RE: Natural Selection Seems Insufficient
10 hours ago
(This post was last modified: 10 hours ago by Jal.)
(10 hours ago)OakTree500 Wrote:How many species of mammal would survive even 1 year if they could no longer respond to thirst?(10 hours ago)Jal Wrote: But when I get thirsty, I need to go find water NOW. I can't wait thousands of years.
Sure - but you having "thirst" is not evolution. The evolution part is having thirst for water like, at all.
You've had the signal that says "you need to drink some water" - and if you don't drink, that is your choice [being a human being who can actively ignore such a thing until you are about to die really]
Thirst as a point would have been something that evolved over time as well - as in, there would have been organisms that needed water and a chemical signal to the brain to say "you should drink something now" didn't evolve and they died. The fact you have thirst in the first place shows that evolution has occurred because you have the ability to be thirsty.
Some organisms will have naturally hydrated, for one reason or another, while other organisms will have died off entirely because they didn't - many shared "chemical signals" prove we have a common ancestor to some degree also.
Again, you can't rely on a blind domino effect to take you to those destinations, as I exemplified in my movie-theater scenario at post 320.
Suppose for instance that, a domino effect happened to bring an animal near water. But woops! Today it has to stand in line because 10 animals got there first. Will the dominos play out in its favor? Or will they happen to push the animal in a different direction before it gets a chance to drink? Or suppose the dominos, on yesterday, happened to incline its back and neck to the EXACT ANGLE needed to drink water. Yesterday it was so lucky! But today, due to overnight rain, the water level is 5 inches higher. NOW its entire face plunges into the water, and it drowns!
Look there are too many fortuitous factors involved in everyday life for a species to survive on blind causality. Again, as I laid out in post 320, the phenomenology of mammalian behavior defies deterministic explanations. Said behavior is only explained by libertarian free will.


