It clicked for me when I heard it’s a non-random selection of random mutations
Comment on Embrace this Truth and enjoy life
Sergio@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
“Evolution is blind” is debatable. Arguably, we evolved to fit an environment. We are survivors.
Chiarottide@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Signtist@lemm.ee 2 days ago
It’s true that we evolved in response to an environment, but the actual genetic changes that allowed for that were not developed with purpose. They happened randomly, and the ones that happened to provide a benefit made those individuals more likely to have more kids that those with less beneficial random changes.
dbtng@eviltoast.org 2 days ago
I’ll go farther and say that its wrong. Evolution may be a random walk, but random walk is a method of getting places. Evolution random walks to the next needed feature. Evolution is not at all blind.
Sergio@slrpnk.net 2 days ago
Well, it’s debatable but I think it comes down to defining your terms.
Either perspective agrees that there is no “Grand Architect” and/or “God’s Plan” which I think is the general point being made. But it’s just a little distracting.
shneancy@lemmy.world 1 day ago
evolution is blind because all of it is an accident. life forms that survive long enough to make more life forms get their genes to live on. any life form that doesn’t, well, doesn’t. better survivability because of an error in copying genes? more offspring. worse survivability? less offspring
there is no intention to evolution, it’s simply a consequence of the fact that some primitive life forms at some point felt a desire to copy their genes and the process of doing so is imperfect. That desire, probably a product of random copying itself, is what made all living things today
Saleh@feddit.org 1 day ago
On what basis comes the conclusion that there is no architect behind it?
Do students in elementary school understand why they have all the subjects? Do students in secondary school understand yet, that if they want to pursue higher education as an engineer they need good math and physics? Do students who prefer the humanities yet understand the focus of studies such as sociology vs. anthropology vs. ethnology? Does me as an engineer not understanding why i had to learn how to analyze poems in grade 7-10 invalidate the necessity of that education for someone who later studied linguistics and literature?
Opposing religion is not scientific. Any good scientist understands the limits of his knowledge. Opposing religion is a matter of faith just as embracing religion is a matter of faith.
Sergio@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
That’s a great point - if there are divine beings, they wouldn’t necessarily build the universe using a bunch of elves or something – better to spark a Big Bang with the right starting conditions and let everything develop from there. I think it’s more correct to say that evolution and modern physical cosmology provide an explanation of how and why the universe exists without necessarily needing divine intervention.
EvenOdds@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Requiring evidence for any religious claims that are made is not “opposing religion”. When religious claims can be proven using the scientific method, then opposing religion in science will be unscientific.
Currently the best explanation for evolution does not include anything religious.
UnhingedFridge@lemmy.world 2 days ago
It’s blind because in nature, it often fucks up, and the extreme fuck ups die off without continuing the process.
johsny@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Which is, I think, exactly what happened to the homo sapiens branch. Dinosaurs lasted hundreds of millions of years, we are barely at 300k and we are killing ourselves. Dead end. (For us)