The theory of evolution is a logical bs and that's why

[Basedman420]

In the theory of evolution, there are a couple of assumptions:

1. Natural selection is the main mechanism behind evolution, meaning its goal is to spread genes through different factors.

2. Everything that affects an organism from environmental factors to mutations is random, not planned or directed.

This leads to a logical problem:

If everything that affects organisms is random, then both (A) and its opposite (¬A) could happen.

But the theory assumes that (A) is what happens, not (¬A).

This means they are choosing one possibility over the other without any reason for it, which doesn’t make sense logically.


If someone responds by saying: "Well, both (A) and (¬A) happen, so this isn’t a problem"
the reply would be:
That would mean natural selection is not really a driving force. Instead, it would just be a description of what happens randomly and that goes against the whole point of the theory.

 

[Basedman420]

bump

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

i dont think i get it, care to elab?

 

[Deleted member 40105]

DNR

It’s all genetics

 

[incel-at-heart]

In the theory of evolution, there are a couple of assumptions:

1. Natural selection is the main mechanism behind evolution, meaning its goal is to spread genes through different factors.

2. Everything that affects an organism from environmental factors to mutations is random, not planned or directed.

I think you worded that poorly. Darwin's theory states that natural selection is the main mechanism of successful speciation in the presence of environmental pressures. And the mechanism works stochastically: slight random genetic variations occur, and the ones increasing the chance of survival/procreation in a given environment will spread more successfully, thus over MANY, MANY generations becoming the dominant genetic markup. In any environment, living organisms basically optimize for energy efficiency over generations.

 

[Basedman420]

i dont think i get it, care to elab?

Imagine you have a group of rabbits. A random mutation happens:
some rabbits turn white, and some stay brown.

The theory of evolution says:
white rabbits survive better in snowy areas because they blend in,
so natural selection helps spread the white gene.

But if everything mutations and environments is truly random,
then either the white rabbits or the brown ones could survive. There's no reason one should be more likely.

So why does the theory say white rabbits will survive and not brown ones?
Why does (A) happen and not (¬A)? There’s no clear reason and that’s a logical problem.

 

[Basedman420]

I think you worded that poorly. Darwin's theory states that natural selection is the main mechanism of successful speciation in the presence of environmental pressures. And the mechanism works stochastically: slight random genetic variations occur, and the ones increasing the chance of survival/procreation in a given environment will spread more successfully, thus over MANY, MANY generations becoming the dominant genetic markup. In any environment, living organisms basically optimize for energy efficiency over generations.

Why should the beneficial mutation appear at all, especially when it's incredibly rare and unguided?
if there’s no guidance, no purpose, and no direction then what causes the “right” mutation to appear just in time to help the organism survive? and don’t say “it’s just chance” because chance doesn’t explain why the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral, yet somehow evolution builds complexity, not chaos that’s like shaking a box of lego bricks randomly for a billion years and expecting a spaceship to pop out not once, but thousands of times across all life forms if randomness is the engine, you get noise, not design.

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

Imagine you have a group of rabbits. A random mutation happens:
some rabbits turn white, and some stay brown.

The theory of evolution says:
white rabbits survive better in snowy areas because they blend in,
so natural selection helps spread the white gene.

But if everything mutations and environments is truly random,
then either the white rabbits or the brown ones could survive. There's no reason one should be more likely.

So why does the theory say white rabbits will survive and not brown ones?
Why does (A) happen and not (¬A)? There’s no clear reason and that’s a logical problem.

just because the white one (x) survives doesnt mean the brown one will not (.Y), but as said X will have more chances as it blends in, now with just two the difference may be neglible, but i reckon in large groups it will be more pronounced, X has more chances than Y, so in the long run X will procreate more than Y due to the virtue of more Xs being alive than Ys, so, sooner or later Xs will override Ys, but that doesnt mean Ys will be extinct. there is a reason why one should be more likely to survive, and you said it yourself, the white rabbit blends in better than the brown one, im kinda low iq tho so i might be missing something

 

[Basedman420]

just because the white one (x) survives doesnt mean the brown one will not (.Y), but as said X will have more chances as it blends in, now with just two the difference may be neglible, but i reckon in large groups it will be more pronounced, X has more chances than Y, so in the long run X will procreate more than Y due to the virtue of more Xs being alive than Ys, so, sooner or later Xs will override Ys, but that doesnt mean Ys will be extinct. there is a reason why one should be more likely to survive, and you said it yourself, the white rabbit blends in better than the brown one, im kinda low iq tho so i might be missing something

It's true that the white rabbit X has a better chance of surviving in a snowy environment because it blends in, but the issue with evolutionary theory lies in the randomness it suggests for mutations and environmental factors if everything is truly random, then the brown rabbit Y should have the same chance of survival as the white one, not because the white one is "better" adapted, but because there’s nothing guiding evolution in a particular direction if everything is random, both types should have equal chances of survival, yet natural selection favors the white one because of its advantage in a snowy environment. This makes us question the assumptions behind evolutionary theory so when we say natural selection drives survival, it implies there’s a directing force in nature selecting the fittest, and that’s not random that leads to the question: why specifically does natural selection favor the white rabbit? And who or what is directing this process?.

