The origin of life: During reading an interesting novel about Dawkins and his theories on evolution, I discovered this particular bit. Dawkins has no solution for how life actually evolved, or arose. Dawkins says: 'It is a complete mystery' (if you wish to know more, read chapter 13 of The Greatest Show On Earth: the Evidence for Evolution)
I would like to point out that I have not really found a viable explanation for the origin of life, yet. I suppose that people assume it was the Big Bang and the consequential events following after, which caused life to erupt in the form of micro-organisms. Whether this is true, or not, where is the evidence that a Big Bang occurred and where is the evidence that the events following actually lead towards the development of Earth and the micro-organisms that we consider to be the origin of life's current species. On the other hand, we have Creationists who believe that God created everything intelligently, a principle known as Intelligent Design. According to Creationists, God created everything with a purpose, as well as not as long ago as evolutionists would believe (approx 10,000 ya). So, the question is, who is right? Is there a God, who created humans and all the other species some ten, or so, thousand years ago, or did life begin after the Big Bang and evolve from there on by mutating genes, sexual selection and natural selection.
The origin of sex: According to the Greatest Hoax On Earth: Refuting Dawkins On Evolution "Dawkins said scientists are also puzzled about 'what sex is all about' - in evolutionary theory, that is. After all sexual reproduction is strictly necessary for the evolutionary process to do its thing. Some researchers surmise that sex helps to weed out harmful mutations or provides more options for propagation [this might go some way persistence of sex, but not the origin]
I am personally unsure about this. I always assumed that we needed sex in order to continue the gene pool, in order to help natural selection do its thing and continue the breeding process, so that organisms can continue to reproduce and slowly evolve... I mean, how can organisms evolve, if the reproduction of that particular species ceased? (obviously this is a hypothetical example) I don't think it honestly would. Take speciation, for example, where species, from a particular group that split and evolve differently, due to geographic, or other, reasons. The species evolve under the stress of the environment, while being the same species, they end up evolving slightly differently to the members of the other group. This is allopatric speciation (if this occurred geographically) and those species will continue to evolve differently from the other group of the same species. If there was no reproduction, speciation wouldn't be able to occur and the species would end up dying out. I guess that is the largest benefit to sexual reproduction in evolutionary theory - it's all good and well to say that it doesn't really have a function, but without reproduction, species wouldn't be able to survive and evolution wouldn't occur in the first place.
The origin of consciousness: According to Sarfati, (Greatest Hoax on Earth) where subjective consciousness comes from is the largest puzzle facing Dawkins and biology. Dawkins says: 'Scientists have their ideas, and one of the latest ideas consciousness serves as the Wi-Fi network for an assortment of 'computers' inside your brain. Sarfati questions this idea: 'Come again? That explains where it comes from?
I honestly have no idea how consciousness arose in the human being. It is rather absurd, when you think about it, because we have not discovered any other organisms with the same 'consciousness' levels as us... It almost seems to fit the Creationist idea, where God designed us this way, including the conscious mind and the way that we adapted to this world.
The rise of morality: Chapter 1, page 27, Greatest Hoax On Earth: 'What drives us to do good, even for people we don't know? The expectation of reciprocity provides a partial explanation, but 'it doesn't account for the extremely high degree of moral behavior that humans show,' Dawkins said. He surmises that altruism might have arisen as a 'mistaken misfiring' of neural circuits involved in calculating the mutual give and take among kin.
Again, this seems to fit more with the Creationist view, because Dawkins' idea seems a little far-fetched and illogical. Perhaps 'God' created us to have morals and to treat those around us fairly.
I would like to point out that I have not really found a viable explanation for the origin of life, yet. I suppose that people assume it was the Big Bang and the consequential events following after, which caused life to erupt in the form of micro-organisms. Whether this is true, or not, where is the evidence that a Big Bang occurred and where is the evidence that the events following actually lead towards the development of Earth and the micro-organisms that we consider to be the origin of life's current species. On the other hand, we have Creationists who believe that God created everything intelligently, a principle known as Intelligent Design. According to Creationists, God created everything with a purpose, as well as not as long ago as evolutionists would believe (approx 10,000 ya). So, the question is, who is right? Is there a God, who created humans and all the other species some ten, or so, thousand years ago, or did life begin after the Big Bang and evolve from there on by mutating genes, sexual selection and natural selection.
The origin of sex: According to the Greatest Hoax On Earth: Refuting Dawkins On Evolution "Dawkins said scientists are also puzzled about 'what sex is all about' - in evolutionary theory, that is. After all sexual reproduction is strictly necessary for the evolutionary process to do its thing. Some researchers surmise that sex helps to weed out harmful mutations or provides more options for propagation [this might go some way persistence of sex, but not the origin]
I am personally unsure about this. I always assumed that we needed sex in order to continue the gene pool, in order to help natural selection do its thing and continue the breeding process, so that organisms can continue to reproduce and slowly evolve... I mean, how can organisms evolve, if the reproduction of that particular species ceased? (obviously this is a hypothetical example) I don't think it honestly would. Take speciation, for example, where species, from a particular group that split and evolve differently, due to geographic, or other, reasons. The species evolve under the stress of the environment, while being the same species, they end up evolving slightly differently to the members of the other group. This is allopatric speciation (if this occurred geographically) and those species will continue to evolve differently from the other group of the same species. If there was no reproduction, speciation wouldn't be able to occur and the species would end up dying out. I guess that is the largest benefit to sexual reproduction in evolutionary theory - it's all good and well to say that it doesn't really have a function, but without reproduction, species wouldn't be able to survive and evolution wouldn't occur in the first place.
The origin of consciousness: According to Sarfati, (Greatest Hoax on Earth) where subjective consciousness comes from is the largest puzzle facing Dawkins and biology. Dawkins says: 'Scientists have their ideas, and one of the latest ideas consciousness serves as the Wi-Fi network for an assortment of 'computers' inside your brain. Sarfati questions this idea: 'Come again? That explains where it comes from?
I honestly have no idea how consciousness arose in the human being. It is rather absurd, when you think about it, because we have not discovered any other organisms with the same 'consciousness' levels as us... It almost seems to fit the Creationist idea, where God designed us this way, including the conscious mind and the way that we adapted to this world.
The rise of morality: Chapter 1, page 27, Greatest Hoax On Earth: 'What drives us to do good, even for people we don't know? The expectation of reciprocity provides a partial explanation, but 'it doesn't account for the extremely high degree of moral behavior that humans show,' Dawkins said. He surmises that altruism might have arisen as a 'mistaken misfiring' of neural circuits involved in calculating the mutual give and take among kin.
Again, this seems to fit more with the Creationist view, because Dawkins' idea seems a little far-fetched and illogical. Perhaps 'God' created us to have morals and to treat those around us fairly.