Are there any creationists here?
Posted by asleep on a sunbeam on Sep 14, 2009 · Member since Aug 2009 · 287 posts
Sorry if this has been done before but I'm curious if there are any?
And if so why are you vegan/vegetarians?
Also I've just watched this brilliant debate. I have never seen him before, only heard about him. He has been very polite and understanding however this woman just doesn't seem to understand what evoultion is.
A debate between him and a creatish. Perhaps there are one where he's not so polite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=US8f1w1cYvs
As far as talent, genetics, physical make up, there are a lot of explanations for that. For example, somebody who is taller will naturally be better at basketball than somebody who is short. Somebody with long narrow fingers would be better at playing the violen or guitar than somebody with short fingers. Then there is genetic make up. Different parts of our brains do differnt things. For example, the amigdala is responsible for anger. If a person has a large amigdala then they would TEND to be more of a "quick to anger" type of person. This could be a good and bad thing. If you have a larger than normal, or more developed cerebellum than you would have more coordination than someone with a less devoloped cerebellum, probably be better at gymnastics and sports in general. You can combat your genetic makeup through training, that "quick to anger" person with a large amigdala can do nothing about their amigdala size but can learn to control it with anger management.
I’m sorry – I’m not sure how that addressed my question. My question wasn’t about the emotions/anger nor about physical of “why can someone with longer fingers perhaps be a better player then someone with shorter fingers” but more towards the mental acumen required to learn the process of say, playing an instrument, doing math while hardly having to take classes (to learn the math, the make it part of their memory as they go, a progressive learning), etc.
Why is my neighbor a great painter just by instinct while I couldn’t paint for anything no matter how many classes I took or how much I tried to put into my memory. There seems to be much more going on then just memory.
As far as memories that people have that they can't account for. There is probably a logical explanation for that. De-ja-vu can be explained easily, you most likely were in a place that looked just like the place that gave you de-ja-vue, a similar explanation probably could be given for the un-explained memories thing. Either that, perhaps the child saw something on TV, or something of that nature, in a book...
Ok, so in saying “there is probably a logical explanation for” and “you were most likely” it sounds in lieu an actual “answer” – there’s rather only, presumptions. So it seems logical to accept that while the information offered in your previous post – while greatly appreciated, at the same time – does not take into account nor is it able to answer for the questions that I posed.
Further, the rationalization that perhaps the child saw something on TV ..or something of that nature – is not applicable because in such cases, what the child was "remembering" – was not anything of a public nature that the child would have even had access to – which is why in my initial question I mentioned the following “This being, from a child that had no way to access such facts.“
Dreams of the future, easy to explain. The brain is very selfish, as are dreams. The dreams of the future are most likely what you want to happen..or not...but somehow you probably made the said event happen subconcously because you dreamed about it. OR, it is something like your mom dying in a car crash and you had dreamed that would happen, you probalby had noticed at some point that your mom was a bad driver and thougth "she is going to die in a car crash" but forgot about it two minutes later...but your brain did not forget. You dreamt about it because it is something you feel strongly about.
Now if you dream about somebody ELSES future then that is something a bit harder to explain.
There are lots of logical explanations.
I’ll borrow the same sentiment from my words above because of the repeated use of the phrase “are most likely”… “but somehow you probably…”
You’re also suggesting that we can create the future. We are dreaming of something and then later, making the dream come true. When I mention about the dreams coming true, I’m not talking about months or years later, I’m talking about the day after. But, if the universe is just “matter”, just a sequence of events taking place one moment after the next – I’m not sure I follow how we could ever hope to “create or affect” the future on a subconscious level.
Also, borrowing from your example – if you dream of someone else dying – and they do – would that not ~be~ the very definition of dreaming about somebody’s else’s future?
Forgive me – what you offer as “logical explanations” I perceive as “rationalizations” – and I mean that with no disrespect.
In the end, it’s ok to say that you don’t know (I sure as heck don’t know) and that while you may hold a great deal of scientific knowledge –that same knowledge does not begin to account for the questions that I have posed.
Which is my point – you don’t have to get sense out of this. We’re having a discussion, not trying to convince one another of anything (speaking for myself, that is). If you don’t get sense out of it, that’s ok. You don’t have too. It’s like if I was talking to someone that couldn’t see and I told them about something random, say “mountains”. Maybe they would say “that’s nonsense – I can’t see mountains – so they don’t exist”. Now, I can take them to the mountain, and they can feel and experience and make their own observations – but they won’t see … what I see.
ah sorry, when I make threads like this unless I specify otherwise, I'm trying to have a discussion about why someone believes certain things and the logic, not just randomly talk about my own beliefs and explain them, but an element of justifying them comes into it.
