as brothers to other animals

But it actually don't. It shows ourselves as competitors and enemies with other animals. We naturally fight with them for finite resources.

>but isn't it weird how it coincides in time with the industrial revolution and all the destruction it brought to the fauna and flora

Well it might be interesting how it coincides but evolution help answer why we feel so reckles while destroying flora and fauna. We are enemies. Even we are not in the strict predator-prey dynamic with a species we still compete for a resources, space to live. Our insticts are very inprecise. Even if we clearly are not in danger from an group of animals we might not feel remorse for doing them harm because if we were more empathical many year earlier it would lessen our chances of survival (and will prevent, such information from existing).

>In the XIX century, books would place man on top of the world

Rigthly so.

>This denounces still a sense that we are better than other animals

It doesn't. I am firm beliver in evolution and atheist and I strongly think that humans are much better than anything else in the universe. We are the only ones (we know) with intelligence, capables of artistic expression, complexity beyond mere self-propagating systems and matter.

What I find odd sometimes from people criticising human superiority/evolution is a belive that we are somehow different, not a part of a world of fauna and flora. That there are creature and in the "other box" we are. Humans are as much a part of nature as anything else alive, everything we do is actually a part of nature laws and I belive that every intelligent beings would step in our footsteps. What's more I belive that we are the crown of evolution, highest point to date. I belive there is more to go but to this moment we are the greatest treasure on the earth in this moment. If we would be to dissapear earth will become much more boring planet with just almost-never-ending of living things eating each other and taking energy from sun possibly till the sun burns out and everything stops. Our superiority in the strictly evolutionary sense would be that we will possibly be able to survive death of the sun thus succesfully propagating our information. Personally I belive there is much more to us.

[Anonymous No.5857194]

>>5857103
Mutation is just a tool, a way of change taking place. Mutation occurses in the genetic material that is only one of possibly ways to contain and propagate information. It's the individual pressure that shapes mutations into change. Without it there wouldn't be change ofcourse but it is like saying that without big things there would be no gravity. Gravity would still exist it would just not have a way of expressing itself. I could dwelve into the more exotic formes of how living information could take shape but it is not my language nor I think we would have time and clarity for that on this board.

>>5857160
The "creator" were laws of universe and billions of years. We are truly children of universe and we are "made of stars" I find it very much poetic and fulfiling.

[Anonymous No.5857219]

>>5857194
That doesn't mean it isn't at the core of the process. You can't pretend mutation isn't integral to it. Evolution is also a process that is only observable in animals. Systems become more complex over time, but the theory of evolution applies particularly and in a scientific sense exclusively to organisms. It has nothing to do with gravity.

[Anonymous No.5857251]

>>5857194

Who or what created the laws on the universe, that enabled the stars to be created?

[Anonymous No.5857261]

>>5857251
Literally God.

[Anonymous No.5857287]

>>5855521
of course not
if everything were just self-preservation we'd all be rocks or something
evolution = idiocy

[Anonymous No.5857289]

>>5857219
It was a metaphor. I wasn't impling there was much connection. But ofcourse evolution have lots to do with gravity, if not for gravity there would propably not be object massive enough to radiate energy and others that would provide foundations (place and matter) Just messing with ya.

Still mutations might not even be completly random. Chemicals, radiation can induce change in the genetic material (information) so it would be theoretically possible for organisms to seek those specific circumstances when need be (great stress and so on).

Also actually mutation is not necessary for change today. Just look at dogs. In most cases different breeds of dogs did not require mutations to come into being. Selective breeding just made some features stronger and some weaker. (Keywords are "most"). Same process occures in the wild when need arises (like mountains emerging and dividing bird population *wink wink*).

[Anonymous No.5857291]

>>5857166
Brothers in the sense that we share some familiarity, as you said so, we are part of nature (perhaps I should have said cousins). Before, we were outside nature, images of God. We might be enemies as well, that's an interpretation.

I'm not talking opinions. You may think it is rightly so, or wrongly so, it doesn't matter. What you gave is your opinion (which is fine), but not philosophy. I'm not defending that we are not superior (neither I'm defending the contrary), but observing how in spite of theory of evolution, it came to a similar ideological paradigm as before: man on top. With intelligence serving the place of divine grace. The anxiety of salvation, surviving judgement day/death of the sun, the "boredom" of a humanless world, etc.. The account of your opinion is very fair placed within the paradigmn a philosopher would address in a historical analysis.

