I have a fairly good grasp on the concept of evolution.

Selective breeding and environment, instead of chance beneficial mutation, seem likely to account for the majority of major changes in species over time . I've yet to see any example of any kind of random mutation that actually appears to be advantageous.

But there are so many questions I fumble with during the long nights of video games (Analytical programs) I would like answers to,... like how did the butterfly (or any flying insect, for that matter) evolve their wings?

The life-cycle is such that an egg is laid by an already existing perfect butterfly, which obviously inherited its traits from a much earlier type of butterfly which at one time, would not have had the ability to fly. The egg hatches into a larva, or caterpillar, which eats and eats and eats, spins a cocoon around itself, and transforms into a perfect flying insect.

Now, someone once tried to explain this to me, saying how once the conditions were right the emergence of life was inevitable . initial conditions coupled with the laws of nature make life as we know is a Fiat accomplice.

The primitive insect might have developed 'nubs' which allowed it to hop away from predators and find better sources of food than those without nubs, and over subsequent generations these finally grew into the perfect wings of butterflies we see today. On the surface, this seems reasonable. We don't just have one type of butterfly, there are thousands and then we also have literally millions of different types of insects which also have the ability to fly. Possessing their own variety of perfectly functioning wings, first time.. every time. All with different life spans, diets and routines.

A "mutant insect" would be most likely to not survive, not successfully find a mate to breed with, and most likely to mutate into something more of a hindrance than a benefit. Then, if it is beneficial, and if it does successfully find a compatible mate and passes on the mutation, and the insect finds a niche without too much competition, interbreeds with the offspring of the original parents for long enough, then okay, I can see how a new type of insect may appear. It all just seems way too chancy , to explain the massive variety of virtually perfect flying insects which arose from the same scum-pond as the rest of us monkeys and fruit-bats. Now , how evolution has worked itself out .... amongst almost an infinite number of interactions ; making accurate predictions impossible.

Most people think evolution makes a great deal more sense than creation, When it comes to the logic of life we are thrown back to the logic of how everything behaves as it does :although I do not speak for anyone but myself.

A scientific theory must offer evidence which can show its truth or falsity. Science does not simply make claims based on beliefs or faith, but rather makes claims that can be argued using reason.

If by "creation" one means a literal interpretation of the Bible, wherein 'god' created the earth in 7 days, etc. If ‘god’ did create the world without the species evolving , perfectly ; then there is nothing more to argue about. But there is evidence world wide ,that evolution has been happening for a long time.

At this point, I'd like to mention that only believers in a heavily anthropomorphizing concept of "god" can be called "Creationists" by most of the definitions of the word in common use. A good example would be the Christian Fundamentalists who believe that their "god" created the Universe by what are essentially a series of shamanistic "magic spells", such as saying "Let there be light!" and there was light. Or "fashioning a man out of mud and breathing life into his nostrils with his own breath". A "personal god" of this sort is operationally identical to one of the deities common in Pagan religions.

More sophisticated deists traditionally accept some version of "guided evolution", assuming that "god" directs a gradual process, and that from our present point of view, is still in the process of creating the universe. Yes, many deists of this type believe that "god stands out of time and sees all of the past and future simultaneously", but this is not the same as denying evolution -- it's simply adding a detail that's irrelevant to the creation process itself.

If we aren't talking about a simple and literal interpretation of the Bible alone ; then we don't need to limit "creation" to the Judeo-Christian version. I don't think we necessarily have to choose between ‘this or that’... creation and evolution.

Creation is a matter of definition.

1 - Creation of life on earth began when the first organism distinguished itself from inorganic objects and dead organisms; this being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.


2 - The western [biblical] view of creation, Garden of Eden and so forth, which is a mythological story explaining the origin of the species, the way it made sense to people who had no scientific knowledge.

I say that the end goal of evolution is god, and that god didn't "create" the universe, but the universe is the act of the creation of god .

I don't see why there has to be a planner. In fact it is the idea of a "creator" that leads to the ad infinity proposal of "who created the creator?"

I tend to see the development/evolution of the universe in terms of complexity theory, that the "order" that we experience emerged from the structure and form of the universe. Like the ‘plan’ is just evolving itself , kinda like growth.

There are two things going on- what a person thinks and what they believe.

I would like to believe in creation but I don't .Because I am unable to think of any reason to believe in it. I do think that evolution takes place but I don't "believe in" it.

