@jerlands,
jerlands wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:If you are going to object to the theory, you at least owe it to yourself to object to the actual theory rather than some misinterpretation of it.
This is a very good point but I'm really trying.
I think you are trying, that's why I'm trying to help.
The first step is to make sure you understand the process of evolution as it's described by science. That way we can determine what you are objecting to. Right now, based on some of the things you've posted it's not clear to me that you are accurately representing the theory that you are objecting to, and that's a bit of a fundamental problem that we have to get cleared up first.
jerlands wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:No single individual evolves. No organism needs to even be aware of the process. All any organism needs to do is to go about its natural life and survive long enough to reproduce. Which is exactly why no intelligence or planning or thought is required
All this is bunk to me. You're saying because we may not be aware we're evolving that evolution will just happen and we don't have to do anything?
Of course that's what we're saying, otherwise how could animals as simple as bacteria evolve? They obviously can't think about things the way we can. So in order for evolution to work it must be based on a process which is inherent in nature, something so simple and inevitable that it doesn't require thought or planning. And that's exactly what the theory of biological evolution does, it provides a methodology which satisfies that requirement.
So, what part of that is bunk to you? Is it bunk because you don't believe it "can" work that way, or because you don't believe it "should" work that way? I'm still trying to understand exactly what you are objecting to or why it doesn't make sense to you.