[Anonymous No.5857294]

>>5857194
>Mutation occurses in the genetic material that is only one of possibly ways to contain and propagate information.
what are examples of other ways in which genetic material can change besides mutation?

>the individual pressure
give an example of what you mean by this

>Gravity would still exist it would just not have a way of expressing itself.
show that gravity is an independent object, and not a quality of matter

[Anonymous No.5857298]

>>5857251
They are the laws, they are immaterial and thus are only thing that can be eternal. They are just the banks that the word flow through.

>>5857261
Yea, space wizard did it, duh. Creates millions galaxies, billions of stars, trillions of planets to make his special children that everything was meant to on one of them and then tell them to not masturbate and cut their foreskin.

[Anonymous No.5857312]

>>5857289
>Also actually mutation is not necessary for change today
Oh really?
>But ofcourse evolution have lots to do with gravity, if not for gravity there would propably not be object
Beyond that, they're unrelated. Gravity is related to everything but it has no particular connection to evolution.
>Chemicals, radiation can induce change in the genetic material
That's literally mutation.
>Same process occures in the wild when need arises (like mountains emerging and dividing bird population *wink wink*).
How are mountains and their emergence related to artificial selection?

[Anonymous No.5857315]

>>5857298
>Who created the laws?
>The laws
You're a moron.

[Anonymous No.5857320]

It's appropriate only in the sense that ontological reconstitution can only be achieved, in the philosophical sense, through a series of ideological mutations or corruptions that one could argue have teleological roots to a certain extent. However, if we dig a little deeper into how knowledge of evolutionary mutations, biological processes have at least some relevance to teleology, predestination, but ontologically we cannot know for certain if appropriation of these concepts into a more postmodernist rejection of physicality and embracing of abstraction and philosophical thought is feasibly logical unless we reexamine exactly how the conceptual relations between biological progression and ideological progression ultimately effect (or affect) how current way of thinking.

So, really, the question resolves itself into a bit of an abstract, paradoxical relapse, wherein we ARE asking ourselves definitively and axiomatically whether or not evolutionary theory is philosophically appropriate when we SHOULD be asking ourselves how and why we should or should not reject the notion of the inquiry entirely.

Very interesting thread, OP.

[Anonymous No.5857349]

>>5857294
>what are examples of other ways in which genetic material can change besides mutation?

Virus infestation, environmental pressure that makes certain part of genetic information express itself, mobile genetic elements. In the genetic definition they are still part of the "mutation" but they are not random and this is what I belive you meant.

There is a strong theory in biogenesis dictating that first preliving systems didn't had DNA or RNA (it is much later thing) and contained information about themselves in the structure of their "bodies". They could change in response to environment and replicate themselfes with changes.

>give an example of what you mean by this
I belive that it may sound different in english. I meant environmental pressure. If you still need example here: higher concentration of oxygene, flood, fire, higher concentration of CO2, slightly faster predator or no predators at all which would imply more interspecie competition.

>show that gravity is an independent object, and not a quality of matter

It is a quality of matter, but how could you tell if there weren't no big bodies to exert that minimal (in physical standars) force?

[Anonymous No.5857358]

>>5857315
Noone created the laws. And I think you might be mentally retarded, seek help.

[Anonymous No.5857375]

>>5857358
Why are there laws? Did they come from other laws? Why were those laws there? Why do things follow the laws? Why are there things? Again: why are there laws?
You failed to answer a question the other anon asked you, and now you're calling me an idiot when you've been writing absolute nonsense about a process you seem to have only a vague and unscientific knowledge of all thread. You strike me as retarded.

[Anonymous No.5857380]

>>5857291
Nice

[Anonymous No.5857386]

>>5857291
>What you gave is your opinion (which is fine), but not philosophy
Yes, I wanted to first adress existing posts and then come back to showing a glimpse at the "philosophy" (if you would be kind enough to call it that) I live by. But it seems I have little time for that and I'm not sure I would be able to do it properly.

>in spite of theory of evolution

Once again (because you obviously skip that part in my original reply) it's NOT in spite, it might be very much through the theory of evolution that we are superior.

>I'm not talking opinions

In a sense, you are always talking opinions. wink wink

>Brothers in the sense that we share some familiarity, as you said so, we are part of nature (perhaps I should have said cousins). Before, we were outside nature, images of God. We might be enemies as well, that's an interpretation.

Well, it's clear that we are superior to everything else alive. Humanity just sought the answer why.

