nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Darwin's theory

lanomist

just a question, If Darwins theory on evolution, that humankind evolved from apes, why are there still apes out there ?

Find more posts tagged with

puffins

in limbo

Quick Links

Comments

yellowlabrador

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Anatomical and genetic homology between humans and apes.

mickrock

endacl wrote: »

Funnily enough, if over 95% of scientists didn't accept that evolution by natural selection was a fact, it'd still be a fact. That's the beauty of facts. They're impervious to opinion. In much the same way that dogmatic religious thinking is impervious to facts.

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Yes.

obplayer

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

All the evidence shows this to be the case, as a previous poster said we do not 'believe' in evolution, we accept it. Because all the evidence shows it to be a fact.

mickrock

obplayer wrote: »

All the evidence shows this to be the case, as a previous poster said we do not 'believe' in evolution, we accept it. Because all the evidence shows it to be a fact.

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

endacl

mickrock wrote: »

Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

You say this as if it's a given.

1. There is no evidence that points to intelligence. You believe that 'creation' is driven by intelligence.

2. It is not rejected on philosophical or metaphysical grounds. It is not included because it is not necessary to describe the process.

It least be honest with your horseshyte, mick.

obplayer

mickrock wrote: »

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

My reply was in response to your query
"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92615993&postcount=1251

That was not, as far as I can see, a question about the fact of evolution.
I responded to your query.

AngryHippie

mickrock wrote: »

I didn't ask whether evolution was true.

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

I think the idea of it being a dumb, blind process is far fetched and requires a lot of faith. Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

Cobblers.

The facts of evolution, means the only possibility of it being an intelligent process are on the grounds that it has an infinite timescale and low probabilities in its favor. Again, meaning that something that isn't technically impossible, is fairly well definitely going to happen at some stage.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cianmcliam wrote: »

having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

A super-fertile female simply can't produce many more children than a normaly healthy female because they can't avoid the 9 months gestation and subsequent weaning period that other mothers also can't avoid.

It is not JUST about how many off spring the woman herself has but ALSO how reproductive successful THEY are, and THEY are, and THEY are. Fecundity, contrary to popular belief, is not a measure of evolutionary success. It is just one strategy. Did you know, for example, that studies have shown that families a couple 100 years ago who had the LEAST children actually often have the MOST surviving descendants today?

Your issue with the 9 month gestation period would be mathematically valid if all women were reproducing to their maximum capability all the time. But this does not happen. Most have 1, 2 or 3 children. So the 9 months gestation is actually not as relevant as you think.

But all of this might not even be relevant either, because for a gene to perpetuate successfully through a species it does not HAVE to confer a reproductive advantage either. If a "gay gene" were to exist in a family and only expressed in, say, one male, the chances are that it exists in the siblings of that male and will be passed on to next generations anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo

robinph wrote: »

So your proof of the flood actually being a real event is that they made a film about it?

In fairness to him, he offered the film AND the claim that things with holes in them float.

But seriously catallus has taken Appeal To Authority to a level I have never seen before. Not only was he appealing to the authority of the director in this case.... he was ASSUMING That authority merely because he had made the film. Appeal to Assumed Authority maybe?

mickrock wrote: »

The results of evolution are really amazing.

Especially from a process that is supposedly blind, dumb and directionless.

Which does not surprise me much. When I grew up I taught myself programming on old commodore computers.

One thing we could do was input INCREDIBLY simple mathematical equations and have the computer general graphical representations off them.

And what one learns early on, and I wish every kid at that age could be made learn it as part of the school curriculum, is that the most simple and inconsequential equation can result in the most amazingly complex results. And that is before they are then made to interact with each other.

So I am as amazed by it is you are, but I certainly do not make the implications off the back of my amazement that you do, while dodging posts.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

It depends what you mean by directionless. Essentially what you say is correct. But there are constraints on it too which add "direction".

