Science vs. Religion: (Chapter 4) (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, July 13, 2011, 04:28 (4881 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained

Tony,
> Natural selection explains NOTHING. We were 55+ phyla, and now we are 30+ phyla, survival of the fittest is a farce. If only the fittest survived and expanded the variation on planet earth, things would get more complex, not less so. 
> -I wanted to handle this separately. Natural Selection explains why we're here and not Neanderthals. It explains how life traveled from single-celled to what we see today. It explains how most people living in Northern Europe are resistant to Bubonic Plague. It explains why you find polar bears in the arctic and not in the sahara. It explains why taking antibiotics too frequently can harm you. (Google mRSA.) It explains how, at least one bacteria was able to eventually eat lactose again after having that part knocked out of its genome. It explains why software projects work better using agile vs. waterfall. -What doesn't it cover? It doesn't cover the question of speed--meaning we don't know how it works as well as say, Gravity, or quantum phenomena. There are still stunning mysteries, such as David's epigenetic phenomena--and how they work within organisms. -In short, it explains more (more reliably) than any other theory considered. This doesn't mean its perfect. It only means its the best we have. If David's epigenetics proves to be a stronger factor in evolution, it will clearly displace (but not remove) natural selection as clearly both mechanisms support each other. -But to patently state that Natural Selection explains nothing at all... borders on (and I'm not meaning to make this personal!) the rash!-For me, I think that NS explains enough to accept. I equated it earlier to Newton's F=ma, which was NOT the end of motion equations by any means. It was a stepping stone to something much greater, after scientists better understood the stuff it DIDN'T explain. I see David's (and Shapiro by extension) ideas as elaborating those parts of biology that Natural Selection hasn't been able to assimilate on its own. I agree with David that its the next paradigm shift. But note again that F=ma is still useful (and by extension, so too will Natural Selection continue to be useful.)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"