[Anonymous No.5857403]

>>5857386
>Well, it's clear that we are superior to everything else alive

[Anonymous No.5857417]

>>5857312
>Oh really?
Yea
>That's literally mutation.
That wasn't my points. Animals that seek such mutagens are inducing change that is not random, it's very much precise and aimed.

>How are mountains and their emergence related to artificial selection?
Really? Really? That's like the second example of evolution at work you learn while reading about it. You have much study before you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopatric_speciation

And just to be nice, different properties of environment on the ends of mountain range exerts pressure on species just as artificial selection exerts pressure on species.

[Anonymous No.5857429]

>>5857320
I really want to understand what your saying.

Wanna take another Stab at it?

[Anonymous No.5857430]

>>5857417
>That wasn't my points. Animals that seek such mutagens are inducing change that is not random, it's very much precise and aimed.
Animals seek mutagens? You don't seem to understand how randomness works, here. Artificial selection still involves a degree of randomness.

Also, mountain ranges forming can be attributed to a natural selection force, while breeding can be seen as an artificial one. You literally said one was just like the other, which is wrong. Artificial and natural selection are exactly different.

[Anonymous No.5857439]

>>5857375
Those question cannot be answered because we do not know, but if you need to pretend that you have an answer, "God did it".

[Anonymous No.5857449]

>>5857375
>you're calling me an idiot
Ah ad hominem! I haven't called you anything, you were the one that called me moron. But now I'm certain that you are of a lesser kind. Just plain stupid. You probably need some kind of higher purpose to your life because it is so empty otherwise. Have fun with it, we are all going to die and you won't get your pat at the hear or cookie after.

Laws weren't created, not need to be created, nor they have a reason. Deal with it. This is how it goes. Pretending there is a space daddy in the clouds won't change nothing.

>>5857403
Hahaha. We are most succesfull living being on earth. Probably in all the history. We might possibly be able to colonize other planets in the future. Of course provided some people (even from this thread) die without heirs.

[Anonymous No.5857465]

>>5857449
>Denies the existence of teleological justifice
>Claims we're the most advanced and therefore best species, that success means we're good, and that we should colonize or would benefit from colonizing other planets
>Misunderstands evolution
>Worships the laws of nature
>Calls other people names
>Does it for free

[Anonymous No.5857469]

>>5857465
>teleological justifice
Justification* my bad

[Anonymous No.5857480]

>>5857430
>Artificial and natural selection are exactly different.
Both are exerting pressure onto the species to form most suitable (preferable) phenotype. In one case the humans are the main reasons of the pressure in the other it's other (not human) occurrence. I guess you are just not deep enough to see the resemblance. Not holding it against you, but if you don't recognize the example with birds and mountain ranges you obviously haven't read much about the topic.

>Animals seek mutagens? You don't seem to understand how randomness works, here. Artificial selection still involves a degree of randomness.

Still I postulated that it wasn't "chance". "Degree of randomness" is no longer "blind chance". And still it isn't even that, you seem to not grasp how evolution weed all the "bad" mutations and leaves only "neutral" and "good" ones, effectivly being very opposite of random. "Force" that oppose "dumb" randomness.

[Anonymous No.5857498]

>>5857465
Hahaha, nice troll. I refuse to belive someone is that stupid. 10/10 for the idiocy.

[Anonymous No.5857509]

>>5857439

How is believing in unverifiable laws any different than believing in an unverifiable god?

[Anonymous No.5857513]

>>5857480
>In one case the humans are the main reasons of the pressure in the other it's other (not human) occurrence. I guess you are just not deep enough to see the resemblance.
Both are exerting force, but your examples make it seem like you aren't aware that artificial and natural selection are different kinds of forces.
>"Degree of randomness" is no longer "blind chance".
What's the difference?
>you seem to not grasp how evolution weed all the "bad" mutations and leaves only "neutral" and "good" ones, effectivly being very opposite of random. "Force" that oppose "dumb" randomness.
Fitness isn't a matter of good or bad mutations. There are no absolutely good or bad traits.

Evolution involves randomness because of the inherently random way genetic material interacts. Unless we're talking about pure genetic engineering, there's a large degree of chance involved in the process.

[Anonymous No.5857523]

>>5857349
>Virus infestation, environmental pressure that makes certain part of genetic information express itself, mobile genetic elements.
in this example
which virus are you talking about; which host?

>the virus prompts an expression of genetic material; the viruses themselves aren't part of the mutation, they prompt it. plus the virus prompting the mutation of genetic material is not an example of non-genetic material mutating.