So my advice is don’t try to get sense out of anything, just discuss with open/honest intentions – without need to convince/prove/disprove – and don’t feel the need to get anything from the conversation, per’se.
I'm sure you don't mean to imply that anyone trying to get sense out of things isn't discussing things with open and honest intentions. And I always want to get something out of these sorts of conversations.
For me, karma w/o ID doesn’t make sense. If the world is just an accidental blip, as are humans, just something that happened – it’s just science and science is “matter” – karma is not something that affects matter – it’s more ambigious. It affects “our actions” or the results of our actions. If you push a ball – yes it will move – but the movement has absolutely no bearing on the ramifications of your actions, nor of the balls actions.
If however – you do something bad, let’s say you murder someone – this “causation” you speak of, will in turn bring about a reaction commensurate with the act of the murder you committed.
What about people that commit atrocious acts against humanity – and then they die – a happy peaceful death. Where is the karma there? Did it skip them? In a universe of simply matter – how would this system of “causation” ever take place.
For ever action – it results in a resulting action, on simple terms – you eat – you crap, you drink – you piss, you walk – you step on a bug, etc… But if the universe is simply “matter” – nothing else – there’s then no accountability for any of those actions. I kill someone – great day to me! I steal your car – sucks to be you! I eat animals – who cares - ..the environment, screw the environment – I’m here, then I’m gone – same for everyone – all action – no consequences – we just “do” and then “caustic shit happens” but happens only as a reflex – having no ties whatsoever to the nature of any action that we have committed.
This doesn’t make any sense to me.
see top of my post
I already did – about karma serving to break us from negative habits.
so is this an objective negativity
I’ll accept that you find certain concepts absurb. I have no desire to convince you otherwise.
then why are you replying ???
Sorry, I’m not familiar with the works of Plato and I’d have to research the exact text you’re referring to and also – the context in which the text was presented to give anything resembling a viable opinion. I’m not able to understand based on the example you provided above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#Dialogues_that_discuss_Forms
it's been a while since I looked at plato, but I think the meno describes some of the basics of the theory.
this also helps with understanding some of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_Allegory
My point was only in attempting to find a middle ground so that we can both have a common point of reference to make communication a bit more straight-forward. In the end, I would say to interpret science/layers/foundations as however it tends to make sense to you.
Cheers!
What really confuses me in this is how you keep jumping from subjective to objective. For instance you claim it's all down to each persons view, and then claim an objective moral force, karma, that will punish us. I don't see how the two can go together. If I don't see anything wrong with killing someone, kill them, and continue about my fairly life as if all I've done is eat a piece of toast or done some washing up, will karma punish me?
If not, then is karma actually just, our conscience?
Which is surely part of our mind?
Each person will have their own view of “life/afterlife” etc. My personal view is of the objective karma you described above. But ~~please~~ I never used the word “punish” – I’m not very partial to people putting words into my mouth.
My belief in some type of universal governing law – doesn’t mean it exists, per’se – it simply means it’s my belief of what does exist.
This is where "each person's view" comes into play - because each person can make the exact same statement that i did just above (inserting their own view, of course).
If you've ever looked on Buddhism what's your take on the doctrine of no soul? And the 4 noble truths?
i’m not familiar with Buddhism doctrine aside from to say that, from my understanding – (as in most spiritual philosophies) there is more then one Buddhist doctrine – some of which (at least one of which) does believe in a soul. I could be wrong – not entirely sure.
I believe we have souls.
I can't see any reason if it can't be prove scientifically and as a theory has no to little scientific evidence why someone would ever use it in their day to day life, I can't see any logic in this. Many a times I've had dreams, in fact I had one where my ex and I weren't ex's. However when I woke up of course we're ex's, the dream doesn't show any signs of contact. If she happened to be dead and I dreamt that, would that imply that her whatever which is floating about the place wanted to be with me? Or that I wanted to be with her?
I have no dispute with your statement. If “something” doesn’t make sense to you unless it’s proven, it’s completely your perrogative to dismiss whatever that “ something” equates with.