I used this analogy earlier in the thread. The passage of a water drop down your window in a rain storm is mindless and essentially directionless. Try predicting where it will go next sometime. It is hardly ever STRAIGHT down. It veers left, right, stops, starts again.

But it is NOT wholly directionless. Gravity constraints it. You might fail to predict its exact course, but at no point will it go UP the window. Only down.

Evolution is the same. It is essentially directionless sure, but like the droplet it has constraints that give some direction.

mickrock wrote: »

The fact of evolution and the possibility of evolution being a creative, intelligent process are not mutually exclusive.

No one is claiming anything of the sort. So you are rebutting a point no one has made. No one is saying it is not an intelligent process. We are simply saying there is ZERO substantiation or reasoning on offer at this time to expect that it is.

mickrock wrote: »

Although the evidence points to intelligence, this is normally rejected from the beginning on philosophical or metaphysical grounds.

It is rejected on the grounds that you keep talking about there being evidence, but never present a SHRED of it. Anywhere. Ever.

You merely assert the existence of evidence and act like that means your claim has been evidenced. It does not.

Instead you use your lack of evidence as an excuse to claim people are rejecting it on biased grounds.

One can not reject what one has not been offered however. Your claim that we are rejecting the evidence is, quite simply, a canard.

nozzferrahhtoo

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

OK. I'm willing to buy the 14 billion years old universe and 4.5 billion years old earth. But is the evidence for Darwins theory really that compelling ?

Yes. It is. But to understand this you would need to understand what is "compelling" in science. Do you understand, for example, just how important the concept of "Prediction" is in science when validating a Theory? And do you know off hand just how many predictions have been made and verified using Evolutionary Theory on everything from the macro level in fossils, to the micro level in gene sequences?

And this is before we point out we observe evolution in action even in shorter time scales than we might have predicted. The baltic lizard species observed recently when peace broke out around the Island that contained them is an amazing story which I can go into if you wish.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Accepting the science about the age thing, could it still not be that

Of course it "could" be. In science you recognize anything "could" be. It "could" be that we were all actually created 2 seconds ago with everything intact and in place, including our memories of being here longer than that.

"Could" be says nothing. It is just gazing into ones midriff hole. The question is.... of all the multitude of "coulds" which ones are in some way substantiated. And at this time the idea we were all created 10000 years ago is simply unsubstantiated. In even the smallest way.

Does this mean it did NOT happen that way? Clearly not. But it is a non-runner of a hypothesis at this time.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If modern science requires testing and proving predictions, how can you prove the past.

By making predictions about what you will find when investigating evidence related to that past, and seeing if those predictions hold through.

For example take Whale evolution. It was long surmised that Whales evolved from Land Mammals. Creationists used to make a joke of this. The populated the media with cartoon images of a half whale half mammal "nonsense" animal
to illustrate their mirth at how ridiculous they found the idea.

Suddenly these caricatures dried up however when the fossil of what is now called "Ambulocetus Natans" (The walking whale) was found.

But did the science community pat themselves on the back and call it case closed? Hell no, science is at its core self critical. It made predictions. It said "We found a fossil, so now we know where to look. If we look we will find more". That prediction was true.

Case closed? No. They then said "Ok we have all these transitional fossils now. If we date them using a variety of different techniques they should all line up the same way each time".

They did.

Case closed? Hell no. They THEN said "Ok if we line them up based on the dating and nothing else then what we should observe is two fundamental things that are required for this evolution to be true."

Those two things were:

1) The steady migration of the nostrils of the original land fossils to the dorsal location in the modern whale. CHECK. It lined up.

2) Whales hear great under water. Land Mammals do not. We should therefore find a steady slow modification of the inner ear structure of the fossils showing a steady move towards improved under water hearing. CHECK. That lines up too.

So predictions are made based on the Theory. And either the verification of the predictions verify the theory.... or you need to believe in an astounding and quite incredible amount of mere "luck" on behalf of the scientists here.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Even if they are right and man evolved from apes (10000 or 1 million years ago, whatever), then how can the test a past event?