> In the genetic definition they are still part of the "mutation" but they are not random and this is what I belive you meant.
what "genetic definition" are you using? i fail to see how the virus infecting one particular animal and not another within a set of animals which leads to expression of some gene is not a random occurrence

[Anonymous No.5857534]

>>5857509
Laws are verified. We just don't know their genesis or if they just are constant.

So the only unverifiable thing in your question is god. And on top of that, usually beliving in god requiers that you do some bizzare stuff. Which is stupid in itself.

[Anonymous No.5857538]

>>5857534
>Laws are verified
By whom?

[Anonymous No.5857544]

>>5857386
It is in spite of theory of evolution because it was there before. In the same way that you can use evolution to argue that we are enemies of nature, you could argue that we are brothers. In a similar way, you can use the Bible to spread love, get rich, justify a war, etc. In the same way that you can use a nation's flag to unite and to divide people. Just like science was used to describe the work of God or to fight the idea of God. Or how in the name of free market you can defend liberal ideas, or be outright racist.

Ideology needs that kind of justification. Of course the theory of evolution will seem like the precise and much needed confirmation of how we think, just like,everything that we account for conspires to justify our believes (otherwise we wouldn't have them). But in philosophy you'd have to step back a little farther away to understand the logic that leads us to the conclusions that guide our lives (in spite of evolution, religion, ideology...)

In a sense, we are always talking opnions. We are also doing philosophy and science, being political, social, ideological.... We are also masturbating on sweet rhetoric, sure. All that.

[Anonymous No.5857551]

>>5857538
Can you levitate? No? Are you standing firmly on the earth? Yes? Congratulation you just verifed that gravitation exist! You might now start measuring how strong the force is and from where and what it originate. Or you could belive hundred of guys that did it before (from which most of agreed on single measurments, not quite sure in the specifics I think but we are geting there, you can help!), your choice.

[Anonymous No.5857564]

>>5857551
>Can you levitate? No? Are you standing firmly on the earth? Yes? Congratulation you just verifed that gravitation exist!
No I didn't, I verified that I seem to be effected by gravity. It doesn't follow that gravity is somewhere out there affecting me.
Science actually doesn't know all that much about gravity. You could probably find a better example.

[Anonymous No.5857565]

>>5857320
what an absolute load of shit, put down your thesaurus faggot

[Anonymous No.5857569]

>>5857551
>Can you levitate? No? Are you standing firmly on the earth? Yes? Congratulation you just verifed that gravitation exist
no, you've observed that you can't levitate and that you're standing firmly on the ground

[Anonymous No.5857577]

>>5857523
>which virus are you talking about; which host?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrovirus
Retroviruses are building their genetic information into the information of host. We (as a species) are using viruses to introduce genes into the organisms (one of the way to produce GMO).

>i fail to see how the virus infecting one particular animal and not another within a set of animals which leads to expression of some gene is not a random occurrence

Because the virus doesn't act random?! FFS, virus has clear purpose in what he is doing to propagate his information. And lots of times he gets some information with him (next generations) of him from host to host thereby changing genetic material of host (transduction). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_(genetics)

Am I to be your highschool teacher?! Do your homework.

[Anonymous No.5857582]

>We just don't know their genesis or if they just are constant.

That seems a pretty big don't know. What created the laws? More laws? What created those laws? Other laws?....

You believe that nothingness can transform into something. I cannot envision that, for if nothing develops into something it must be something from the start, therefore it cannot be nothing.

[Anonymous No.5857585]

>>5857577
>Because the virus doesn't act random?! FFS, virus has clear purpose in what he is doing to propagate his information
[citation needed]
How does that stop the interaction between the genes involved from being random?

[Anonymous No.5857588]

>>5857320
>one could argue have teleological roots to a certain extent
one could but one shouldn't. plus there's not a "certain extent" to which something is teleological

>but ontologically we cannot know for certain
>laughing epistemologist.jpg
give it a rest sport

[Anonymous No.5857600]

>>5857564
But my example perfectly shows what I wanted to deliver. You were able to verify that you are effected by some force (you might call it whatever you like but most of humanity agreed to call it gravity). Nothing and noone stopes you from learing about it some more for yourself. If you really need verification so much, study physics and matemathics, and go there and be one of the great people that try to learn about gravity (we call them scientist). Becaue scientist are not different species, they are just very curious people that try to solve this puzzle. We are not near, but if you were really that keen on knowing the answer you should go there and be one of them.