I have no desire to make implications of what your dreams “may” or “may not” mean … to you. That’s a personal interpretation that you’re way more qualified to make then I.
ah sorry, when I make threads like this unless I specify otherwise, I'm trying to have a discussion about why someone believes certain things and the logic, not just randomly talk about my own beliefs and explain them, but an element of justifying them comes into it.
Duly noted. I’ll be sure to bear that in mind that next time I consider to post on a thread that you have started.
I'm sure you don't mean to imply that anyone trying to get sense out of things isn't discussing things with open and honest intentions. And I always want to get something out of these sorts of conversations.
Fair enough, thus – as you started this thread, and in turn have had many questions for me, and have stated how you feel – what have you got out of this conversation thus far?
then why are you replying
As you stated in an earlier post – we have different communication styles – while you may enjoy “an element of justification” in your communication style (this is not a criticism – only quoting your words – I honestly believe, to each their own) – I, personally – enjoy communication for the sake of communication without feeling the need or desire for justification. I feel that we can learn more about a person’s true feelings when it’s not coerced or making a person feel the need to justify. Again, that’s just me – I don’t claim for either or style to be better or worse then the other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms#Dialogues_that_discuss_Forms
it's been a while since I looked at plato, but I think the meno describes some of the basics of the theory.
this also helps with understanding some of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chariot_Allegory
Thank you for the links.
with regards to buddhism I'm referring to therevardian buddhism, although I'm not sure that mayhana buddhism includes a soul...
...I think most things currently in buddhism fall into one of those to categories, although obviously inside of them there is dispute.
If you're interested in buddhism I'd recommend the book "what the buddha taught" as a nice introduction.
All right... until we have observable, recordable evidence of a god or gods, please leave it out of the science class room.
Most scientists have no problem with the idea of someone believing in God. As long as they do not let that belief cloud the observable facts. Religion can shape your worldview, but don't let it taint your data.
My problem with "intelligent design" is that it says - in a classroom setting - that there is something unscientifically provable at work, and presents it as sound science. It's contradictory. And let's not get started about those who would use it as a back door for creationism.
I want schools to teach comparative religion courses - there's a great place to discuss karma, creationism, yin, yang and whatever.
But keep science, science.
I couldn't have said it better. I'm completely against having to include that God created the world and then rested on the 7th day in science classes.
All right... until we have observable, recordable evidence of a god or gods, please leave it out of the science class room.
Most scientists have no problem with the idea of someone believing in God. As long as they do not let that belief cloud the observable facts. Religion can shape your worldview, but don't let it taint your data.
My problem with "intelligent design" is that it says - in a classroom setting - that there is something unscientifically provable at work, and presents it as sound science. It's contradictory. And let's not get started about those who would use it as a back door for creationism.
I want schools to teach comparative religion courses - there's a great place to discuss karma, creationism, yin, yang and whatever.
But keep science, science.
I couldn't have said it better. I'm completely against having to include that God created the world and then rested on the 7th day in science classes.
Hey Tweety - what about teaching ID in the classroom - any thoughts on that?
I think teaching intelligent design, and creatonism, and any religious belief is fine to be taught, as long as it's taught that "x belief in this" instead of "this is real".
It should not be incorporated into science lessons.
Also that pastafarianism should be taught.
Also that pastafarianism should be taught.
RAmen to that! The ways of the FSM should be taught in every classroom!!!
I often wonder something about evolution – this thread seems like an applicable place to share these mindless ramblings :P
I’ll start by saying that my thoughts are not meant to conflict with evolution but rather to expound on what I feel could be potential links between evolution and ID.
Evolution seems to mandate that “beings” evolve – as necessary, to help them adapt to ever changing environments. What I wonder is “why”? If life is just random “we’re born .. live .. then die” – then why have a need to evolve. From a “life is absolutely” random perspective – why even care if we live or die at all? It seems like most, if not all “beings” have a sense of survival – but why? Well, the typical answer might be “to propagate the species” – which leads into my next musings…
It’s hard enough to for me to comprehend why we, if we’re random beings – would care about our own self-demise but more-so, why even care about the propagation of the species? Where in this random occurrence chain of events did we first decide (1) I have self-relevance but moreso (2) the species I am part of has relevance as well?
So you take “beings’ that are slowly mutating into other beings for the purpose of adapting in with their environment, for the further purpose of propagating their species – from my perspective – I feel that some level of intelligence is needed to have some innate sense of “I exist” and “I exist as part of and for the purpose to propagate my species”.
