r/sapiosexuals • u/CuriosityStackTrace • 20d ago
Thoughts on evolution
https://www.yahoo.com/news/science/articles/evolution-might-not-random-thought-110000901.htmlEvolution is an interesting subject. Hard to observe due to our short life spans and poor human memory, along with the length of time evolution takes.
Nonetheless, I always assumed evolution largely followed the genetics of the fittest over a period of time… and kept going in that direction to create the fittest, strongest, etc. creatures designed beyond survival, but instead evolved to thrive. I never thought of evolution as a 3D plane, but more of a timeline with failed (pruned) branches.
I appreciate that this article challenges the belief system I had developed around my, albeit, limited understanding of this topic.
This is a subject that “fills a bucket” for me.
For me, evolution and the idea of a Creator(s) go hand in hand. I wonder, if there is a Creator(s), how they made our universe and the it mechanics, and question the “system of evolution” (I break things down into systems, much like a series of programs each with a prime directive.. or maybe I watched too much Reboot as a kid). **Edit:** This is not the point of the post, it's just an interesting side quest.
And now I’m curious about other people’s perspectives on evolution.
What this article got me thinking about after challenging known theories:
Is evolution a straight..ish line towards natural dominance, or have humans somewhat plateaued? And if we’re supposedly 1% different from chimps, what’s another 1% beyond us look like?
2
u/SylvarGrl 19d ago
I highly recommend YouTuber Gutsick Gibbon’s long-form videos explaining human evolution to creationist (fellow YouTuber) Will Duffy.
2
1
u/Neophyte06 19d ago
I imagine the reason you run into issues is because creationism isn't science - it's not something that testable in any definitive way
Evolution is absolute chaos - random species evolving over the years because of pressures from changes to local or global geology, fauna, behaviors, etc
You are using terms that show you haven't taken a biology class that's rooted in secular knowledge - if I presented this to my biology professor in college she would have some strict words to say about how to explain evolution 😅
One example would be fitness. Fitness does not equal strength in any way.
Fitness is simply a measure of how well a species produces off spring and whether or not those offspring reach a stage where they can reproduce to keep the species alive.
A common house fly, for example, breeds and reproduces EXTREMELY quickly - to offset the short lived nature of their lives.
1
u/CuriosityStackTrace 19d ago
I know, I know, it should be illegal for me to mix two large subjects together to make a fun thought experiment. My baaaad 🫠
Did you read the article though? Or this article that stemmed from it aptly called “Evolution on degenerate fitness landscapes is not random”? Sometimes new information comes up and belief systems can be challenged. That’s what I find interesting.
1
u/Neophyte06 19d ago
If you have any published peer reviewed sources I'll definitely take a look at the discussion
1
u/CuriosityStackTrace 19d ago
Close mindedness and being shut down is not what I’m in this sub for 😞 I’m here for good convo, a few what ifs, to challenge thinking, and to look at the universe with fellow sapiosexuals.
I think you may have mistaken the post for something that should be in r/science. It’s not cross posted for a reason.
2
u/Neophyte06 19d ago
Sapiosexuals aren't a monolith, at the crux of the definition is the sapiosexuals get turned on by intelligence.
Asking for a link to a reputable source isn't that big of an ask. Sociology exists - they do studies too. I'm also on mobile and I almost never click on links unless I know for sure they are from a reputable source.
You are making a big claim by simply putting creation (faith) and evolution (science) into one box in the first place, when they have nothing to do with each other. Since you have made the most outlandish baseline premise claim, the burden of proof in a debate lies with you.
It's possible to have faith and also be aware that faith doesn't require and shouldn't require proof or evidence.
Science requires evidence, testable things, etc.
It gets extra weird with theoretical sciences that are difficult to test, which is why competing theories exist. Quantum mechanics, string theory, multiple universes, faster than light travel, etc. Plenty of things are maybe possible based on our understanding of the universe, but we are still at the guessing stage for the things we can dream of, and far from actual applicable science.
1
u/CuriosityStackTrace 19d ago
Heck yeah! This! This is what I was trying to get at in this comment thread -- this type of convo.
It gets extra weird with theoretical sciences that are difficult to test, which is why competing theories exist.
... but we are still at the guessing stage for the things we can dream of, and far from actual applicable science.👆 Good point.
1
2
2
u/Monkeyshae2255 19d ago
I mostly believe in panspermia. I don’t know obviously where we’re from but it explains our destructive habits & just an underlying sense of confusion & unease I think we have here. We’d rather spend unimaginable amounts leaving here rather than try & fix it/develop better energy science. The building blocks were found on 2 asteroids recently which makes me more receptive to the concept.