[Anonymous No.5857601]

>>5857577
>Because the virus doesn't act random?! FFS, virus has clear purpose in what he is doing to propagate his information.
just because a virus has perimeters i.e. a set number of species it can actually infect is not at all relevant to the question of randomness

why are you getting upset? i'm simply trying to get you to clarify your claims

[Anonymous No.5857607]

>>5857600
>But my example perfectly shows what I wanted to deliver
You delivered something trivial.
Don't lecture me about science, you faggot. You clearly have no intellectual background.

[Anonymous No.5857608]

>>5857577
>Retroviruses are building their genetic information into the information of host. We (as a species) are using viruses to introduce genes into the organisms
fine but it's still the genetic material itself which is mutating which is causing evolution within a species

[Anonymous No.5857622]

>>5857585
Imagine there are 10 million of that interactiones in any given moment (far too little). Imagine 1% of that number to yield any observable change, that would be 100 thousands. Imagine 10% of that, big enough that it might show into the phenotype, its 10 thousand. From this 10 thousand, environmental pressure will weed out all the bad ones, lets say 10% (animals with slightly shorter legs in savanna, when the longer legs are better for the speed to run or chase, slightly brigher colour that is bad because of many predators etc.) It will leave only neutral 80% ones and good 10% ones. The process which made only this 80% neutral and 10% good ones "stay" is not random, it is govern by environment (predators, weather, food). It's not random which of changes stays in the pool. I'm oversimplified but I hope you get the point. It's randomnes on some part but it's so much that it's cease to being relevant.

[Anonymous No.5857631]

>>5857607
TFW you are actually academic. And to think I had any hope in you.

>>5857601
I was geting kind of upset because the information I deliver are easy to acces in any biology book.

[Anonymous No.5857637]

I have no idea what OP is even saying but here's what I think we should we do
>get 200 psychopaths who are like 6-7
>teach them evolution until 16
>release into wild (cameras and fences to observe)

and then we do the same thing with a different 200 psychokids, but this time we teach them happy loving jesus holy bible pray et etc love thy neighbour or you burn in hell
>then release into wild and watch with cameras

I think the first group would think 'survival of the fittest' and fight/kill eachother until one guy is dominant and has a group of other guys protecting him, and they go round raping and shit, like a mafia. the children wouldn't live long past birth because the mother does not care to feed it

and then the second group would form social contracts rather than killing, because they want to avoid hell, and so they build roads, share farm labour because everyone is better off, and even spawn a new generation of jesus psycho kids, living in harmony even though they don't care about eachother

so we can see by this example that evolution is not an appropriate thing to teach in american schools in place of creationsism, because it fosters more selfish and violent behaviour

[Anonymous No.5857646]

>>5857631
>I was geting kind of upset because the information I deliver
you have not demonstrated or clarified any of your theses, and all of your examples have worked against them.

>TFW you are actually academic.
are you trying to say that you are an academic? that means exactly nothing in this discussion, not that anyone should believe you.

[Anonymous No.5857657]

>>5857588
>>5857565
>>5857429
It was a joke, guys. I was being deliberately nonsensical.

[Anonymous No.5857677]

>>5857622
Why is it 'less relevant?' I don't understand your reasoning. Surely, the evolutionary process doesn't change.
>neutral, good, and bad traits
Seriously? That isn't how it works. Fitness isn't measured in terms of good and bad.

[Anonymous No.5857678]

>>5857637
2/10, almost got me to type up a lengthy response

[Anonymous No.5857716]

>>5857637

[Anonymous No.5857738]

>>5857637
yep

[Anonymous No.5857813]

It's appropriate in the sense that appropriating the truth, which is the commerce of science, by creating a narrative of collected information, which is the currency of science, leads us to a irreducible conclusion about a meta narrative revolving around the scientific method being used totally as The way of nature (out with the old, in with the new).

It is inappropriate because what is being had is a Siege, which is a parasitic way of establishing an enviro-personal relationship. The "theory" whether true or not, is war.

[Anonymous No.5857924]

>>5857813
War

[Anonymous No.5858092]

No idea what you're talking about dude.
Appropriate to what end? What aspect of evolution? There are so many tangential judgments that you could make based on all the information that supports the theory of evolution

[Anonymous No.5859280]

>>5855521
What does "philosophically appropriate" even mean? It's true, or as near to truth as we can get.

[Anonymous No.5859281]

OP is a faggot

[Anonymous No.5859353]

>>5857637
I think the problem is that pcycho jesus freaks are going to work exactly as you would expect.