Actually if you look at what the Theory suggests are our closest cousins in the animal kingdom you will find they have an extra chromosome than us.

Evolution Theory suggests this is impossible. The sudden development of a whole structure in them, or the sudden loss of one in us, would be catastrophic and impossible under the claims of incremental Evolution.

So another prediction was made. IF the theory is correct then the only explanation that works is that somewhere in human evolutionary history there would have to be a fusing point in one of our Chromosomes.

How do we find this? Well there are genetic markers that we only every observe in certain places in a genome. So a very powerful and specific prediction set was made:

1) We would find a fusion point where two chromosome pairs in our cousins match exactly ONE pair in us.
2) Those genetic markers we only observe in certain places? We would find them in the "wrong" place, just sitting there, doing essentially nothing.

We found both. It is human chromosome number 2. In fact our knowledge is now advancing so well we can pinpoint it to a precise fusion point of base pairs. The precise fusion site has been located in 2q13–2q14.1 (ref. 2; hg 16:114455823 – 114455838)

Predicting not just fusion but that genetic markers that have no business being there will BE there.... is remarkable unless the Theory of Evolution is simply correct.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

If they could take few apes and evolve them into humans, then I would be listening.

Then you would be listening to something that is NOT the Theory of Evolution because the Theory says NOTHING about apes evolving into humans. What it DOES claim is that apes and Humans evolved from a common ancestor.

If you were walking in a thick forest with impenetrable trees, and you and a friend seperate at a fork in the path and each reach a clearing, there is no way for you to get from your clearing to his, without retracing your step back to the fork and then going up his fork.

Suggesting we evolve Apes into Humans is essentially asking me to get between the clearings without retracing those steps.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

So the Darwin evolution thing could still be wrong, and is it wrong to give it the term science by those who also object to the use of the same term in 'creation science' ?

But there is good reason for objecting to it there. There has been no papers, no predictions, no substantiation, no peer review, nothing. It simply is not a science. They merely use that word to gain credibility by association with it.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It isnt. No one claims you can turn a carrot cake into a chocolate log. But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

Nope. No one is claiming anything of that sort. You have merely incorporated a lay man misunderstanding of the Theory. Hopefully what I wrote above corrected it.

To use your cake analogy.... we are claiming that the initial process for making both cakes was the same up to a point.... then you separate the cake mix.... and after that separation you add different ingredients.

In other words no one is turning a carrot cake into a chocolate log...... but splitting one common base mix and turning each of THOSE into a carrot cake and a log.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

Well the perpetuation of nonsense version of it, as displayed by your own misunderstanding of it which I hope I have now helped you with, is certainly a huge factor in this. The version of evolution you talk of IS ridiculous and I would not believe it either.

Science and scientists are notoriously bad at communicating facts to the lay public. The Dawkins, Sagans, and Tysons of the world are working hard to improve that, but it is a slow process and there are still some negative elements in that community that deride it. Sagan for example was scoffed at and ostracized for even making the attempt. The success of the recent incarnation of Cosmos, nothing short of jaw dropping, shows how successfully this landscape has been changed however.

But the obvious parallel issue here is religion and human hubris. IT is not that people do not believe it. Many simple do not WANT to. They can not abide the truth of it, and what they see as the implications of that truth. And if there is one thing we know about our species is that our "rationality" is all too often over shadowed by the heart. We are convinced as a species by arguments from emotion rather than rationality.

Our species wants to believe it is special, something more, something above and separate from the animal kingdom. Shakespeares "How like a god". And the implications of Evolutionary Theory chop such rhetoric off at the knees.

floggg

Cianmcliam wrote: »

In theory it sounds plausible, however I just can't see how the math can stack up on this. Take the hypothesis discussed earlier in the thread, that a set of genes that contributed to having a gay male child might make female relatives slightly more fertile. This just doesn't seem to balance out.

