By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wind Shlavitor on 08 July 2009
Edit Thread
Final-Fan said:

Leaving aside (for th moment anyway) the question of whether the theory of evolution assumes a strict cause-effect situation that leaves no possibility of free will ...

Why would that show that evolution is flawed?  Obviously it would mean that we don't have free will, but why would that claim expose a flaw in evolution?  Are you saying that you can prove you have free will beyond what evolution allows for, and that is the flaw?  Or is it just that you are not comfortable with that conclusion? 

As for harmful human traits, isn't it possible that those are simply negative side effects of developments that were overall positive?  It would still be evolutionarily beneficial to have those traits, even though they cause problems.  For instance, African peoples are prone to having sickle-cell anemia, but this trait helps them survive malaria, so it is a net positive to this day (I think) in areas that are prone to malaria. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sickle-cell_anemia

This could apply to mental conditions as well as physical ones.  I could engage in wild speculation as to what benefits accompanied the drawbacks you mentioned, but I doubt it would be too productive. 

 

 How can I prove it? I can't really take my free will in my hands and show you :P That's why it's subjective. Not unprovable, but subjectively provable. Don't forget that you have your own free will to look at though.. but to what degree you understand it, I dunno.

 It shows that it's flawed because it means there's something that evolution doesn't account for... meaning that there are other factors to take in consideration when trying to understand where humanity has come from. Why doesn't it account for it? Well then you have to understand that evolution Does assume strictly cause and effect..   As in:  cause&effect+time=change .   But change that's by cause and effect cannot develop certain aspects (such as conciousness).  it's like, however you program AI in a computer, you'll never get the computer to 'experience', it can only 'interpret' very complexily... and there's a giant difference between the two. Why is it like that? Because there's a limit to everything. It's the same reason scientists would believe you can't develop special magical powers, because everything is limited by what 'known' physics are. And with those known physics, it doesn't account for those... so where can that come from? Well, obviously it'd be from physics we don't yet understand, or other factors..

As for your harmful traits argument, I'll have to leave it at that for now because I can foresee arguements that I wouldn't be able to go into without more knowledge or expertise of how it's considered outside of my terms and such, so nevermind that.