I don't believe in evolution

>I don't believe in evolution

Attached: 1512320807925.png (900x729, 129K)


B-but there's not evidence for evolution!!!!11!11

I think evolution is correct in regards to anatomy and physiology. In regards to psychology, though, I don't really see it. When people answer things like "consciousness way a result of evolution because it helped us survive" to the question "where did consciousness come from?" it does not really answer anything. Was there a mutated gene carrying the 'conscious' trait? How does that work? There are other things people say were a result of evolution, such as music and empathy. Music makes no sense, how was it beneficial to our survival to enjoy rhythms and melodies? Or was it just a random mutation in a single organism, which just so happened to pass on to our species? Our inquiry does not end with evolution.

Evolution might explain SOME differences but it can't explain all of them.

You're just engaging in obscurantism now.

Are there actual creationists on Jow Forums? I always thought they were larpers

you think other planets will have evolution?

>it's only a theory, so I don't have to believe in it

Attached: 1530742913792.png (506x547, 131K)

>the practice of deliberately preventing the facts or full details of something from becoming known.
How am I doing this? I'm not trying to make consciousness or art something mystical or obscure, I am just stating what I doubt about the claim that these things are a result of evolution.

Also, sorry for the double reply, but another definition:
>the practice of deliberately presenting information in an imprecise and recondite manner, often designed to *forestall further inquiry and understanding.*
Emphasis mine. Doesn't my last sentence "our inquiry doesn't end with evolution" contradict the practice of trying to "forestall inquiry"?
Anyway, what are your opinions on the ideas/claims that I wrote, instead of my intentions?

>Music makes no sense, how was it beneficial to our survival to enjoy rhythms and melodies?

try picking up a fricking book, dude

Attached: im55074ab9.jpg (1536x2048, 955K)

Stop trying to think evolution has a plan, or it only happens in relation to immediate survival, or it's simply "a single random mutation".
Humans are weaklings. We only thrived because we are the most social animals ever.
Reason, music, empathy etc --> social.

evolution is a myth

>evolution has a plan
Doesn't it? What traits survive in a species get passed on, and traits that aid survival are more likely to get passed on. Maybe not a plan, but a definite formulation.
>only happens in relation to immediate survival
I don't think I ever implied immediate survival, just survival in general. Anything that helps the organism pass on its genes.
>or it's simply "a single random mutation".
I've always thought mutations were random. What else is there that causes different traits to pop up? Genetic reshuffling? Genuine question.

>I think
Yeah, I stopped right there

Let's take a statement:

Morality, including conscience and empathy, evolved for group survival to flourish.

1) You've never observed anything besides moral behavior, you're speaking with quite literally not a single observation to back up your claim.

2) By saying "for", you've connected a present reality (is) to a teleological objective (ought), without any explanation of "why" evolution did this, or even the slightest explanation of "how". How, exactly, did humans originally not have empathy or conscience or any moral sense, and then later have it? Was it "zapped" into them by evolution? You might say, "people who were more moral grouped with others better and therefore survived and passed on kin", but saying this requires the behavior to have already been there. Your claim is that it wasn't: and you need to demonstrate now, how exactly morality went from "not being there" to "now being there".

3) As soon as teleology is evoked, you cannot escape the fact that you're speaking about an entity: it has an objective, and a method to reach it. Evolution has to be some kind of force or entity which "holds" moral laws within itself that it later "doles out" to its creatures in order to assist them with the desired objective for them: namely, their survival.

4) Everything is evolutionary, including everything that opposes it. My morality is merely evolutionary-wiring, but if I had an instinct for violence, it's ALSO evolutionary wiring. If I'm a pacifist and won't fight, evolution really designed me hard: if I'm an overaggressive Chad who spends his weekends in bar brawls knocking out anyone who I feel like, I too am simply the handiwork of heavy evolutionary wiring.

5) Maslow's hierarchy seemingly stops at the ground level. Everything is for survival. Why are there musicians and music? Brain loves recognizing patterns. Survival. What about storytelling? Tribes learned to communicate information more efficiently. Rinse and repeat. For everything.

Attached: chair.jpg (1024x932, 68K)

evolution is fake and gay, literally madeup

>Maybe not a plan
>I don't think I ever implied immediate survival
You asked how does music help you survive. To me sounds like it.
>I've always thought mutations were random
I wasn't picking you apart desu just the vibe like a lot of skeptics give off. As if evolution is in a laboratory.

Why even pick apart only that sentence? I actually addressed you afterwards. Did you agree with me then?

i've always found it a bit unbelievable that some people on Jow Forums unironically don't believe in evolution, given that evolution is the one thing that's fucking over 90% of robots

>evolution is the one thing that's fucking over 90% of robots
Can you eIaborate on this?

evolution is essentially just change over time, with the organisms that have the best genes reproducing and passing their genes on to their offspring. don't forget that evolution is something that exists in humans, too. women tend to prefer tall, strong, competent men to procreate with, because procreating with those types of guys usually yields the best results in terms of the overall survivability of their children. women usually don't want to procreate with 300lb autistic weaboos, because what genetic advantage does a 300lb autistic weaboo provide? why would she have children with them when their child could just turn out be another 300lb autistic weaboo? robots are quite literally being excluded from society in the name of evolution, and the inferior genes that they tend to have will eventually cease to exist. it does seem kind of fucked up, but it is the natural order, and unless they begin to put robots in a zoo, they will disappear completely. (or at least have slightly better looks)