A super-fertile female simply can't produce many more children than a normaly healthy female because they can't avoid the 9 months gestation and subsequent weaning period that other mothers also can't avoid. They also have a finite amount of time, until the middle of their fourth decade, before their reproduction stops altogether.
The homosexual male could well forfeit any amount of children almost up to his death bed, could be several dozen in polygamous societies or raiding tribes. The families with homosexual males in their line would then be replaced in the population by those whose men were fond of one night stands, multiple wives and taking back many women during wars.

As I said before, there's surely genetic factors at play but I can't see a very good argument for it being an adaptation.

Disclaimer: I'm only speculating.

It may be over simplistic to consider only reproductive capacity without considering the effect of outside forces, and how any link between the two could have helped counter those outside forces.

Given that infant and maternal mortality rates would have been very high back then, the link between fertility and homosexuality may have paid off if the early humans lived know social/family groups and the non-breeding homosexuals contributed to child rearing.

So if we take a one in five child mortality rate, having am extra parent may have been able to lower that rate that to one in seven. For the group as a whole that would be sizeable I'm sure.

It may also have had a role in cases of maternal deaths - they would be able to pick up the slack in child raising and/or food gathering which boosted the childrens chances of survival.

In considering reproductive capacity, you should also factor in rates of infertility. If for example the rate was one in ten un the general population but one in fifteen or twenty for women carrying that gene, then you have a noticeable benefit already.

donegaLroad

Fluid intelligence and disorders such as Autism are the next step in human evolution. Interesting theory. There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25ppkyKUDEw

Vivisectus

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Come on mick you can do better than this old strawman. We've been over it a hundred times already. At least dress it up a bit. The old "I don't understand evolution therefor MAGIC" is a bit like a burger: it is only really good if you do it with all the trimmings.

nozzferrahhtoo

donegaLroad wrote: »

There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

I am not entirely convinced there has been any such surge. Rather I think our ability to diagnose, understand and recognize it means that there is a surge in Autism as a diagnosis rather than an actual surge in autism. Unfortunately it is not always possible to go back and re-diagnose the dead, so full verification of this is really not an easy thing to do.

But it is a common and known phenomenon. The figures in certain conditions surge often, not because more people get the condition, but more people are diagnosed with it.

So the first step in explaining the surge in Autism would be to verify there HAS been a surge in Autism first.

Vivisectus

donegaLroad wrote: »

Fluid intelligence and disorders such as Autism are the next step in human evolution. Interesting theory. There must be some explanation as why there is a huge surge in Autism. I know that science is also pointing the finger at IVF.

There is: we became very familiar with the disorder and started diagnosing people with it. It is a wide spectrum diagnosis anyway, and we are not sure what causes it or if we are currently not simply using it as a blanket term for several very different developmental problems.

And no, science is not pointing the finger at IVF. That i silly, and you are a silly person for believing it.

There ARE however lots of people who blame

- chemtrails
- vaccination
- trans fats
- heavy metals in our diet
- a lack of oxygen
- digestive bacteria in the gut

and who treat it with

- bleach
- Mineral supplements
- Coconut kefi
- Having a bath in some clay

I hope we find out what causes it soon, because the amount of exasperating nonsense about it is growing by the day. Also it sucks to have it, of course.

The Corinthian

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Well explained, thanks. And it does sort of make sense. So if evolution is correct, why are there still people who dont believe in it ? Are they simply not evolved enough ?

Because for some, the basic core beliefs they have are more important than whether those beliefs are actually valid or not.

You see the same thing with conspiracy theorists; you can disprove the conspiracy theory rationally, but the moment you do, the conspiracy theorist will simply expand their theory to address this flaw, typically with a new theory (e.g. the evidence disproving the theory is part of an NSA disinformation campaign).