There’s another thought floating around in my brain for some time. In so far as evolution is concerned, I have no difficulty in accepting the physical evolution of species (giving consideration to my points above of “why”?) – what I do wonder about is, can evolution account for the mental change of species?
This question may not be one that humans can answer but – accepting as fact that "monkeys evolved into humans" – how did their brains/thoughts/intelligence also evolve into that of humans? Was there some small changes over the brain the encouraged monkeys to think more, and the more they might think – the more changes might occur in their brain, thus with each and every generation bringing them closer to what we today might view as humanity? Or, was there some point in time where intelligence was implemented via some method of intelligent design? The practical way to explore this would be to observe a specific group of monkeys – and then continue to watch – over time, over years, hundreds of years, thousands, hundreds of thousand (well, ok – not very practical at all – I admit it :P) and observe what, if any physical and mental transformations to have occurred.
Of course, to further muddy the waters, maybe there would have to have been a very specific set of circumstances to allow said monkeys to evolve, and continue to evolve. Maybe w/o those circumstances, no matter how much we watch monkeys propagate – they might never evolve in the way we suspect they did before.
Here’s a question to blow our minds – if we continue to watch a select group of monkeys evolve – how long until this group then becomes cognizant of actually being watched by us – ooh? 8)
So in summary of the monkeys – did their brains/intelligence/emotions/cognizance evolve in the same manner as their physical form – or was there another factor in play? Me, eh – beats the shit outta me – but I sure as heck think it’s an interesting question worth thinking about.
In closing - I wholly believe in evolution – for I have no reason to doubt it. However – the mystery to me is “how could” and “why would” evolution even exist – without some type of intelligence governing or guiding it?
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1921614,00.html
i just finished reading the article above - it talks about the intelligence of dogs - but towards the end of the article, it starts talking about breeding experiments that were done on foxes in Sibera. It's very interesting in that, as per those experiments - it would seem that there was a sort of evolution of the mind - the brain or thought patters of the animals were actually changing from generation to generation. Amazing that!
So, in my opinion that would lend evidence towards the monkeys perhaps changing their thought process with each and every generation. Now, whether or not that compares with the thought process of a money becoming akin to that of humans at some point - i don't know. If so, where were these transition periods? How long were they taking place? Fascinating stuff.
Still leaves my underlying question though of "why"? Why evolve at all - without some governance/guidance pushing us to do so?
Just food for thought....
Sirdidymus, I am confused. I could be wrong, but to me, it seems like you're questioning evolution in a way that is unnecessary. I understand that it might just be interesting for you to think about, but there is an explanation for the WHY of evolution; it's not some mystery that we're still trying to solve... You don't have to "care" about evolution in order to evolve. My understanding is that survival is a RESULT, not a GOAL, of evolution. Humans (and everything) evolves out of necessity. Biological evolution is not a conscious thought; a person doesn't need to care in order for their bodies & brains to adapt to their surroundings over time. It happens because it has to - and those who don't evolve die out.
Exactly. Species evolve without conscious thought or awareness that they evolve. Species die off or propagate due to sheer circumstance.
Like, a species has red coloring. They move into a territory where this makes them vulnerable as prey. They are eaten, and their dark-colored friends live. There's nothing PUSHING anything. It's just how everything interacts. Evolution DESCRIBES what happens--it doesn't mandate that something happens.
eta: Also, animals have a drive to live because if they didn't behave in a way that drives them to live, they'd die! That's all. We look at the existing species and say, "Wow, they do all the things that drive themselves to live! Isn't that something!" Well no, not really--if they didn't have that drive they wouldn't even be here. It's a prerequisite. If a species runs from a predator, it isn't necessarily thinking, "oh jee, better live!" because it comprehends anything, but because a species who didn't do that would have died. It's natural selection.
i believe in creation... God created everything... evolution makes no sense to me... i don't think we were monkeys... i don't think everything on Earth was miraculously formed by i dunno "mutant goo"... only God could have created something so complex and beautiful... just my thoughts i'm sure they differ from others views but i'm okay with that
Sirdidymus, I am confused. I could be wrong, but to me, it seems like you're questioning evolution in a way that is unnecessary. I understand that it might just be interesting for you to think about, but there is an explanation for the WHY of evolution; it's not some mystery that we're still trying to solve... You don't have to "care" about evolution in order to evolve. My understanding is that survival is a RESULT, not a GOAL, of evolution. Humans (and everything) evolves out of necessity. Biological evolution is not a conscious thought; a person doesn't need to care in order for their bodies & brains to adapt to their surroundings over time. It happens because it has to - and those who don't evolve die out.
