Thank you for opening my eyes. I'm sure aliens can theoretically displace reproduction of the best DNA mutations extremely well.
Though of course, if there's genetic and DNA tweaks, which is redundant, and those also happen naturally even from your parents to you, why are aliens necessary? Simple answer, they're not.
I don't see how people cannot believe in evolution after looking at the way viruses are responding to humanity. Even theoretically, evolution is an elementary foundation of life. If a virus develops mutations due to time and their environment, and a drug is put in the body to kill the virus, but a few viruses with certain mutations are immune to the drug while the others are not and all die, then the viruses with the immunity reproduce... well, that's natural selection right there. No God needed.
All life is just that on a grander scale.
Quote: Does anyone question how stable the idea of evolution without creation is when it sits on a "theory"?
Do you realize your entire perception is a theory? You've never been outside your body, so how do you know what's beyond your vision? You don't, you theorize using what your vision has shown you. Science has shown us pieces that fit together like a puzzle, that explain most of the evidence and that allow us to develop technology and research information that proves our theories correct time and time again. Everything is a theory really, even laws need only one wrong trial in a circumstance to disprove them, but that doesn't mean we can't use the information we have.
After reading your posts, it's odd the way you think of evolution. Natural selection does not "do" anything. Natural selection did not give us the ability to daydream, fantasize and sleep. The death of your ancestors did. Natural selection is a completely neutral name given to time and reproduction. So think of it this way:
Why would your ancestors have been more likely to reproduce when they could fantasize, dream and sleep than if they couldn't? We don't fully understand sleep and such yet because we don't fully understand the human mind, but those who couldn't do these functions died out, hence evolution. It's possible that they lived as long as your ancestors, but they didn't reproduce because they couldn't fantasize about sexual experiences to engage in them and produce offspring. Perhaps those who couldn't dream died off because certain neurons atrophied. Nobody claims to know all the information.
But what does seem to be obvious is the fact that evolution has evidence compared to the alternative. There are blanks we need to fill in, because to be honest we're talking about the creation of consciousness in the universe here which is a huge topic large enough for millenia of research and information, but what does creation have? Creationism is like a leech that tries to crawl into the areas we are theorizing about and suck out the science and information from the theory of natural selection, yet it never gets anywhere. We ask where the matter from the Big Bang came from, which we'll possibly find out from quantum physics and string theory, but if there was a creator, why don't we ask where he came from? Where did he get the matter to create the Big Bang? Why is he there?
Creationism has just as many questions as the theory of natural selection, yet it has no evidence to support it, no scientific theories to balance it. All it does is try to fill the warm wombs of ignorance, in the hopes that we won't find the information within its lifetime and have to kick it out of its comfy spot.
Quote: If evolution built in our emotional body and ability to feel for others with a purpose for insuring survival of our species, if you think emotions are useless and override them with intellect, why? Might it be a lethal move for our species?
No, because if we weren't meant to override emotion with intellect, we would die off. The beauty of evolution is that "we" only follow our natural mutations and personality, and those who live and reproduce are those who determine the future genetics of the species. If we need an emotional body to survive, then that's what we'll get, because those who don't follow that mutation won't contribute their DNA as much over thousands of years.
You talk about how scientists and those supporting evolution seem to try to deny and belittle emotions, but since when has the bias of a few of the thinkers ever changed the nature of evidence and truth? They might seem this way not because emotion isn't necessary for human evolution, which it probably is, but because emotion is part of our intellectual theory of evolution and human psychology. Intellect helps explain emotion, but emotion is only a feeling, a lower form of instinct that may eventually die out to the higher processing of perceptual evidence we call intellect.
Who knows? The only one who would claim all the answers is a fool, but that's why we go with the perceptual evidence we have.
-------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|