How many users on these boards actually support "The Theory of Evolution"?

[Final-Fan]

Final-Fan said:

Wind Shlavitor said:

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.

Subjectively provable??  How do you know you're not just choosing to believe you have free will because it is more attractive?  How the heck do you subjectively prove something anyway? 

I think I disagree with your explanation of cause/effect absoluteness in evolution, but I have to go to work so I'll look at it more later. 

Okay...

Why do you say that "experiencing" is different from "interpreting in a very complex way"? 
Never mind, this question is answered (I believe) in a previous post you made:
"And when I say Cause & effect, I mostly mean Action reaction.  If we were to make the same assumptions 'academic' scientists do, then basically everything works via action reaction. There is no 'choice', because you are programmed(through evolution, ie dna, genes, etc) to act, process information, and react, and that's it, no free will. Going from Action-reaction mechanics to free will is impossible the way we understand things now. Conciousness/free will Can be beneficial to the being, but true free will can't spawn via evolution, if you understand the science taught."
(Since the difference was "it's experiencing if a consciousness does it" as far as I could tell.)

But I do wish to address the statements in that previous post. 
I think an assumption I think you made -- that action-reaction necessarily always has a 1:1 relationship with what happens under the scientific view -- is incorrect.  A lot of things happen at very microscopic levels, and random chance can play a part.  If time could somehow rewind 50 million years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation because some things that literally had an equal chance of going one way or another (due to true randomness and not just unknown factors) would go the other way. 

Also, why can't a causal system create consciousness?  This appears to me to be nothing more than an assumption you have made.
Assuming that consciousness (as separate from a complex system of action-reaction behaviors) exists in the first place, why can't evolution (as an action-reaction system of development of species through generations) create it?  Unless you deny that consciousness originates in our physical bodies, why is it completely impossible that genetic mutations could "press the magic button" to make our physical brains create consciousness? 

@ your new post:  "For the free will & experience part, because It seems too complex to try and explain feelings when we don't experience the same things..   or did I change my position on something else?"

This makes little sense to me.  Are you saying that your evidence that you have free will is a feeling that you have free will?  Or that your evidence is that you have feelings?  Or something else entirely? 

And what I was referring to in changing your position was
"Not unprovable, but subjectively provable."
"I didnt mean it was necessarily proven for me.  I don't believe one specific answer.  But It seems like a strong possibility because of evidence I can't present since it's subjective..."
If it can't be proven to other people, and you haven't proven it to yourself, then either your first statement was only a statement of opinion (not a claim that it was necessarily actually provable, since you'd have to have proven it to substantiate that claim), or you have changed your position.