I do believe that scientific inquiry produces better information than mysticism for me to use to analyze my relationship with existence and that that relationship is the essence of (my) spiritualism.

We know that all life-forms are a collection of chemical reactions which more or less miraculously work together symbiotically in such a way that life can exist in a peculiar fashion which should more or less be accepted . But because it does exist, logic tells us that it is not at all miraculous because a miracle tends to describe something out of the ordinary, in fact, so far out of the ordinary that it shouldn't be.

I only see one reality and it includes everything. Your reality is not different from mine. Although your perceptions and your appreciations of reality may not be experienced by me, they are still part of the one singular reality. That reality is all that exists in the eternal 'now'. There are no alternates to totality.

We can't apply logic to things we can't conceive , referring to the alternate realities posed by physicists and dreamers, but, should there happen to be places like that, they would necessarily be part of this reality too. We can't get outside because everything is always inside no matter how far we travel or what convolutions of language allow us to pretend otherwise.

We don't understand how life came to be. How can we presume to calculate odds about its likelihood?

Life seems to be imbued with both beauty and purpose based on experience. Are you experienced? Life, some say ; without a helping hand, should have fizzled out well before it crawled out of the pond. There is too much diversity in life to suggest that it all comes from a common ancestor, or small group of ancestors (you know, plant, fungi, animal etc) petri dish? .

It gets my mind wondering about other ideas.

An idea I'm quite fond of is the idea that everything is nothing more than imagination.

The physical universe may be pure spirit, slowed down enough for us to believe it is real and solid and graspable, but that this is all illusion brought about by the unfortunate act of believing we are real. All manifestations (life) are the effect of spirit becoming matter out of pure thought , before returning back into spirit again after personal death.

Energy and matter are simply different aspects of the same thing. Psychology is discovering how our realities are shaped by our thoughts... even if it takes time for our thoughts to manifest into physicality.

This suggests the possibility, then, there COULD be beings in the vastness of theUniverse ; who possess more pure thought; abilities way beyond ourselves, who can and do (or at least, have) create such things as living, breathing, re-creating entities .

Life is thought, explains the origins of life ; while evolution describes its path. As life only comes from life ; this would appear to be the logical conclusion for how and why some species, using simple thought ; may have originated perfectly the first time, and not after millions of years of spontaneously mutating in beneficial ways.

It is said that we all have a part of our brain which is completely unable to distinguish between what it sees from any other reality, even when we "know" it is not "real".

This opens up the can of worms about what reality is. Are thoughts any less real just because they don't appear as graspable elements of the physical reality? Of course not. Where does the energy come from that is poured into powerful, original thoughts?

Logic tells me that life itself would have had little reason to ever develop beyond the state of harmful and disastrous chemical reactions which would seek out their own kind in order to reproduce.

Even though our thoughts may create our realities, there will always be certain boundaries within which we must act and abide by.

Darwin himself said that "...the theory of evolution did not prove there was no god, only that he was smarter than we originally thought". Evolution dozen’t explain how it all began, or why--that question still lingers at the heart of human existence.

Also, the theory of evolution had been around for a while before Darwin. Darwin's’ theory of natural selection showed how evolution worked

If he/ she, god; is not responsible for mutations, then there must be greater forces at work which shapes the universe.

But when we speak of an "alternative reality" we usually mean what physicists describe as an alternative universe where possibly the laws of nature are not the same as ours( a world we can not enter).If you replace the word "reality"with "experience" it makes sense to me.(one person's experience is different from the next person's experience.)

When we say,"He is not seeing reality 'veriodically' ",we mean the person is not seeing the world as most people do.

If we can accept the veriodical , that evolution did occur to improve each species chances of survival : it would mean the species were not perfect to start with ?

Does evolution relate to perfection?

Does creation have to be mystical in nature, for religions to accept the data?

Just more questions...origin does not matter, what matters is what is.

If humanity would express the same energy trying to understand the nature of EVERYTHING that exist , including humanities survival...

Say heres a thought , why not use a water spray on every 6th down stoke of a gas combustion engine, this creates the reality of utilizing the heat of the chamber , it would be hot enough to expand with enough force to drive the piston... 20% more efficiency to your auto and maybe another 10 miles to a tank of gas.......

instead of WHERE it (oil, life, reality...) came from,

man, the things we could do...