If survival is a goal of evolution - why do "beings" evolve at all - why not just .. not evolve - until they fade away.
I disagree with your statement of evolution being a "result" and not a "goal" - which could be why we see things from different perspectives and why i might think to raise a question that you might not deem necessary.
At the same time, taking the "fox" example from the article i provided - their behavior did evolve and that *did* seem like more of what you're inferring - about "evolve" equating with "result".
But if there's no ID, then back to my original question of "why do beings evolve at all?" - instead of just "multiplying"?
So, needless to say - i think there can be arguments for both sides. Personally, i see "ID + Evolution" equals "here & now".
But yanno, that's just me...
Like, a species has red coloring. They move into a territory where this makes them vulnerable as prey. They are eaten, and their dark-colored friends live. There's nothing PUSHING anything. It's just how everything interacts. Evolution DESCRIBES what happens--it doesn't mandate that something happens.
i partially agree. I think sometimes it's as simple as survival of the fittest. There are times where you might be dealt a raw deal for the environment that you live in - in which case - you are more likely to die!
However, there are other cases were species evolve and adapt, over a period of time (years/generations) - to better adapt to the environment they live in. For example, evolution teaches that at one point all creatures lived in the ocean but at some point - creatures adapted features that enabled them to leave the oceans and crawl on land. I don't see this as "survival of the fittest" but rather - adapting and actually changing with each progression.
The point above isn't a "well - here's my point and here's why i'm right" kind of thing, because i honestly don't know what is right or wrong. So rather, i offer my point as a "this is my perception based on my current understanding".
i believe in creation... God created everything... evolution makes no sense to me... i don't think we were monkeys... i don't think everything on Earth was miraculously formed by i dunno "mutant goo"... only God could have created something so complex and beautiful... just my thoughts i'm sure they differ from others views but i'm okay with that
How do you refute the scientific evidence that shows evolution happens, from micro to macro evolution both have occurred and been studied both historically looking at evidence, and in the lab.
Have you watched the interview that I posted by the way? That clip is the first of 7 parts (I know it's long, I just started watching and time flew by :D)
I often wonder something about evolution – this thread seems like an applicable place to share these mindless ramblings :P
I’ll start by saying that my thoughts are not meant to conflict with evolution but rather to expound on what I feel could be potential links between evolution and ID.
Evolution seems to mandate that “beings” evolve – as necessary, to help them adapt to ever changing environments. What I wonder is “why”? If life is just random “we’re born .. live .. then die” – then why have a need to evolve. From a “life is absolutely” random perspective – why even care if we live or die at all? It seems like most, if not all “beings” have a sense of survival – but why? Well, the typical answer might be “to propagate the species” – which leads into my next musings…
quite simply, if they didn't evolve they would die out in plenty of cases. If they do evolve then it is because a mutation has occurred and it has been beneficial. For instance lets say that, hypothetically, a mutation occurred in a human at birth where by that human have a third leg.
In that environment the third leg appeared to be detrimental to that humans survival, and before being able to mate it was killed.
If the leg had helped then it is plausible that the genes to cause this would occur again in the third legged humans offspring.
However as this was detrimental, no offspring ever came forth, and the chances of the mutation happening again are low.
This is hypothetical, I doubt any human jst popped out a vaghole with a third leg :P.
Most mutations appear to be negative, leaving the mutated human with an inability to do tasks.
Of course now for the human race survival of the fittest has a new meaning, a capitalist one, at least in our society.
There isn't so much a why, a why shows a purpose, "I want to evolve" "I want that species to evolve". There is nothing to suggest that there is an underlying consciousness trying to manipulate evolution, with the exception of bacteria in labs (or if some mad scientist with resources has some life trapped in his or her lab and is operating, as far as I can tell, illegally).
It’s hard enough to for me to comprehend why we, if we’re random beings – would care about our own self-demise but more-so, why even care about the propagation of the species? Where in this random occurrence chain of events did we first decide (1) I have self-relevance but moreso (2) the species I am part of has relevance as well?
it's not so much random as, what survives and passes on it's genes and what does not, there is a rather large difference
So you take “beings’ that are slowly mutating into other beings for the purpose of adapting in with their environment, for the further purpose of propagating their species – from my perspective – I feel that some level of intelligence is needed to have some innate sense of “I exist” and “I exist as part of and for the purpose to propagate my species”.
Is everything away that it's trying to propagate it's species?