 

[SchizoParanoid_]

It's true that the white rabbit X has a better chance of surviving in a snowy environment because it blends in, but the issue with evolutionary theory lies in the randomness it suggests for mutations and environmental factors if everything is truly random, then the brown rabbit Y should have the same chance of survival as the white one, not because the white one is "better" adapted, but because there’s nothing guiding evolution in a particular direction if everything is random, both types should have equal chances of survival, yet natural selection favors the white one because of its advantage in a snowy environment. This makes us question the assumptions behind evolutionary theory so when we say natural selection drives survival, it implies there’s a directing force in nature selecting the fittest, and that’s not random that leads to the question: why specifically does natural selection favor the white rabbit? And who or what is directing this process?.

i feel like you anwsered your own question ngl .either im dumb or you are

 

[Basedman420]

i feel like you anwsered your own question ngl .either im dumb or you are

maybe we're both dumb but seriously the ET is bs i can make another thread about it

 

[incel-at-heart]

Why should the beneficial mutation appear at all, especially when it's incredibly rare and unguided?
if there’s no guidance, no purpose, and no direction then what causes the “right” mutation to appear just in time to help the organism survive? and don’t say “it’s just chance” because chance doesn’t explain why the vast majority of mutations are harmful or neutral, yet somehow evolution builds complexity, not chaos that’s like shaking a box of lego bricks randomly for a billion years and expecting a spaceship to pop out not once, but thousands of times across all life forms if randomness is the engine, you get noise, not design.

The "right" mutation is simply the one that improves survivability/procreation rates. It happens randomly, just as the "wrong" mutations happen randomly. And it doesn't happen "just in time". Often times it does not happen at all, and entire species just perish, because they do not adjust to a changing environment quickly enough.

The wrong mutations simply do not last (so the affected individuals fail to survive and/or procreate), while the "right" ones naturally proliferate.

Your analogy with legos is terrible because legos aren't lifeforms. The latter profit from an increase in their energy efficiency, the former do not.

 

[Basedman420]

The "right" mutation is simply the one that improves survivability/procreation rates. It happens randomly, just as the "wrong" mutations happen randomly. And it doesn't happen "just in time". Often times it does not happen at all, and entire species just perish, because they do not adjust to a changing environment quickly enough.

The wrong mutations simply do not last (so the affected individuals fail to survive and/or procreate), while the "right" ones naturally proliferate.

Your analogy with legos is terrible because legos aren't lifeforms. The latter profit from an increase in their energy efficiency, the former do not.

If both "right" and "wrong" mutations happen purely by chance, and the environment itself is also random then we’re left with double randomness no direction, no pattern, just chaos so how can a consistent “filter” like natural selection actually work in such a chaotic system? if the environment rewards white fur one day and punishes it the next, or if beneficial mutations are so rare and unguided, what ensures that evolution progresses toward anything at all? it starts sounding less like a mechanism and more like a story we tell after the fact to explain whatever survived also the lego example wasn’t about life vs toys it was meant to highlight that randomness doesn’t reliably build complex, functional systems without some kind of guiding principle you wouldn’t expect a pile of bricks to assemble into a castle just because you shook the box a billion times.

 

[Alias!]

In the theory of evolution, there are a couple of assumptions:

1. Natural selection is the main mechanism behind evolution, meaning its goal is to spread genes through different factors.

2. Everything that affects an organism from environmental factors to mutations is random, not planned or directed.

This leads to a logical problem:

If everything that affects organisms is random, then both (A) and its opposite (¬A) could happen.

But the theory assumes that (A) is what happens, not (¬A).

This means they are choosing one possibility over the other without any reason for it, which doesn’t make sense logically.


If someone responds by saying: "Well, both (A) and (¬A) happen, so this isn’t a problem"
the reply would be:
That would mean natural selection is not really a driving force. Instead, it would just be a description of what happens randomly and that goes against the whole point of the theory.

Then why are women running eugenics on men they don’t deem genetically fit?

 

[incel-at-heart]

If both "right" and "wrong" mutations happen purely by chance, and the environment itself is also random then we’re left with double randomness no direction, no pattern, just chaos so how can a consistent “filter” like natural selection actually work in such a chaotic system? if the environment rewards white fur one day and punishes it the next, or if beneficial mutations are so rare and unguided, what ensures that evolution progresses toward anything at all? it starts sounding less like a mechanism and more like a story we tell after the fact to explain whatever survived also the lego example wasn’t about life vs toys it was meant to highlight that randomness doesn’t reliably build complex, functional systems without some kind of guiding principle you wouldn’t expect a pile of bricks to assemble into a castle just because you shook the box a billion times.

Environments are relatively stable and get their stability from basic physical laws. They "demand" certain characteristics from the organisms living there. An underwater environment needs good swimmers, a lofty mountain environment does not.