If, as is the case with conspiracy theorists and those with fundamentalist religious views, the core premise is central to their lives, it becomes psychologically impossible to abandon it. It becomes imperative to prove the premise, be it the Bible being an accurate historical account of the universe or the moon landings being faked and so the process turns from discovering the truth to proving or at least protecting the premise in question.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Dumb and blind certainly. But no more directionless than gravity.

Beano

I find it funny that there are people in this thread genuinely trying to use facts to show creationists that they are wrong. A pointless exercise if ever there was one.

endacl

Beano wrote: »

I find it funny that there are people in this thread genuinely trying to use facts to show creationists that they are wrong. A pointless exercise if ever there was one.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not entirely convinced there has been any such surge. Rather I think our ability to diagnose, understand and recognize it means that there is a surge in Autism as a diagnosis rather than an actual surge in autism.

I'd agree, though it's a hard one to nail down. Apparently there have been surges in some areas. EG kids of Silicon Valley parents have higher rates. Initially this was thought to be because such parents were more likely to put their children forward for diagnosis, but when factoring in parents from a similar socioeconomic background but not working in IT they still found an increase. Other illnesses like diabetes are definitely on the rise. I'm personally convinced that alzheimers and other dementias are on the rise and not because of newer diagnostic tools. The notion that it's just because we're living longer doesn't sit with me. Not when some people are coming down with such conditions in their fifties and sixties. I reckon it's a tagalong illness of diabetes. It's known that having type 2 diabetes increases ones risk of dementia. Mental illnesses like depression and anxiety seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

endacl

Wibbs wrote: »

Mental illnesses seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

I'd say it's entirely appropriate for this one. There must be something rattling loose for a belief in creationism to persist.

Beano

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree, though it's a hard one to nail down. Apparently there have been surges in some areas. EG kids of Silicon Valley parents have higher rates. Initially this was thought to be because such parents were more likely to put their children forward for diagnosis, but when factoring in parents from a similar socioeconomic background but not working in IT they still found an increase. Other illnesses like diabetes are definitely on the rise. I'm personally convinced that alzheimers and other dementias are on the rise and not because of newer diagnostic tools. The notion that it's just because we're living longer doesn't sit with me. Not when some people are coming down with such conditions in their fifties and sixties. I reckon it's a tagalong illness of diabetes. It's known that having type 2 diabetes increases ones risk of dementia. Mental illnesses like depression and anxiety seem to be a lot more prevalent today too. But all that's a debate for another thread.

well thanks for that cheery news Wibbs . Another thing to look forward to.

Hoop66

endacl wrote: »

I'd say it's entirely appropriate for this one. There must be something rattling loose for a belief in creationism to persist.

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I honestly think that a dogged, fundamentalist religious belief (examples creationism, young-earth etc.) is akin to a mental illness, if not an actual one.

Cianmcliam

Hoop66 wrote: »

I'm not trying to be insulting here, but I honestly think that a dogged, fundamentalist religious belief (examples creationism, young-earth etc.) is akin to a mental illness, if not an actual one.

Not so. It's a common misconception that religions originated in order to provide a reasonable explanation of natural law and the physical world. This is where Dawkins et al. get the point and pervasive power of religion so wrong.

They originated so that tribal societies could organise and maintain large groups of people who were not related. Creating origin myths and establishing a consensus was the only requirement, not observable facts or common sense. It doesn't matter if the doctrine is true or credible, all that matters is that the group agrees it is a taboo to contradict it.

In fact, religious beliefs become even more powerful if they are completely implausible. By declaring that you believe the religious doctrine rather than what your own eyes and mental faculties are telling you, you publicly demonstrate your commitment to the religion even to the point of risking looking extremely foolish by standing beside the naked king and telling everyone how fine the cloth he wears is.

Being able to recite convoluted and illogical doctrine also demonstrates your in-group credentials more convincingly than a blow-in can manage by dressing and talking the same way. If religious explanations actually made logical sense then anyone could deduce what the locals beliefs were pretty easily.

