excerpt from an essay by me, which I have written in a forum on questions to the evolution of a believer
An evolutionary biologist pat me on the finger, he should find fault. I want to make here is no opposing view to the theistic, evolutionary negative position but reflect reality as accurately as possible . I too raise (as opposed to other, mainly authors produce evidence of God) no claim to the truth, since science can falsify but never verified. In plain language this mean that there are many accepted theories like general relativity, quantum mechanics and the theory of evolution is still only theories. Their common feature in a variety of experiments and observations that indicate a lack of accuracy and such that they would prove to be incorrect. So one can say that all these theories reflect the reality that good though and can even make you make predictions, they are still only theories but who lose their validity when a counter-proof can be provided.
for fear of evolution
It is understandable that we have a system of complexity hardly excel, and we still do not fully comprehend a long, long, frightens feelings of confusion, overwork, and perhaps even fear. Man has always tried to understand his environment and explain as fully as possible. Only has the environment and therefore changed the question. Has there been enough before, something from agriculture to understand a little of the weather and the stars, which we now take much more true of our environment. Our perception is not confined to our village or country and not merely to the eye. Today we see our "new eyes" to use into the matter at an atomic level, to the limits of the visible universe is, until the beginning of the Time back. Also, that science has largely solved with the time of the church, plays a role.
We have today a view of the universe that offers us an incredible wealth of information that we can not fully explain and manage. In addition, the anchor, the explanation of the inexplicable use of a god, not in science available. Logical that fall within the context terms such as "bizarre" and "sinister."
to intermediate states and final states
easiest way to arrange these concepts well, if we look at the present time not as the most important but as a random moment between the origin of the universe over 13 billion years ago and its kind whatsoever in the end wasweissichwievielen quadrillion years (to set the Big Crunch times as likely to). With this approach, one can speak of "end states" in the broadest sense to speak only
extinct species, there being no further here anymore. In this view appears out of the claim of a species that defines you "man" generous, has just experienced a two-thousandth of the story, absurd, to represent the state during a moment of the universe as final states.
As long as there is evolution, is be any form of life only an intermediate stage on the way to the next. Even sharks have existed for hundreds of millions of years, have not started as a shark but a single cell that has emerged from a random combination of organic molecules. And even if the shark has changed in the last few million years compared to most other life forms, hardly, he has yet changed.
The first shark-like species appeared already 400 to 350 million years would on
desire to improve performance
The evolutionary processes that lead to the development of living beings, I call limited will. Would be far more appropriate penalty. The environment of organisms determines their development. Do not make this development or slowly, they get better adapted to competition, they are dying. The creatures we see today are not a chaotic random product, but the best results of a long adjustment process that has been tried by many creatures and survive only a few. What we can still find in various ecological niches, so to speak, the "Best of evolution" that has produced the past.
The sharks, crocodiles and other animals that have been changed for several hundred million years, are already quite a long time optimal adapted to their environment, have little or no natural enemies, they would have to fool with clever tricks and little competition for their prey. Other, seemingly forever unchanged organisms such as some protozoa, have incredibly high reproduction rates, extreme customization abilities to acute environmental conditions (eg spore states with very high heat and radiation resistance in bacilli) and other mechanisms affecting survival almost unchanged over millions or billions have permits. Those organisms are very well adapted to displace from their ecological niches not quasi, because they require immigrant competitors or mutated in most cases much are. Therefore there was never great need for radical changes.
regression, higher and lower organisms
I would never describe the evolution as a "regression" or "higher development" but simply as an adjustment to my account and "development". I see people not as "more developed" over other species. They are structurally more complex than all other living things, but nothing more. Should promote the environment in the future, that a creature is smaller, about to escape predators, "stupid" is because it is not his brain capacity in the current environment can use to advantage, and this capacity breaks down to save energy, is more aggressive, for example, to prevail against a competing organisms ... then it will happen. Adaptation, not retrogression.
You can, if you really want to consider evolutionary developments and developments of a "bad" state to a "better". However, only based on the degree of adaptation to the environment. Here the evolution pursued in earnest on a condition that is optimally adapted to its environment as possible and thereby enables the best chance of survival .
BUT: You have to watch that one degree of adjustment does not equate with the complexity of living organisms. This should be considered completely value-free be. Protozoa are generally inferior to us in their complexity, that much is clear. However, these organisms are usually much better adapted to their environment than the few specialized human. Examples are many highly specialized bacteria lead, which occur partly or only in a small region of the world, are adapted to this niche but incredibly good. Less complex, better adapted. Or vice versa, man: complex, but less well adapted. In this respect I am concerned that there are between organisms no "better" and "bad" in the general sense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment