1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaI have read about half, and he seems to be arguing that although he accepts common ancestry, he has reason to doubt natural selection.
Can you summarize the article?
He seems like someone who is opposed to the Theory of Evolution, but cant afford to tackle it head on. The giveaway is his insistence on calling it 'Darwinism'.
I think something he brings up in the first section is worth a discussion.
He says that some people have suggested that one reason why we are not happy, or that we tend to deliberately harm ourselves, is that our brains did not evolve for our current environment.
I think this argument is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that an animal which has successfully adapted to its environment is perfectly happy and never harms itself which is blatantly false. The fact is that we are still reproducing and thus despite our recent past, we are still reasonably well adapted to our current environment regardless of whether we are happy in it or not.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt also makes the assumption that evolution somehow is "complete" in the sense that living organisms are perfectly "adapted" to its environment. This is a fallacy. We are simply "fit enough" to reproduce successfully (like you point out).
I think this argument is fundamentally flawed as it assumes that an animal which has successfully adapted to its environment is perfectly happy and never harms itself which is blatantly false. The fact is that we are still reproducing and thus despite our recent past, we are still reasonably well adapted to our current environment regardless of whether we are happy in it or not.