Rapid changes in an environment usually affect complex organisms the most, as these have gone down the adaptation rabbit hole the most. On the other hand, simple lifeforms like fruit flies can adjust rapidly based on their fast reproduction cycles and massive numbers. Other life forms like phytoplankton remain practically the same for millions of years, as they have found their local optimum in extremely stable ocean conditions.

Evolution has no ultimate goal other than optimizing energy efficiency of an organism in a specific environment.

The guiding principles you seek are given by the environment and its demand on the organisms living there. Complexity arises through rules. This counter-intuitive relationship took me a long time to understand. But even simple rules can create massive, sprawling complexities. A good visualization of this is Conway's Game of Life.

 

[Basedman420]

Environments are relatively stable and get their stability from basic physical laws. They "demand" certain characteristics from the organisms living there. An underwater environment needs good swimmers, a lofty mountain environment does not.

Rapid changes in an environment usually affect complex organisms the most, as these have gone down the adaptation rabbit hole the most. On the other hand, simple lifeforms like fruit flies can adjust rapidly based on their fast reproduction cycles and massive numbers. Other life forms like phytoplankton remain practically the same for millions of years, as they have found their local optimum in extremely stable ocean conditions.

Evolution has no ultimate goal other than optimizing energy efficiency of an organism in a specific environment.

The guiding principles you seek are given by the environment and its demand on the organisms living there. Complexity arises through rules. This counter-intuitive relationship took me a long time to understand. But even simple rules can create massive, sprawling complexities. A good visualization of this is Conway's Game of Life.

You're saying that environments are “relatively stable” and that their demands on organisms act as the guiding principle but that’s exactly the problem : how do unintelligent, purposeless environments demand anything at all? you're using teleological language environments "demand," organisms "optimize" but that sneaks in direction and purpose into a system that's supposed to be aimless and blind if evolution has no ultimate goal, then what does it even mean to “optimize”? optimize for what, by what standard, and why? also saying that “simple rules produce complexity” still doesn’t solve the core issue because in that case, the rules were designed, and the system follows them exactly it’s not a valid comparison to a universe where mutations and environments are both unguided and fluctuating if both the generator (mutation) and the filter (environment) are random and unintelligent, then consistent progress toward anything becomes highly questionable you're still left explaining complexity, order, and fitness from a double-blind process which ironically ends up sounding more like faith than science.

 

[incel-at-heart]

You're saying that environments are “relatively stable” and that their demands on organisms act as the guiding principle but that’s exactly the problem : how do unintelligent, purposeless environments demand anything at all?

Obviously an environment cannot "demand" anything in the same way life would. But do you agree that not every plant can survive in a desert? If so, you could say the desert "demands" a certain type of plant, i.e. one that can cope with a very limited water supply. Any other plant would simply die, so it's not surprising to see plants that have adapted to the specific "demands" or "requirements" a desert has. So that is the guiding principle: if a plant "wants" to live in the desert, it needs to optimize its water retention/gathering. Doing so increases its survivability and gives it an edge over other life forms competing for resources within the same environment.

you're using teleological language environments "demand," organisms "optimize" but that sneaks in direction and purpose into a system that's supposed to be aimless and blind if evolution has no ultimate goal, then what does it even mean to “optimize”? optimize for what, by what standard, and why?

Living organisms want to survive and procreate. We don't know why, but we can observe this in every life form. That is, for all we know, their "goal". And to achieve that organisms adapt to their environments - and adaptation means "optimizing their function for energy return on invest". Either by becoming better predators, or managing their supplies more efficiently, or avoiding wasting their energy on useless endeavours.

also saying that “simple rules produce complexity” still doesn’t solve the core issue because in that case, the rules were designed, and the system follows them exactly it’s not a valid comparison to a universe where mutations and environments are both unguided and fluctuating if both the generator (mutation) and the filter (environment) are random and unintelligent, then consistent progress toward anything becomes highly questionable you're still left explaining complexity, order, and fitness from a double-blind process which ironically ends up sounding more like faith than science.

The rules may have been designed and our universe may be a procedurally generated simulation. We don't know this and likely never will for sure.

What we know is:
- physical laws exist that are omnipresent on Earth, e.g. gravity, electromagnetism, thermo-dynamics
- these laws ("rules") have unique effects when combining them with different topologies and materials, e.g. a mountainous region in North America is generally colder than a tropical island

These simple rules result in different environments with their own peculiarities and natural processes like their water cycles, seasons or floods, which give rise to a certain complexity. And these aren't "random". An island doesn't spontaneously stop being one. A desert isn't transformed into a rain forest randomly. Environments remain relatively stable, so the "filter" you speak of isn't random.


Now combine:
- life wants to live and procreate
- it needs to ingest energy to do so and use it to extract resources to sustain itself from the surrounding environment
- there is competition for those resources, and even a tiny edge over a competitor can make the difference between life or death
- in any environment, there are specific demands on the specimen living there that apply over rather long periods of gime

Is it even surprising that a huge number of tiny variations will, over time, produce organisms with successful adaptations to a specific environment and accumulate them via inheritance to produce distinct species?

This is the core idea of Darwin's book: Tiny variations over time in environments with certain "demands" produce adapted organisms that become distinct species.