Hoop66

Yes, I can agree that that's the most logical explanation for religious belief occurring originally.

What I'm suggesting is that to maintain those irrational beliefs today, in our society, could (note could) be seen as a mental illness.

Cianmcliam

Hoop66 wrote: »

Yes, I can agree that that's the most logical explanation for religious belief occurring originally.

What I'm suggesting is that to maintain those irrational beliefs today, in our society, could (note could) be seen as a mental illness.

Well for it to qualify as a mental illness it would have to be an abnormal state but there are so many similar beliefs, attitudes, '-isms', cults etc. that it doesn't make sense to single out religions. Take a fanatical fan of a sports team, like an Irish person supporting an English football club to which they have no tangible link at all. All the paraphenalia, the arguing with others in the pub and work, taking slights against the team personally, the ecstatic response to the team succeeding, believing there is something higher than and exists separately from the current players, manager etc. that remains through the decades etc.

ScumLord

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It isnt. No one claims you can turn a carrot cake into a chocolate log. But people are claiming, that by tiny steps, an apes beget men.

You're missing the point. Millions of years ago a species of ape got seperated by climate change. Half got stuck in the forest and half got stuck in a receding forest that would eventually turn into the grass plains of Africa. The ones on the grass plains turned into us and gradually changed into an animal that was so different from it's ancestor that it could no longer breed with it. The ones that stayed in the forest were already ideally adapted for that environment so they didn't need to change that much. The two animals are now as different as carrot cake is to chocolate log. While most of the ingredients are the same there are fundamental differences and there's no way to pull apart either cake to get it to turn into the other.

mickrock wrote: »

"Evolution is dumb, blind and directionless."

Is this a fact or a belief?

Evolution doesn't need intelligence or direction, that's why it's so good. It just works. The problem with a creator god simply using evolution to create the animals it wants is that it goes against the benefits of evolution. Evolution only needs to be able to survive in the environment it's in, it doesn't care about the future it has no reason too, it can't control the future so it can only adapt to whatever happens. It's pointless for it to try and adapt to a future that may not happen. It's just a natural process.

Thargor

Cianmcliam wrote: »

Well for it to qualify as a mental illness it would have to be an abnormal state but there are so many similar beliefs, attitudes, '-isms', cults etc. that it doesn't make sense to single out religions. Take a fanatical fan of a sports team, like an Irish person supporting an English football club to which they have no tangible link at all. All the paraphenalia, the arguing with others in the pub and work, taking slights against the team personally, the ecstatic response to the team succeeding, believing there is something higher than and exists separately from the current players, manager etc. that remains through the decades etc.

The person supporting the football club doesn't go around claiming the players have magical powers or indoctrinating children to believe in a magical invisible wizard that lives in the sky though does he?

J C

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

Ah here, you're always acting the crybaby when people are "namecalling" yet you keep throwing out the same horse**** generalising digs at people on here. Grow the **** up.

None of what you quote were 'digs' at anybody ... they were just reasonable deductions ... that all Humans are seriously influenced by their 'worldview' AKA their belief system AKA their 'faith position' AKA their 'religion'.

J C

ScumLord wrote: »

Evolution doesn't need intelligence or direction, that's why it's so good. It just works. The problem with a creator god simply using evolution to create the animals it wants is that it goes against the benefits of evolution. Evolution only needs to be able to survive in the environment it's in, it doesn't care about the future it has no reason too, it can't control the future so it can only adapt to whatever happens. It's pointless for it to try and adapt to a future that may not happen. It's just a natural process.

... all fair enough ... but it doesn't explain either the origin of life ... nor its diversity.

Evolution explains the NS of pre-existing genetic diversity ... but it doesn't explain the origin of the diversity, in the first place.

i.e. Evolution explains the survival of the fittest ... but it doesn't explain the arrival of the fittest, in the first place.

The fatal flaws of evolution are explained here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=031swKKakB0