Even if it were, where does this underlying idea that they much have a sense of self come from?
There’s another thought floating around in my brain for some time. In so far as evolution is concerned, I have no difficulty in accepting the physical evolution of species (giving consideration to my points above of “why”?) – what I do wonder about is, can evolution account for the mental change of species?
do you mean social evolution, or a more physically based evoultion that effects the mind? Surely everything we do effects the mind and the mind?
This question may not be one that humans can answer but – accepting as fact that "monkeys evolved into humans" – how did their brains/thoughts/intelligence also evolve into that of humans? Was there some small changes over the brain the encouraged monkeys to think more, and the more they might think – the more changes might occur in their brain, thus with each and every generation bringing them closer to what we today might view as humanity? Or, was there some point in time where intelligence was implemented via some method of intelligent design? The practical way to explore this would be to observe a specific group of monkeys – and then continue to watch – over time, over years, hundreds of years, thousands, hundreds of thousand (well, ok – not very practical at all – I admit it :P) and observe what, if any physical and mental transformations to have occurred.
What is humanity? Would there a lot of apes or just some, how wide a gene pool are we talking? Have experiments of a similar nature not been conducted?
Of course, to further muddy the waters, maybe there would have to have been a very specific set of circumstances to allow said monkeys to evolve, and continue to evolve. Maybe w/o those circumstances, no matter how much we watch monkeys propagate – they might never evolve in the way we suspect they did before.
so perhaps the lab isn't the place to watch monkeys evolve? I agree with that, it may have it's flaws.
Here’s a question to blow our minds – if we continue to watch a select group of monkeys evolve – how long until this group then becomes cognizant of actually being watched by us – ooh? 8)
who is to say that they would? Just because we evolved a certain way does not mean those monkeys will, maybe they'll have more tails, no opposable thumbs so on so forth
So in summary of the monkeys – did their brains/intelligence/emotions/cognizance evolve in the same manner as their physical form – or was there another factor in play? Me, eh – beats the shit outta me – but I sure as heck think it’s an interesting question worth thinking about.
In closing - I wholly believe in evolution – for I have no reason to doubt it. However – the mystery to me is “how could” and “why would” evolution even exist – without some type of intelligence governing or guiding it?
do you believe in natural selection? this is a key part of evolution but after your first few paragraphs I'm a bit confused as to whether you accept it or not. How could it? well as I just said, natural selection. Why would it, well without it, we wouldn't be here, it occurred because those with instincts to survive survived. Anything without such an instinct would become extinct.
Like, a species has red coloring. They move into a territory where this makes them vulnerable as prey. They are eaten, and their dark-colored friends live. There's nothing PUSHING anything. It's just how everything interacts. Evolution DESCRIBES what happens--it doesn't mandate that something happens.
i partially agree. I think sometimes it's as simple as survival of the fittest. There are times where you might be dealt a raw deal for the environment that you live in - in which case - you are more likely to die!
However, there are other cases were species evolve and adapt, over a period of time (years/generations) - to better adapt to the environment they live in. For example, evolution teaches that at one point all creatures lived in the ocean but at some point - creatures adapted features that enabled them to leave the oceans and crawl on land. I don't see this as "survival of the fittest" but rather - adapting and actually changing with each progression.
The point above isn't a "well - here's my point and here's why i'm right" kind of thing, because i honestly don't know what is right or wrong. So rather, i offer my point as a "this is my perception based on my current understanding".
Wasn't it survival of the fittest, I'm under the impression that the first land dwellers were amphibians. Being able to escape to land would give a huge advantage to them over prey and predator patrolling coasts.
Exactly. Species evolve without conscious thought or awareness that they evolve. Species die off or propagate due to sheer circumstance.
Like, a species has red coloring. They move into a territory where this makes them vulnerable as prey. They are eaten, and their dark-colored friends live. There's nothing PUSHING anything. It's just how everything interacts. Evolution DESCRIBES what happens--it doesn't mandate that something happens.
eta: Also, animals have a drive to live because if they didn't behave in a way that drives them to live, they'd die! That's all. We look at the existing species and say, "Wow, they do all the things that drive themselves to live! Isn't that something!" Well no, not really--if they didn't have that drive they wouldn't even be here. It's a prerequisite. If a species runs from a predator, it isn't necessarily thinking, "oh jee, better live!" because it comprehends anything, but because a species who didn't do that would have died. It's natural selection.
brilliantly said.
Pages